Reexamining the Effect of Racial Propositions on Latinos’ Partisanship in California

Original Paper

Abstract

Many seasoned politicians and scholars have attributed the loss in support for the Republican Party in California to its push for three racially divisive propositions in the mid- 1990s, especially the anti-immigrant Proposition 187. Their costs are said to involve the partisan realignment of Latinos against the Republicans. Using three separate data sources, we find no evidence of a “tipping point” or abrupt realignment among Latino registered voters who made up the electorate. Latinos’ partisanship within California did not change significantly; it did not change much when compared to nearby states; nor did voter registration change materially. The loss of support for Republicans occurred primarily among unregistered Latino voters whom historically had never been strong supporters. Our findings question the conventional wisdom about the powerful political effects of the propositions, and reaffirm the long standing conclusion in the literature that realignment due to a “critical election” is rare.

Keywords

California Racial propositions Latino Immigration Partisan identification Realignment 

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9400_MOESM1_ESM.docx (96 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 95 kb)

References

  1. Alvarez, M., & Butterfield, T. (2000). The resurgence of nativism in California? The case of Proposition 187 and illegal immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 167–179.Google Scholar
  2. Angus, C., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Armbruster, R., Geron, K., & Bonacich, E. (1995). The assault on California’s Latino immigrants: The politics of Proposition 187. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19, 655–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balin, B. (2008). State immigration legislation and immigrant flows: An analysis. Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.Google Scholar
  5. Barreto, M., Ramirez, R., & Woods, N. (2005). Are naturalized voters driving the California Latino electorate? Measuring the effect of IRCA citizens on Latino voting. Social Science Quarterly, 86(4), 792–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreto, M., & Woods, N. (2005). Latino voting behavior in an anti-Latino political context: The case of Los Angeles County. In G. M. Segura & S. Bowler (Eds.), Diversity in democracy: Minority representation in the United States (pp. 148–169). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  7. Birgeneau, R. (2005). How California’s Proposition 209 created a crisis in African-American higher education. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 47, 59–59.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, S., Nicholson, S., & Segura, G. (2006). Earthquakes and aftershocks: Race, direct democracy, and partisan change. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnham, W. D. (1970). Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, A., Wong, C., & Citrin, J. (2006). Racial threat, partisan climate, and direct democracy: Contextual effects in three California initiatives. Political Behavior, 28(2), 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carmines, E., & Stimson, J. (1981). Issue evolution, population replacement, and normal partisan change. American Political Science Review, 75(1), 107–118.Google Scholar
  12. Dyck, J., Johnson, G., & Wasson, J. (2012). A blue tide in the golden state: Ballot propositions, population change, and party identification in California. American Politics Research, 40(3), 450–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field Poll. (1995). A summary analysis of voting in the 1994 general election (January 1995). ISSN 0271-1095.Google Scholar
  14. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fiorina, M., & Abrams, S. (2008). Is California really a blue state? In F. Douzet, T. Kousser, & K. P. Miller (Eds.), The new political geography of California. Berkeley: Berkeley Public Policy Press, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2005). Culture war?. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  17. Frey, W. (1995). Immigration and internal migration “flight”: A California case study. Population and Environment, 16(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hajnal, Z., & Lee, T. (2011). Why Americans don’t join the party: Race, immigration, and the failure (of political parties) to engage the electorate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hernandez, S. (1999). The life after death of Proposition 187. Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(14), 124–129.Google Scholar
  21. HoSang, D. (2010). Racial propositions: Ballot initiatives and the making of postwar California. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hui, I. (2010). Growing geographic polarization and the perpetuation of the electoral disconnect. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  23. Key, V. O. (1955). A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics, 17(01), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Key, V. O. (1959). Secular realignment and the party system. Journal of Politics, 21(02), 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korey, J., & Lascher, E. (2006). Macropartisanship in California. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, Y.-T., Ottati, V., & Hussain, I. (2001). Attitudes toward “Illegal” Immigration into the United States: California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23(4), 430–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis-Beck, M., Norpoth, H., Jacoby, W., & Weisburg, H. (2008). The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, P. (1995). Proposition 187 in California. International Migration Review, 29(1), 255–263.Google Scholar
  29. Mayhew, D. (2002). Electoral realignments: A critique of an American genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nardulli, P. (1995). The concept of a critical realignment, electoral behavior, and political change. American Political Science Review, 89(01), 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicholson, S., & Segura, G. (2005). Agenda change and the politics of Latino Partisan identification. In G. M. Segura & S. Bowler (Eds.), Diversity in democracy: Minority representation in the United States (pp. 51–71). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ono, K., & Sloop, J. (2002). Shifting borders: Rhetoric, immigration, and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pantoja, A., Ramirez, R., & Segura, G. (2001). Citizens by choice, voters by necessity: Patterns in political mobilization by naturalized Latinos. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 729–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pantoja, A., & Segura, G. (2003). Fear and loathing in California: Contextual threat and political sophistication among Latino voters. Political Behavior, 25(3), 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pew Research Center. (2014). The shifting religious identity of Latinos in the United States. Online Report. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/05/Latinos-Religion-07-22-full-report.pdf.
  36. Polsby, N. (2004). How congress evolves: Social bases of institutional change. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, G., Krasno, J., Zingher, J., & Allen, M. (2016). Creating a racially polarized electorate: The political fallout of immigration politics in Arizona and California. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4(4), 579–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rubenstein, E. (2012). Remembering proposition 187. Social Contract, Winter, 3–7.Google Scholar
  39. Suarez-Orozco, M. (1996). California dreaming: Proposition 187 and the cultural psychology of racial and ethnic exclusion. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sundquist, J. (1983). Dynamics of the party system. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  41. UCData. (2008). The Field Institute/The California poll cumulative file for the years: 1956-2006. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bill Lane Center for the American WestStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations