Event

Invite: Mon, Oct. 21st - "A Border and Immigration Reform Seminar"

Now that the government is getting back to work, President Obama said immigration should be next on the agenda, and we agree.

This Monday, join us as Simon gives an updated version of our presentation, “The Border Is Safer, The Immigration System Is Better, and Mexico Is Modernizing and Growing.” 

This fact-filled presentation highlights the Obama Administration’s success in managing the complex US-Mexico border, recent improvements in US-Mexico relations and vital economic ties that have paved the way for comprehensive  immigration reform that includes a 21st century approach to our southwest border.

We will discuss the outlook for the immigration reform debate and possibilities for a bipartisan bill- please join us!

When: Monday, October 21, 2013. 12-1:30pm
Lunch will be served at 12noon, presentation will begin at 12:15, followed by Q&A

Where: NDN Event Space, 729 15th Street NW, 1st Floor

RSVP here

For more of our analysis about the border and immigration reform, visit this page on our site, which includes a link to an earlier version of this presentation and related materials.  Also see Simon’s op-ed in on how the two parties are closer to a deal than ever before.

We hope you can join us for this timely and informative discussion.  And please don’t be shy about forwarding this information, which is so important to the current debate, to others you think might be interested.

WATCH LIVE TODAY: Event 12:15 p.m. Slowing the Flow of Smuggled U.S. Guns Into Mexico

If you are in DC,please come today to the US Capitol for a forum in which NDN/NPI's "21st Century Border Initiative," will convene ways to stop the illegal southbound flow of guns from the US into Mexico, a country where owning a gun of any kind is illegal.  Joining us will be Congressman Adam Schiff of California and the Mexican Ambassador to the United States, Arturo Sarukhan.  The forum will take place at 2456 Rayburn House Office Building, and run from 12:15pm to 1:30pm. 

You can RSVP here or you can watch live this event online here. This link will go live at 12:15.

Guns smuggled from the United States into Mexico are contributing to the rise in drug cartel violence in our southern neighbor.  A recent Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) study found fully 68,000 guns of 99,000 confiscated by law enforcement agencies in Mexico originated in the United States.

Among the topics sure to be discussed at our May 31st forum is the success of the Administration's Multiple Sales Reporting (MSR) program which has required more complete reporting of multiple "long gun" sales in border states, and a new bill, the "Straw Purchaser Penalty Enhancement Act," authored by Rep. Schiff, which creates a two-year prison sentence for so-called "straw purchasers" who currently receive probation or very little jail time for acquiring weapons under false pretenses and then selling them to Mexican gun smugglers.
We hope you will be able to join us for this important and timely event.

Best Of NDN's Mobile Policy Work

This Wednesday, former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt and Suzanne Hall of the State Department will be joining NDN as we release a new paper on the “Mobile Revolution, Revisited.” Tim Chambers authored the first version of this paper back in 2006 and the ensuing five years of election engagement, mobile-enabled revolution, and technology-based international development has proven his work to be prescient and its update incredibly timely.

NDN and New Policy Institute have long been on the cutting edge of mobile policy. We were among the first to not only recognize its game-changing potential for election strategy and community development, but also among the most outspoken advocates of public policies that supported the growth, adoption, and spread of mobile technology. Our Global Mobile Blog has also consistently provided a vital window into the challenges and opportunities these technologies face around the world. In preparation for this Wednesday’s event we have assembled ten of the most influential pieces on mobile that NDN has released. Simon Rosenberg addressed many of these issues in his forward to Crashing The Gate, Marcos Moulitsas' critically acclaimed book, in 2006. Our efforts on this front stretch back nearly a decade and continue to be a priority for us. We hope that you’ll reacquaint yourself with some of NDN’s ground-breaking work on this front and join us on Wednesday, March 7th. As always, we welcome your feedback and thoughts. 

1. Mobile Media in 21st Century Politics - Tim Chambers and Rob Sebastian. September 1, 2006

2. A laptop in Every Backpack - Alec Ross and Simon Rosenberg. May 1, 2007

3. The 50 Year Strategy - Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden. December 2007

4. Harnessing the Mobile Revolution - Thomas Kalil. October 8, 2008

5. Obama: No Realist He - Simon Rosenberg. June 16, 2009

6. The Power of Mobile - Alec Ross (Video). June 26, 2009

7. Governance and the Internet Ecosystem - Tom Tauke (Video). March 25, 2010

8. Connection Technologies in U.S. Foreign Policy - Sam DuPont. September 10, 2010

9. The Age of Possibility - Simon Rosenberg (Video). April 29, 2011

10. The Employment Effects of Advances in Internet and Wireless Technology: Evaluating the Transitions from 2G to 3G and from 3G to 4G - Rob Shapiro and Kevin Hassett. January 18, 2012

