This paper examines the role Latinos will play in determining Congressional apportionment following the Census. Projections show that eight states are poised to gain at least one seat in Congress, while eleven states will lose at least one seat.
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
Washington, DC – NDN, a leading think tank and advocacy organization, joined with Media Matters to create the DropDobbs.com coalition several months ago to hold CNN anchor Lou Dobbs accountable for the rampant intolerance promoted through his nightly news show. The coalition was later joined by several prominent organizations to promote this effort.
Today, less than two months after the launch of our online and grassroots campaign, Lou Dobbs has announced he is resigning from CNN because “it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country, and affecting all of us…”
Andres Ramirez, Senior Vice President for NDN and coordinator for the DropDobbs coalition stated, “This is a great victory for all of us who have been working on this effort. We believe that Lou Dobb's intolerant style of politics is inconsistent with the powerful and respected CNN brand. We are glad to see him go."
We want to thank and congratulate all the organizations who participated in this coalition.
A year ago, millions of voters across America flocked to the elections polls to elect Barack Obama as our nation’s president. I remember that night vividly, as it was a culmination of the longest American presidential campaign cycle in history. A campaign cycle in which a candidate, who was virtually unknown just 5 years before the election, inspired Americans to renew their Hope. He inspired Americans to renew their Hope in government, to renew their Hope in politics, to renew their Hope in each other and to renew their Hope in America.
I remember sitting in the war room for the Nevada State Democratic Party in Las Vegas analyzing exit polls and tabulating results from states across the country. The numbers coming in were indicating that this election would be won by our nominee, but having been fooled in the previous two election cycles, I waited frantically until I knew this victory was certain. As the results continued to move Obama closer to the victory margin, I ran from the war room to join my fellow Americans in celebration. I laughed, I shouted, and I even cried that night as I was so moved by what had just happened. As an American who has been fighting for civil rights and human rights for so long, and who was on the verge of losing all Hope in our country, that night changed so much for me.
That Americans were in need of Hope was no mystery. America was taken to the brink of ruin under failed leadership and governance by the previous presidential administration. The situation left Americans with not much else, but Hope. To summarize briefly, millions of Americans were without jobs or losing their job, millions of Americans lacked health insurance, our educational systems were underfunded, our infrastructure was literally collapsing, our financial systems collapsed, our auto industry collapsed, our energy sources are outdated and insufficient, and thousands of Americans were sacrificing their lives in the two wars overseas. There was not much left in America but Hope.
When the President was elected, the NY Times published a piece detailing the historic win of President Obama and noting:
The election of Mr. Obama amounted to a national catharsis — a repudiation of a historically unpopular Republican president and his economic and foreign policies, and an embrace of Mr. Obama’s call for a change in the direction and the tone of the country.
Despite this reality, Republicans leaders have been desperately attempting every method possible to prevent President Obama from moving America in a different direction. Engaged in what I call “Operation Obstruction,” they have stalled the President’s agenda to lift this country out of the ruins that he inherited. However, they have not prevented President Obama from enacting several significant pieces of legislation in his first year in office as reported in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Last week, Mr. Obama signed defense-policy legislation that included an unrelated measure widening federal hate-crimes laws to cover sexual orientation and gender identification -- 12 years after it was first introduced. The same legislation also tightened the rules of admissible evidence for military commissions, an issue that consumed Congress in debate in 2007 but received almost no attention this go-round.
Other new measures signed into law since the administration took office, all of which kicked up controversy in past congresses, make it easier for women to sue for equal pay, set aside land in the West from development, give the government the power to regulate tobacco and raise tobacco taxes to expand health insurance for children. Congress and the White House, in the new defense-policy bill, also killed weapons programs that have survived earlier attempts at termination, among them, the F-22 fighter jet, the VH-71 presidential helicopter and the Army's Future Combat System.
So what has all this obstruction accomplished for the Republicans? Not much. America is still largely where it was on election night a year ago.
If we look at the graph above, it shows that despite all the efforts of Republicans to persuade Americans to abandon their call for change, Americans remain committed to steering away from the failed policies of the previous administration. In short, America is still holding on to Hope.
Last week, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski held a hearing to introduce a new set of rules intended to preserve the free and open internet and to start a public discourse regarding whether or not they will be formally adopted. To be clear, this post is not meant to support or oppose the rules themselves; rather, to comment on the nature of the discourse in its inception stages.
As dialogue surrounding FCC regulations on net neutrality becomes an issue with increasing visibility, so does the importance for each voice to be heard. Like America, the Internet was created "for the people, by the people," so why would anyone try to silence the people?
By undermining the voices of eminent minority groups like the NAACP and the NCLR, Art Brodsky, the Communications Director at Public Knowledge (PK) is doing just that. A comment on his blog post suggested that
"...the saddest part of the whole affair to date is the role of groups representing minority populations. For whatever reason - whether they believe what the Big Telecom companies tell them or not - many organizations seem to land on policies that hurt their constituencies and fall into ludicrous traps one suspects are not of their making."
His sentiment implies that well-respected organizations known for their century long fight for equal rights may be duped into a "trap" based on their so-called loyalty to "Big Telecom companies." At worst, Mr. Brodsky is trying to silence strong civil rights organizations. At best, his condescending commentary intends to devalue their intentions, research, and history.
After Mr. Brodsky posted his comments last week, Sylvia Aguilera, Executive Director of the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP) responded in a letter by demanding that PK "immediately repudiate the damaging statements." Now, PK has linked the minority groups' positioning to loyalty based on monetary contributions - effectively suggesting that they are being bribed into taking their stance. It would be naïve to think that operations of this sort never happen, but it is presumptuous and demeaning to suggest that money is the only factor on which their stance is based.
NDN has a history of partnering with organizations such as the NAACP and NCLR on a variety of issues, including the recent debate on the Vitter-Bennett amendment regarding the census. Therefore, we can attest to their sincerity and leadership in advocating for their respective communities' interests.
For someone that advocates an open source platform as Mr. Brodsky claims to by supporting net neutrality, it seems ironic that he would try to silence the developing discourse on this topic.
We have seen several examples from Republican congressional leaders willing to alienate Hispanics in the past few months. Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Bennett (R-UT) introduced an amendment to exclude millions of Hispanics from being counted in the congressional reapportionment process, Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted President Obama in a national address before the joint chambers of Congress to make a point about excluding Hispanic immigrants from a healthcare reform bill, and now even as something as innocent and patriotic as this, Republicans continue their quest to oppress and discriminate against Hispanics.
The story states:
In the case of the current resolution, however, there are obvious political sensibilities at stake. The Hispanic community, which has felt demonized by harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric from congressional Republicans and conservative media personalities, has gravitated further and further from the GOP tent. By declining Reid's efforts to sign on to a rather milquetoast resolution, the party may only exacerbate the alienation.
Senator Reid has been a frequent champion of the Hispanic community and issues important to the Hispanic community. Congressional Republicans decided long ago that they would implement Operation Obstruction, and attempt to block anything pushed by Senator Reid. What they fail to understand is that attacking Reid when he is fighting for Hispanics is also an attack on Hispanics. Their ignorance has led them to massive decline in support among Hispanics. The latest Research 2000 poll shows that Congressional Republicans enjoy just 8% favorability among Hispanic voters.
I guess it is true that you just can't teach an old dog new tricks.
A few days ago, our DropDobbs coalition sent an appeal to our supporters asking them to engage CNN and address their Lou Dobbs problem. As CNN is set to air their series Latino in America, I think it is important for people to express what Lou Dobbs has done to Latinos in America. A copy of the letter is below, and I hope you will join us in this movement.
Dear Friend,
With your help, we've been forcing a national conversation about why CNN needs to drop Lou Dobbs. And the pressure is clearly getting to Dobbs himself, who has lashed out at what he calls "ethnocentric interest groups [who] are trying to destroy me." Now we have a golden opportunity to keep the pressure on and take that conversation directly to CNN.
Together with our allies over at BastaDobbs.com and Democracia Ahora, we're organizing an action to force CNN to publicly answer for its Dobbs problem. CNN is asking people to submit pictures and videos to its "iReport" website in response to its special, Latino in America. This gives us a chance to call out CNN for supporting Dobbs' dangerous rhetoric right on CNN's web site! If enough of us act, we can get other news outlets to cover the story, and keep the momentum against Dobbs going.
