Search

Nearly forty years after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a fundamental question remains unanswered: Although all citizens have an equal right to the ballot, do all citizens enjoy equal access to the ballot box? That is, are voting precincts in predominantly low-income and non-White neighborhoods, less visible, less stable, harder to find, and harder to navigate than voting precincts in high-income and predominantly White neighborhoods? If so, does the lower quality result in lower levels of voting, all other things equal? In order to assess the accessibility and quality of polling places across the city?s diverse neighborhoods, students researchers at Loyola Marymount University visited randomly selected voting precincts where they completed a carefully designed 30-point checklist and used cameras to document their findings. Our analysis indicates the quality of polling places varies across the diverse neighborhoods of Los Angeles and that the quality of polling places impacts voter turnout. Low-income and minority communities tended to have ?lower quality? precincts, which tended to depress voter turnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using official validated vote records from the Registrar of Voters, we examine voter turnout among Latinos and non-Latinos following the 2001 redistricting effort. Specifically, we compare turnout rates for Latinos that were districted out of, or into, a Latino district. In California, district boundaries shifted significantly in areas where the Latino population was becoming a majority to protect incumbent non-Latino office holders. In most instances, these Latinos were shifted to neighboring districts that already had Latino representatives. If the chance to elect a Latino candidate is a mobilizing force, we expect that Latinos shifting into Latino-held districts will be more likely to vote than in previous years. We test this proposition by modeling voter turnout in 2002 (election under new districts) among registered voters in Los Angeles and Orange Counties to determine if Latinos who moved into or out of Latino-represented districts are more or less likely to vote. In this naturally occurring experiment, there are four possibilities confronting a voter after redistricting: (1) Moved from non-Latino to Latino district; (2) Moved from Latino to non-Latino district; (3) Stayed in Latino district; (4) Stayed in non-Latino district. All other things being equal, we find that Latinos who moved from a non-Latino to Latino district were significantly more likely to vote, while non-Latinos who moved for the first time into a Latino district, were less likely to vote. Probit models are estimated using county registrar records from California. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using official validated vote records from the Registrar of Voters, we examine voter turnout among Latinos and non-Latinos following the 2001 redistricting effort. Specifically, we compare turnout rates for Latinos that were districted out of, or into, a Latino district. In California, district boundaries shifted significantly in areas where the Latino population was becoming a majority to protect incumbent non-Latino office holders. In most instances, these Latinos were shifted to neighboring districts that already had Latino representatives. If the chance to elect a Latino candidate is a mobilizing force, we expect that Latinos shifting into Latino-held districts will be more likely to vote than in previous years. We test this proposition by modeling voter turnout in 2002 (election under new districts) to determine if Latinos that moved into Latino districts are more or less likely to vote. In this naturally occurring experiment, there are four possibilities confronting a voter after redistricting: (1) Moved from non-Latino to Latino district; (2) Moved from Latino to non-Latino district; (3) Stayed in Latino district; (4) Stayed in non-Latino district. All other things being equal, we find that Latinos who moved from a non-Latino to Latino district were significantly more likely to vote, while non-Latinos who moved for the first time into a Latino district, were less likely to vote. Probit models are estimated using county registrar records from California. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors recently approved a plan for redistricting that essentially maintains the existing districts and constituencies, only one of which (the First District) is predominantly Latino and has a Latino representative. A challenge to this plan with the US Attorney General's Civil Rights Division is currently pending, wherein the Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Association (LACCEA) has offered its own plan for redistricting. In the alternative plan, districts are drawn in a way intended to preserve communities of interest, and to facilitate the election of a second Latino candidate of interest from the San Gabriel Valley (the Third District). We evaluate both plans on the dimension of how each will influence individual Latino voter turnout, and hence the ability of Latinos to influence electoral outcomes. Using Registrar of Voters data for the universe of registered voters in Los Angeles County, we offer several summary statistics and probit analyses that show that the alternate plan proposed by the LACCEA is superior to the Status Quo plan approved by the County. Specifically, Latinos will be able to affect electoral outcomes in District 3 under the LACCEA plan, and maintain their ability to influence electoral outcomes in District 1. Under the Status Quo plan, Latinos will be limited to affecting outcomes in the First District only. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]