 

 

End Opec Now

The OPEC cartel that meets in Vienna today has thrived in its 50-year history. First ignored, then despised for using the "oil weapon" on the West, and ultimately granted a strange legitimacy due to age, it has assumed all the trappings of an international organization. This week's meeting of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 's Iran, Muammar Gaddafi's Libya and Hugo Chavez' Venezuela to fix quotas, for example, will take place not in Gaddafi's tent but in a sumptuous building on the Helferstorferstrase in Vienna. Press is likely to report not on why oil prices are set by a cartel of the world's worst leaders but rather on whether oil quotas are modestly adjusted to cover wells out of order since the Libyan revolt

Unfortunately, the cartel's victims have not fared as well. OPEC has over the last century engineered a massive transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to its rulers. At key junctures, it has used the "oil weapon" to destabilize the global economy as with the 1970s oil shocks, the 1980s debt crisis triggered by soaring oil bills and the 2008 financial collapse (when it cut quotas with prices over $100). Less well known is the role of oil price spikes in stoking misery and instability in developing countries. The final victims have been the people of the oil states themselves who have not shared in the wealth enjoyed by a few while seeing democracy pushed indefinitely into the future.

Adam Smith famously observed "Seldom do businessmen of the same trade get together but that it results in some detriment to the general public." Based on a long history of economic study, today cartels are illegal in virtually all developed countries. The question with OPEC, therefore, is not why it is bad but why has it survived. During the first Gulf war in 1991, the US and its allies saved Saudi Arabia, liberated Kuwait and dictated peace terms to Iraq. Yet after the war, all three countries continued as prominent OPEC members. In 2002 we invaded Iraq again, this time overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But rather than insisting that Iraq leave OPEC, the United States actually became a de facto OPEC member through the provisional Iraq authority.

The superficial answer to this question of why OPEC has persisted is it has successfully claimed sovereign immunity. Unlike a private cartel -- hundreds of which have been prosecuted by the Justice Department since 1990, OPEC is comprised of governments that happen to set quotas for oil. But this argument is weak. The 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act contains an exception to immunity in the case of governments engaging in commercial activities. The real reason that OPEC has survived is a lack of US resolve to break it up. In 2007 and 2008, the House and Senate passed legislation that would have forced the Justice Department to go after OPEC. However, a veto threat from President Bush prevented final passage of the legislation.

There is an equally strong case for trade action against OPEC, made compelling by Senator Frank Lautenberg. The WTO unequivocally prohibits quota-based cartels except in the rare case of conserving resources or national security and of the 12 OPEC members, five are WTO members and 3, observers. Yet to date, the US Trade Representative has not filed an action.

These tools alone might suffice to end OPEC. But the ratcheting up of US engagement in the region recently creates a new opportunity to break the cartel.

The Middle East -- the geographic center of OPEC -- is clearly undergoing fundamental change. Not only, of course, did the US midwife democracy in Iraq, we remain the guarantor of security of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, and are now also supporting the rebels in Libya. The expanded US and EU role in the region provides an opportunity to make a simple case to all parties. US and more broadly EU support must be contingent on a timeline for withdrawal from OPEC.

In short, the conditions exist to end OPEC. We only need resolve. Here is a plan forward. By July 4th, Congress should pass legislation revising the FSIA to strip OPEC of any hint of sovereign immunity. The US Trade Representative should immediately begin studying action against the OPEC countries in the WTO. The Obama Administration should make it clear to parties we aid in the Middle East they need to plan to transition out of OPEC. We can end OPEC but only if we act. Time is of the essence due to the tenuous state of the global recovery.

Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan and Commissioner Alan Bersin: A Conversation on a "21st Century Border"

See video

On May 24 NDN/NPI was proud to host Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan and Chairman of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Alan Bersin to discuss the first joint U.S.-Mexico vision for a "21st Century Border."

TONIGHT: Special Screening of 9500 Liberty

Tonight NDN will host a special screening of acclaimed documentary 9500 Liberty at the U.S. Navy Memorial Heritage Center's Burke Theatre.  After making its way around the country with premieres in San Francisco and New York City, 9500 Liberty returns to the capitol as the winner of Best Documentary at the Charlotte Film Festival and the St. Louis Film Festival.  We hope you will join NDN for this special screening.

Doors will open at 7:30pm and the film will begin promptly at 8:00pm.  Following the film, NDN Founder and President Simon Rosenberg will moderate a discussion with filmmakers Annabel Park and Eric Byler.  Special Guest Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX-16) will also be joining us for this wonderful evening. 

