Local Political Participation

Local Political Participation

•  Why such variation across places/states in turnout?

•  What barriers to participation? •  Is high participation a good thing? •  What ‘bias’ if low participation?

– What should be done?

•  Thomas Jefferson believed that ordinary citizens should be engaged in local politics

•  State and local governments are closest to most problems

•  Yet, people more likely vote in national elections

Introduction: Is All Politics Local?

Democratic Theory and Local Participation

•  Greek polis

•  Anti Federalists

•  Modern US Politics – “action” in DC

•  Prepare paper topic proposal •  1 paragraph

–  potential topic –  potential sources –  phrase topic as a question

•  Due NEXT Tuesday (4/26)

•  No lecture Thursday 4/21 –  read Donovan et al Chapter 3 –  Judd Chapter 5 & 6

This Week

•  40 years of trying •  1960s riots, powerlessness

–  Voting Rights Act, War on Poverty

•  1980s - today – GOTV, fewer barriers

•  People trust local govt more than national.. •  Participation is much more than voting Voting •  What vehicles for mass participation? •  What barriers?

Irony of Political Participation

•  1) Voting •  Registration barriers •  Election system barriers

–  VRA 1964….”pre-clearance” rules

•  What if voting = no chance of representation? – At-large elections

•  What if no information? – Non partisan elections

Modes of Political Participation

•  Voting: effects of reforms On year Off Year

Non-partisan 55% 38% Partisan 64% 47%


•  Voting Lower turnout when: Council - manager Off-year Bedroom community West, south


•  2) Contacting and Contributing – Why?

•  NIMBY, ___________ , __________

•  Who? – Wealthy

– efficacy


•  3) Attending Meetings – 63% of wealthy attend mtgs, 31% of poor.

•  4) Interest Group Activity – Lobbying

•  30% of wealthy in groups that took action; 9 % of poor


•  4) Interest Groups •  Civic

– Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, L of WV, etc. – 1960s, councilors said these most important

actors at meetings; few mentioned economic groups…in decline??

•  Economic – Chamber of Commerce, BIAW, merchant groups – Logic of Collective Action


•  4) Interest Groups

•  Neighborhood Groups – NIMBY, episodic groups – City Plan inspired groups – Federal program inspired groups

•  “maximum feasible participation


•  5) Social Movements & Protest – Public demonstrations – American Civil Rights Movement – What contemporary equivalent?


•  6) Local Political Parties – Limited role / ltd power – PCOs; County committees – Set platforms, recruit candidates, GOTV – Some local orgs with $$

• WA Initiative 134


•  Local participation is declining

– Down 50% since 1967 (?!?) •  Is local politics less relevant to people’s

lives today?

•  Why so much variation across states?

Political Participation

•  Turnout varies across states •  Most race based barriers gone

– Racial gerrymandering – Literacy tests – Poll taxes – Grandfather clauses – The Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to

end discrimination against African Americans

Barriers to Participation at the State and Local Level


•  Registration barriers that remain •  Ineligible voters

– Felons (except ME and VT) – Non-citizens – Some states are more restrictive than others

•  Non-competitive elections – At-large elections are city-wide – Part of Progressive Era reforms


•  The effect of place – Smaller communities participate more

•  Independent of SES …. Why? – Those with social capital—social skills

•  Personal barriers – Lack of information, lack of time, lack of

efficacy

Breaking Down Barriers to Voter Participation

•  Federal government involvement – Voting Rights Act of 1965, & amended – Anti-poverty programs, 1960s – 1970s

•  State-level reform efforts – Early voting – Internet voting

•  Reforms may increase turnout slightly – But interest & engagement matter…

Breaking Down Barriers to Voter Participation

•  How increase citizen engagement ? – Competitive elections, more access

•  Experiments with alternative local elections – Semi-proportional elections – Cumulative voting

•  E-government – Electronic media – Cable TV – The Web

Does Participation Make State and Local Policy More Representative?

•  Primary election systems allow more participation – Affect how ‘representative’ officials are

•  Participation bias—those who participate are different from those who don’t

•  Low turnout may result in over-representation of the wealthy

Local Elections and Representation

•  Local campaign spending reforms – Spending affects who wins, loses

•  What bias re: who runs, who wins?

– Limit contributions •  In WA new limits in local races ($800) •  Mayor, city council, county council

– Campaigns need $; spending = information – “Clean money” proposals

•  full public financing…what effects?

•  A healthy LOCAL democracy depends on engaged citizens

•  There are still barriers to participation

•  Since institutions change, they can be altered to reduce these barriers

Summary

•  Political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities (see Chpt 6 J&S)

•  Why important? – Virtues of “descriptive” representation – Empowerment theory – Fairness

•  History of discrimination

•  Progress in US House & in larger cities

Minority Representation

•  Voting Rights Act, 1965 •  Section 2 coverage (permanent, national) •  Section 5 coverage (temporary, extended) •  Section 203 coverage •  Amended and extended

–  (1975, 1982, 1992; 2006 for 25 more years)


•  Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend. •  Prohibits “minority vote dilution”

–  Tactics, rules, situations that weaken the voting strength of minorities (literacy tests)

–  Prohibits local governments from using discriminatory election rules that give minorities unfair chance of electing candidates of their choice

•  What tactics? Which minorities? •  What proof of discrimination


•  Section 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local election rules if

•  (1982 amendment): –  History of discrimination –  Racially polarized voting –  Use of rules (like At Large) that dilute vote support –  Exclusion of candidates from ‘slating’ process –  Discrimination in education, employment, health –  Overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns –  Levels of minority success in election to office –  Lack of policy responsiveness


•  Section 5 coverage •  Requires US Atty General or US DC of DC

to “pre-clear” any changes to state and local election rules in “covered jurisdictions”

•  Must consider EFFECT of rules (retrogression) •  Is “purpose” or “intent” to dilute minority

vote power – District to At-large; Number of seats, district

boundaries…


•  Section 5 coverage •  Any change can’t deny right to vote on

basis of race, color, or language group

•  What about right to representation?


•  Section 5 coverage •  Will change affect the number of minority elected

officials? •  Covered areas:

– Places that had used ‘test’ or ‘device’ to restrict registration and voting; places where less than 50% registered or voted

–  All of AL, AK, AZ, GA,LA, MS, SC, TX, VA (+ HI & ID originally?)

–  Parts of CA, FL, MI, NH, NY, NC, SD


•  Section 5 coverage

•  Should places be able to opt out •  Should new places be added


•  Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006) •  Language minorities

– Link btwn. language and low turnout – Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Native

American, Eskimo •  10,000 in jurisdiction, or 5% of citizen VAP

– Rules & practices must be evaluated to see if language group discriminated against.


•  Section 2 cases still common •  US v. Salem Co. NJ (2008) •  US v. School Board of Osceola Co, FL (2008) •  US v. City of Philadelphia (2007) •  US v. City of Long County GA (2006) •  US v. City of Boston (2006) •  US v State of South Dakota (2000)


[T]hrough the use of various practices and procedures, citizens of language minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting these practices, and by prescribing other remedial devices.


•  Section 203 Covered jurisdictions •  Based on VRA formula & census: •  US Citizens of single language group over

10,000 in jurisdiction •  Is more than 5% of population

•  On reservation, 5% of all residents •  Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national

average •  What remedies?


White AfrAm Latino US pop 69% 12 13 State leg 89 8 2 Local ??? ??? Most non-whites elected at local level are

from states covered by the VRA: 66% of Asians, 61% of Blacks, 82 %

Latinos


•  But representation does not always require Majority Minority context

•  % of Local Black elected officials from Majority Black counties •  County 30% •  School Board 18% •  City Town 20%


•  USSC backing away from VRA •  2009 challenge to Section 5 •  Granting places power to “bail out”

•  Nortwest Austin v Holder

•  Some site election of Obama as reason to

weaken VRA


•  Last points:

•  The issue in WA

•  Cumulative voting as alternative

•  Number of votes = number of seats


Documents

Local Political Participation