About the Film
9500 Liberty is a compelling new documentary about a suburban community's struggle to manage its changing population in a climate of fear and racial tension exploited by national groups and ambitious local politicians. The film documents how residents and advocacy groups on both sides used new media, technology and social networking to organize for the future of their community online, on the streets and at the center of local politics. 9500 Liberty provides a front-row seat to this battle, one that we will likely see repeated in the months to come as the immigration reform debate returns to the forefront of the national discourse.

Where
U.S. Navy Memorial Heritage Center, Burke Theatre
701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20004

RSVP
To RSVP for you and a guest, please contact Sarah Sanchez at ssanchez@ndn.org or 202-384-1219.  The event is free and is nearly sold out, so please RSVP by 4:00pm to guarantee your seat.

The film 9500 Liberty is a produced by the Interactive Democracy Alliance, a non-profit organization (501c3 status pending). For more information about the film, please visit www.9500Liberty.com, where you can watch the trailer and read the film's most recent press stories.

Released Today at NDN, The New Constituents: How Latinos are Shaping Census 2010 & Congressional Reapportionment

Andres Ramirez, Senior Vice President of NDN, along with America's Voice Education Fund and Election Data Services, released a report at NDN today examining the role of Latinos in the 2010 Census and Congressional Reapportionment.  The report, entitled The New Constituents: How Latinos are Shaping Census 2010 & Congressional Reapportionment, suggests that since the last census in 2000, the Latino population has grown dramatically.  Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States, and as such, will have a significant role in reshaping the US political map.  Projections show that nineteen states are poised to see changes in their Congressional representation: eight states will gain seats at least one House seat, while eleven will lose at least one seat in Congress.

NDN hosted an event to release the paper and discuss the topic with the papers' lead authors and immigration and census experts.  Those on the panel were Andres Ramirez, Senior Vice President, NDN, Frank Sharry, Executive Director, America's Voice, Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, NALEO, and Kim Brace, President, Election Data Services.

Watch the video below to see a video recording of today's event.

 

 

Follow this link to read the NDN Backgrounder on Census 2010, Immigration Status, and Reapportionment

The New Constituents: How Latinos Will Shape Congressional Apportionment After the 2010 Census

Publish Date: 
11/17/09

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2010 Census is upon us and its results will have a profound effect on the American political landscape. Since the last Census in 2000, the Latino population in America has grown dramatically, and Latinos have become the largest minority group in the United States.

This paper examines the role Latinos will play in determining Congressional apportionment following the 2010 Census. [1] The bipartisan firm Election Data Services, Inc. used existing Census data to project which states are likely to gain and lose Congressional seats following the 2010 Census. [2] Their projections show that nineteen states are poised to see changes in their Congressional representation: eight states will gain at least one House seat, while eleven states will lose at least one seat in Congress.  

States gaining House seats: Texas (+4), Arizona (+2), Florida (+1), Georgia (+1), Nevada (+1), Oregon (+1), South Carolina (+1), and Utah (+1).

States losing House seats: Ohio (-2), Illinois (-1), Iowa (-1), Louisiana (-1), Massachusetts (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Missouri (-1), New Jersey (-1), New York (-1), and Pennsylvania (-1).

Using existing Census data on state populations, voter registration, and voter turnout from 2000 to 2008, along with the above reapportionment projections, America’s Voice Education Fund conducted the following analysis, which finds that:

Latinos are not just settling in major cities, but diverse regions of the country. After the 2010 Census, new Members of Congress in states like Georgia and South Carolina as well as Arizona and Texas will owe their positions, in part, to the expanding Latino population.

Latinos represent 51% of population growth in the United States as a whole since 2000. [3] They have driven growth in the states poised to gain House seats following the 2010 Census, especially in those projected to gain more than one seat. In these two states, Texas and Arizona, Latinos comprise a combined 59% of population growth since 2000.

States that are losing Congressional representation would have fared worse had Latinos not moved there in record numbers. While their states’ Congressional delegations are shrinking overall, Latino voters are gaining power as they expand their share of the electorate.

Latinos make up a combined 77% of the population growth in the eleven states projected to lose a House seat. In nine of the eleven states projected to lose representation in Congress, Latinos were the majority of the state’s population growth since 2000. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey showed the highest percentage of growth, as each state would have seen a net decline in population over the last decade if not for the influx of Latinos. While Louisiana did see a net population loss this decade, had it not been for strong growth in the state’s Latino population, the numbers would have looked much starker. Latinos also made up at least half of the state’s population growth since 2000 in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Iowa.

Not only is the overall Latino population growing, but the number of Latino voters is also increasing dramatically.

Nationwide, Latino voter registration grew 54% and Latino voter turnout grew 64% between 2000 and 2008. In sixteen of the nineteen states projected to gain or lose seats after the 2010 Census, the Latino share of the overall electorate increased between 2000 and 2008. In five of the eight states projected to gain seats, and in all of the eleven states projected to lose seats, Latinos made up a greater share of the overall electorate in 2008 than they did in 2000.

In the eight states poised to gain seats, Latino voter registration grew 45% and Latino voter turnout expanded 50% between 2000 and 2008. [4] In the eleven states poised to lose seats, Latino voter registration grew 50% and Latino voter turnout expanded 62% between 2000 and 2008.

As this demographic continues to grow, politicians who ignore or demonize the Latino population in their states will find the road to re-election much more difficult.

Proposition 187 in California, which created a backlash among Latino voters that the state Republican Party is still trying to overcome, marked the beginning of a trend that has been repeated in national, state, and local elections over the last several years. This trend will only continue as the Latino electorate grows, if politicians continue to demonize Latinos and immigrants through harsh rhetoric and policies. For example, according to polling by Bendixen & Associates, 87% of Latino voters refuse to even consider voting for a candidate who advocates mass deportation of undocumented workers.

The following report examines these findings in greater detail. For information on the redistricting process in the states projected to gain or lose seats following the 2010 Census, please see the accompanying appendix.

About this Report:

America’s Voice Education Fund (AVEF) would like to thank Andres Ramirez, Senior Vice President & Director of Hispanic Programs at NDN, for research assistance and strategic consultation. Mr. Ramirez provided much of the initial research that formed the backbone of this report.

AVEF would also like to thank Election Data Services, Inc. and the firm’s president, Kimball Brace, for providing the projection models used as the foundation for this report, and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) for providing the information used to develop the appendix on redistricting. Neither Election Data Services, Inc. nor NCSL endorses the report contents.

For more information about this report, please call 202.463.8602 or contact Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice Education Fund, at press@americasvoiceonline.org.

States Gaining U.S. House Seats

In each of the states projected to gain Congressional seats after the 2010 Census, the Latino population has grown significantly. While some of these states, such as Texas, have been home to people of Hispanic heritage for many generations, others have seen a dramatic increase in their Latino population over a very short period of time. As the table below shows, Latinos will be a major driver in expanding power in Congress following the 2010 Census.

Latinos have driven the population growth that is resulting in increased representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for a number of states.

Texas, the state projected to gain the most from reapportionment, has seen the highest percentage of Latino population growth out of this group. Latinos comprise 63% of the population growth in Texas since 2000 and are the single largest reason that the state is projected to gain four seats in the U.S. House—the greatest change, positive or negative, among any state in the nation.

In the two states projected to gain more than one Congressional seat, Texas and Arizona, Latinos represent 59% of the total population growth since 2000. In Arizona, Florida, and Nevada, Latino population growth has been approximately half of each state’s overall population growth since 2000.

Without Latino population growth, six of the eight states gaining representation would most likely not have achieved their current projected seat gains. Examining state populations in the absence of Latino population growth demonstrates the raw political power Latinos are building in these states. Using the “Gain a Seat” and “Lose a Seat” numbers from the Election Data Services, Inc. report, we arrive at a snapshot of how losing the Latino population would affect each state’s reapportionment projection. [6]

Without Latinos, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina and Texas would each have failed to gain as many seats as they are projected to gain. [7] Texas likely would have gained just one seat instead of four; Florida likely would have remained static; Arizona likely would have gained just one seat instead of two; and Nevada, Oregon and South Carolina likely would have remained static. Only Georgia and Utah would have gained their new seats without Latino growth.

In addition to population growth, Latinos have demonstrated increased clout at the ballot box since 2000. Examining trends during the 2000 and 2008 election cycles shows the extent to which Latinos have not only added to their overall numbers in the eight states poised to gain seats in Congress, but have expanded their share of the electorate as well.

Overall, Latino voter registration increased 45% from 2000 to 2008 in the eight states projected to gain a House seat. In half of these states, the number of Latino registered voters jumped by over 70%. In four of the eight states—Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and South Carolina—Latino voter registration increased by 70% or more, led by Georgia’s 477%.

Latino voter turnout increased 50% between 2000 and 2008 in the eight states projected to gain a House seat. In the majority of these states, Latino voter turnout increased by more than 80% from the 2000 election to the 2008 election. In four of the eight states—Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and South Carolina—Latino voter turnout increased by at least 80% between 2000 and 2008, including a 392% jump in Georgia.

In five of the eight states projected to gain Congressional seats, the Latino share of the overall electorate increased between 2000 and 2008.
Despite having sizeable Latino voter populations in 2000, both the states of Florida and Nevada demonstrated significant Latino voter growth since then. In Florida, the Latino share of the overall electorate grew by nearly 37% since 2000, and encompassed over 15% of the Florida electorate in 2008. In Nevada, the Latino share of the overall electorate grew by over 65% since 2000, and encompassed nearly 12% of the state’s electorate in 2008.

In Texas, the Latino share of the voter population grew between 2000 and 2008 to encompass over one-fifth of the electorate. Although Texas has had a large Latino population throughout its history, Latino voting registration and turnout jumped by approximately 30% from 2000 to 2008, and the Latino share of the overall electorate increased to over 20%.

Of the eight states poised to gain seats in Congress following the 2010 Census, two southern states demonstrated the greatest percentage growth in the Latino share of the overall electorate between 2000 and 2008. Georgia (233% growth in Latino share of the overall electorate between 2000 and 2008) and South Carolina (111% growth) showed the greatest percentage increase.

States Losing U.S. House Seats

The combination of an aging population and economic opportunities elsewhere has caused a slowing or outright decline in the population of many states, which is having a direct impact on the number of seats they hold in Congress. However, in many of these areas, growth in the states’ Latino population has actually helped to counteract the shrinkage within other groups.

Latinos make up 77% of the total population growth in the eleven states projected to lose one or more House seats following the 2010 Census.

In nine of the eleven states, Latinos contributed the majority of the state’s population growth since 2000. Latinos made up at least half of the state’s population growth since 2000 in Illinois (91% of population growth), Massachusetts (86%), New York (74%), Ohio (64%), and Iowa (58%). Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey showed the highest percentage of Latino population growth; in fact, each state would have seen a net decline in population over the last decade if not for the influx of Latinos. While Louisiana did see a net population loss this decade, had it not been for strong growth in the state’s Latino population, the numbers would have looked much starker.

Without Latino population growth, New York and Pennsylvania would have lost two seats instead of their projected one-seat losses. [10] Using the specific “Gain a Seat” and “Lose a Seat” numbers in the Election Data Services, Inc. report, we arrive at a snapshot of how losing the Latino population would affect each state’s apportionment projection.

Latinos have also demonstrated increased clout at the ballot box since 2000 in these states. Examining the 2000 and 2008 election cycles shows the extent to which Latinos have increased their share of the electorate in the states that are poised to lose Congressional representation. Latino voting power is expanding in these states, and will become concentrated in a smaller number of Congressional districts once the reapportionment process occurs.

Overall Latino voter registration increased 50% from 2000 to 2008 in the eleven states projected to lose representation in Congress. In the majority of these states, the number of Latino registered voters increased by over 65%. In six of the eleven states—Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—Latino voter registration increased by at least 67%, including by 333% in Minnesota.

Overall Latino voter turnout jumped 62% between 2000 and 2008 in the eleven states projected to lose a House seat. In the majority of these states—Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—Latino turnout increased by at least 51% from 2000 to 2008, with Minnesota’s 289% increase topping the list.

In each of the eleven states projected to lose Congressional seats, the Latino share of the overall electorate increased between 2000 and 2008. The average percentage growth in the Latino share of the overall electorate between 2000 and 2008 was nearly 71% in these eleven states. Of the states projected to lose House seats, the percentage growth in the Latino share of the electorate since 2000 ranged from a low of over 33% growth in Illinois to a high of almost 235% growth in Minnesota.

Why It Matters

The decennial Census provides an unparalleled source of information for academics, students of politics, and statistics enthusiasts. The outcome of the Census will also determine the allocation of billions of dollars in Federal funding to the states. One of the most important functions of the Census is to apportion raw political power in the form of Congressional seats.

The states likely to gain political power following the 2010 Census are currently largely Republican-dominated at both the Congressional and state levels, and in many cases will owe
this expanded power to Latinos who moved to their states over the last several years. Ironically, many members of the delegations who will benefit from the increase in Latino population have embraced policies that are hostile to Latinos and immigrants. It will be interesting to see how the 2010 Census impacts politicians’ attitudes toward immigrants and Latinos who helped them expand their power in Congress.

The states poised to lose seats are more mixed when it comes to partisan control, though they tip toward the Democratic end of the scale. They too include pockets of politicians who have been hostile to immigrants and Latinos. As the number of Latino voters continues to rise in these states, and concentrates its influence in fewer Congressional districts, politicians will likely adjust their courtship of these voters accordingly.

Not only are Latino residents expanding their power, but Latino citizens are also making their voices heard at the ballot box. The fallout from Proposition 187 in California (in 1994) marked a political turning point in the immigration debate. Whereas anti-immigrant wedge politics looked like a winning strategy at first, Proposition 187 ended up backfiring spectacularly on the candidates and party most identified with the effort: the GOP. According to the Los Angeles Times, Proposition 187 “helped spur record numbers of California Latinos to become U.S. citizens and register to vote.” [11] As National Public Radio noted, the “subsequent backlash among the Latino community may have been largely responsible for turning California into a solidly blue state.” [13]

This trend has also been observed in recent elections, where candidates who blamed Latinos or immigrants for a wide array of social ills, as a way to attract Independent voters, found instead that they alienated both groups. [14] One reason is that immigration is a personal issue for the fast-growing Latino community, and anti-immigrant rhetoric is seen as targeting not just undocumented workers, but Latinos as a whole. According to a May 2009 poll of 800 Latino voters, [15] conducted for America’s Voice by Bendixen & Associates, 69% of Latino voters have a family member, relative, or friend who is undocumented. Furthermore, 87% of Latino voters would not even consider voting for a candidate who supports “forcing most illegal immigrants
to leave the country,” despite their stances on other issues. Thus, bashing immigrants resonates deeply and ripples broadly through this growing demographic group. Clearly, thewedge politics of illegal immigration are working against proponents, and this trend shows no signs of reversing as Latino voters expand their share of the electorate.

The 2010 Census will reveal the surging political power of Latinos in America. The results will likely show that Texas may become more like California, in terms of the backfiring illegal immigration wedge strategy, and that Florida already has. Further, the results will show that candidates in states such as Arizona and Nevada will not be able to ride to statewide office on an anti-immigrant platform. And finally, the results will show how the Latino and immigrant influx in the South as well as the Rust Belt will change the landscape of these states’ politics in years to come.

Appendix: Redistricting at the State Level

Following the official results of the 2010 Census, the states that lose or gain representation in Congress will have to engage in a process to redraw the boundaries of their Congressional districts. Because each state independently determines its own redistricting process, there is significant variation on the specifics. While most states delegate the responsibility to the legislature, others task independent commissions with the duty, while still others employ a combination of the two options.

The majority of states rely solely on their state legislatures for Congressional redistricting. This means the state’s redistricting plan must be approved by both the upper and the lower houses and then signed or vetoed by the governor. Because of the political nature of state legislative bodies, and the high stakes associated with the outcome, the redistricting process often become enmeshed in partisan politics. Although legislators are instructed to design districts that are as fair and equal in population as possible, sitting legislators have an obvious interest in maintaining the status quo of the districts that elected them and in maintaining power for their own political party.

Only six states in the nation give “first and final authority for Congressional line drawing” to non-legislative commissions. Depending on the state, these commissions are composed of elected officials, legislative appointees, and members of the court. Thus, in some states, these commissions are less partisan and political than in other states following a legislative process.

Among the nineteen states projected to gain or lose seats in this analysis, Arizona and New Jersey rely on independent commissions while in Iowa, nonpartisan legislative staff develop district maps, with the final plan subject to state legislature approval.

Absent major changes following the 2010 elections, Republicans are poised to control the redistricting process in most of the states poised to gain seats in the U.S. House.
As the table below shows [16], Republicans currently control both houses of the state legislature in six of the eight states poised to gain Congressional seats. While the specific partisan makeup of each state legislature may change by the time redistricting occurs, the snapshot offered by the tables provide insight into how the redistricting process may occur in each state.[17]

Of these eight states, Nevada and Oregon are the lone states in which Democrats would control the redistricting process if held today, given Democratic control of both upper and lower houses of the state legislature there.

Arizona relies on a commission to direct its redistricting process, while in the other five states in which Republicans control both state legislative houses, the redistricting process is legislatively controlled.

Absent major changes following the 2010 elections, Democrats are poised to control the redistricting process in most of the states poised to lose seats in the U.S. House. Democrats currently control both houses of the state legislature in seven of the eleven states poised to lose Congressional seats. In addition:

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have split state legislatures, with Democratic control of the lower chamber and Republican control of the upper chamber.

Missouri is the one state where Republicans would control the redistricting process if held today.

New Jersey and Iowa each rely on types of commissions to direct their redistricting processes.

 

Given the political nature of the redistricting process, close scrutiny of the way Congressional district maps are drawn is essential to protecting the rights of voters. A recent example from Texas illustrates what’s at stake.

When drawing new Congressional borders following the 2000 Census, the Republican-controlled Texas legislature “moved” 100,000 citizens from the majority Latino Congressional District 23 to Congressional District 25 in order to protect a District 23 incumbent who was out of favor with Latinos. [18] In their place, the legislature added residents from predominantly white Republican counties to District 23, which dropped the Latino share of the citizen voting-age population from 57.5% to 46%. [19] To complete the jigsaw puzzle of redistricting, the legislature created an expanded District 25 that ran three hundred miles down the state. Latinos comprised 55% of this new District’s citizen voting-age population, but the two primary Latino communities were divided between the far north and the far south of the district.

In League of United Latin American Citizens et al v. Perry, Governor of Texas, et al, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “Texas’ redrawing of District 23’s lines amount[ed] to vote dilution violative of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” [20] The District 23 incumbent, Republican Henry Bonilla, lost the next race in 2006 to Democrat Ciro Rodriguez. Though the GOP’s gerrymandering attempt was struck down by the Court, [21] it demonstrates how race and politics factor into the redistricting process and provides a cautionary tale for parties and state legislatures seeking to engineer such districts in the next round of redistricting.

Finally, as this report illustrates in detail, Latinos have contributed significantly to states’ population growth and are dramatically expanding their share of the electorate. In the coming years, Latinos will play an ever greater role in determining the specific makeup of the state legislatures who draw Congressional maps. Politics is clearly an evolving exercise, and Latinos are an increasingly important factor in a growing number of states.

Methodology

Apportionment Projections: The apportionment projections cited in this report come from the nonpartisan political consulting firm Election Data Services, Inc. For this paper, we relied on the information in Table D of the firm’s report, New Population Estimates Show Slight Changes for 2008 Congressional Appointment, But Point to Major Changes for 2010. This “short-term trend” model provides the projections we use throughout this report.

Please note that the results of the projection model used in this report may differ from other reapportionment projections and that, until the actual Census occurs and apportionment takes place, all projection models include a degree of uncertainty. Additionally, please note that Election Data Services, Inc. does not endorse this report, its content or its conclusions.

America’s Voice Education Fund then relied on U.S. Census data to examine how Latinos are playing a role in driving the reapportionment results. The information about the national and state-by-state Latino population in 2000 and 2008, as well as the Latino voter registration and turnout data for the 2000 and 2008 elections, comes from the U.S. Census.

All other data from this report are based on the above sources and reflect calculations performed by America’s Voice Education Fund and/or NDN.

Population: Population numbers for 2000 obtained via U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Brief: The Hispanic Population,” May 2001. Population numbers for 2008 obtained via U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 4: Estimates of the Resident Population by Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: July 1, 2008,” May 14, 2009.

Voter Registration and Turnout: 2000 and 2008 Latino voting statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2000,” and “Reported Voting and Registration of the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2008,”

Projecting Different Scenarios: The “Gain a Seat” and “Lose a Seat” columns in Table I (the “short-term” trend model) of the Election Data Services, Inc. projection report show the number of voters it would take under this projection model for that state to gain an additional seat or lose an additional seat, assuming all other states stayed the same. Though an actual population shift in one state would affect the overall apportionment and allocation of Congressional seats to each state and would require a full and separate 50-state projection chart for each revision, this analysis does not go into that level of detail. By comparing the state’s Latino population growth since 2000 with the “Lose a Seat” number total in Table I, it is possible to assess whether the relevant state would lose one Congressional seat. While the one-seat gain or loss is an exact number, multiple-seat gains or losses are harder to extrapolate and rely on a rough approximation.

 

[1] Election Data Services, Inc.’s apportionment projections and Latino population information are based on Census data through July 1, 2008. The apportionment projections rely on Election Data Services, Inc., New Population Estimates Show Slight Changes for 2008 Congressional Appointment, But Point to Major Changes for 2010. December 22, 2008. For this paper, we relied on the information in Table D of the report (the “short-term” trend model). Census population numbers for 2000 obtained via U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Brief: The Hispanic Population,” May 2001: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf. Census population numbers for 2008 obtained via U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 4: Estimates of the Resident Population by Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: July 1, 2008,” May 14, 2009: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC- EST2008-04.html.

[2] Election Data Services, Inc., New Population Estimates Show Slight Changes for 2008 Congressional Appointment, But Point to Major Changes for 2010. December 22, 2008. For this paper, we relied on the information in Table D, the “short-term” trend model: http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/NR_Appor08wTables.pdf.

[3] Census data show the U.S. gained 22,637,818 residents from 2000 to 2008, including 11,637,795 Latinos. Census Data from Population Estimates as of July 1, 2008: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html.

[4] Information on the Latino vote from U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2000,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/p20-542.html and “Reported Voting and Registration of the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2008,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2008.html.

[5] Projected Seat Gains from Election Data Services, Inc. report and population data from U.S. Census Bureau.

[6] The “Gain a Seat” and “Lose a Seat” columns in Table I of the Election Data Services, Inc. projection report show the number of people it would take under this projection model for that state to gain an additional seat or lose an additional seat, assuming everyone else stays the same. Though an actual population shift in one state would affect the overall apportionment and allocation of Congressional seats to each state, and would require a full and separate 50-state projection chart for each revision, this analysis does not go into that level of detail. Instead, this analysis relies on the current Election Data Services, Inc., numbers in Table I to demonstrate the role of Latinos in affecting each state’s number of seats under this existing projection model.

[7] By comparing the state’s Latino population growth since 2000 with the “Lose a Seat” number total in Table I, it is possible to assess whether the relevant state would lose one Congressional seat. While the one-seat gain or loss is an exact number, multiple-seat gains or losses are harder to extrapolate and rely on a rough approximation.

[8] 2000 and 2008 Latino voting statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2000,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/p20-542.html and “Reported Voting and Registration of the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2008,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2008.html.

[9] Projected Seat Gains from Election Data Services, Inc. report and population data from U.S. Census Bureau.

[10] This also relies on the “Gain a Seat” and “Lose a Seat” columns in Table I of the Election Data Services, Inc. projection report. 2000 and 2008 Latino voting statistics from U.S. Census Bureau, “Reported Voting and Registration of the Total Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2000,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/p20-542.html and “Reported Voting and Registration of the Voting-Age Population, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2008,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2008.html.

[11] Teresa Watanabe and Hector Becerra, “500,000 Pack Streets to Protest Immigration Bills,” Los Angeles Times , March 26, 2006: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/26/local/me-immig26.

[13] Clare Abreu, “The Latino Vote, on its Own Terms,” National Public Radio, November 7, 2006: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6450360.

[14]  See http://www.immigration08.com/press_releases/entry/latinos_flex_political_muscle/, http://amvoice.3cdn.net/77076902eaa41d8a76_vqm6id0x0.pdf, and http://www.americasvoiceonline.org/ImmigrationStatement06 for more information.

[15] Bendixen & Associates, National Survey of Hispanic Voters on Immigration Policy, May 18, 2009: http://amvoice.3cdn.net/3c7baeb44f16c977ef_edm6bnqoi.pdf.

[16] Partisan control information of state legislatures from National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) website, http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16507.

[17] Redistricting information from National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) website. Main NCSL redistricting page available at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16637.

[18] Justin Levitt. Brennan Center for Justice, A Citizen’s Guide for Redistricting, p. 12. 2008.

[19] District information and percentage breakdown from League of United Latin American Citizens et al v. Perry, Governor of Texas, et al. Supreme Court of the United States, 2006.

[20] Quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy, League of United Latin American Citizens et al v. Perry, Governor of Texas, et al. Supreme Court of the United States, 2006.

[21] The Supreme Court ruled only that the District 23 plan violated the Voting Rights Act, not the entire state’s redistricting plan.

Interested in Immigration? Come to our Event on Tuesday

This Tuesday, November 17th at 12pm, NDN will be hosting a discussion on the release of a recent report from America's Voice Education Fund on "How Latinos are Shaping Census 2010 & Congressional Reapportionment." Andres Ramirez, NDN Senior Vice President and Director of Hispanic Programs, Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice, Arturo Vargas, Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), and Kim Brace, President of Election Data Services will discuss the results of the report, which demonstrate that Latinos are helping to re-shape the political map.

Eighteen states are poised to see changes in their Congressional representation due to the 2010 Census.  On Tuesday, learn how this could influence the make-up of Congress moving forward and the implications it has on immigration reform.

This event is open to the press and will take place at NDN, which is located at 729 15th St. NW, 1st Floor, Washington, DC.  As lunch will be provided for guests, please RSVP if you plan to attend.

If you are not in DC or if you can't make it this time, follow this link to watch "How Latinos are Shaping Census 2010 & Congressional Reapportionment" live online.  The livecast will begin at 12:15pm.

A video recording will be available on Wednesday, November 18th.

For more information, follow this link to NDN's backgrounder on Census 2010, Immigration and Reapportionment.

Unpublished
n/a
Syndicate content