Will you submit a picture or short video demanding that CNN deal with its Lou Dobbs problem? With the simple online tool, uploading just takes a few minutes, and we've provided suggestions of what you can say:
http://bastadobbs.com/lia/org/dropdobbs/
Dobbs has long been known for his anti-immigrant hate speech, but his venom has not been confined to proponents of immigration reform. Just last week, he unleashed a rant against African-Americans in Chicago over recent horrific violence, saying that the "black community is not being responsible" and that "the black churches, the black school leaders, the black community leaders, the black community organizers, the black parents of that community" should "quit whining" and fix the problem themselves.
http://bastadobbs.com/lia/org/dropdobbs/
We really appreciate all you've done so far. But we can't rest now. Please join us in calling out CNN, and ask your friends and family to do the same.
Laura Esquivel and Andres Ramirez Drop Dobbs Coalition
As the US Senate gears up to vote on Vitter-Bennett SA 2644, NDN offers some key commentary and information regarding the intent of this amendment and the problems that could occur as a result of this amendment.
Earlier this year, several Republican senators expressed outrage over the perception that the new White House Administration was playing politics with the Census. The outrage was so deep that US Senator Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as US Secretary of Commerce citing concerns over this perception to politicize the Census. Now these very same Republican Senators are resorting to the very same techniques they decried earlier this year. This amendment only serve serves to politicize and delegitimize what is expected to be a very nonpartisan process. The result could cost billions of dollars, and will complicate efforts to inform and prepare state and local governments for the changing demography and characteristics of this nation.
You can watch Senator Bennett's making his case for adding an 11th question to the census here:
Las Vegas, NV - In a piece published in the Washington Post today, Senators Vitter and Bennett once again reveal their motives for their Census legislation.
“If the current census plan goes ahead, the inclusion of non-citizens toward apportionment will artificially increase the population count in certain states, and that will likely result in the loss of congressional seats for nine other states, including Louisiana,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said in a statement issued Thursday.
It goes on to say:
Though Bennett has no issue with the Census counting everyone living in the U.S. regardless of citizenship status, he does not want illegal immigrants to sway Congressional representation.
Las Vegas, NV - The United States Senate is getting enmeshed in a very serious conversation at the moment that may appear to be innocent and practical. The debate is over a proposed amendment, SA 2644, to the Commerce, Justice, & Science Appropriations bill that is under consideration in the Senate.
The amendment seeks to force the US Census to redo their questionnaire to include an 11th question that would require everyone to identify their citizenship or legal status in this country. The stated purpose of the amendment is to gather an accurate count of the undocumented population in this country so that they can be excluded from the population count in the reapportionment of congressional districts after the Census is concluded.
They make many flawed reasons as to why this should happen, but the reality is that this is just another trick out of the old GOP play book to strike fear into their base by using race and scapegoating immigrants. We have seen this tactic several times this year and throughout the GOP history over the past 50 years. Simon has talked about this tactic calling them proxy wars for the eventual debate over fixing our nation's broken immigration system.
I will take some time to dismiss some of their reasoning for supporting the amendment, but want to make sure that everyone is aware of what the real debate is about with this amendment. What Vitter/Bennett are asking Americans to do is to establish a society in which we value some people more than others based on their race. They would like America to revert back to a time in which not all people were equal. They ask us to consider moments in our nation's history in which we only counted African Americans as 3/5 of a person, and to a time in which Native Americans were still excluded from society. These chapters of American history are long in our past, and America has done much to overcome the injustices of these eras. This debate is not just about protecting electoral votes and federal funding for their home states, this debate is about persuading Americans to think that it is ok to discriminate and punish peoples.
Any US Senator that doesn't see this is simply not paying attention. There is a reason so many organizations are rallying against this proposal-- including the NAACP, an organization that is well-versed in fighting proposals of discrimination. I applaud US Senator Harry Reid and the Obama administration for taking this issue seriously, and working to eliminate it from the bill. If Senators Vitter and Bennett want to have a discussion about race and equality in this country, then let's have that debate, but let's not disguise the issue and pretend that we are having a simple debate about adding an additional question to the Census form. Man up, and let's have this discussion in its proper setting and its proper time.
Now, so that people don't think that I am evading their reasons, lets pick them apart right here. First, let's not forget that the GOP was attacking the Obama administration earlier this year for what they claimed was a power grab to play politics with the Census. The issue led Senator Gregg to withdraw as a nominee for Secretary of Commerce. Vitter/Bennett have made it very clear that their motives are purely political for this amendment: to exclude undocumented persons from the count for the reapportionment of congressional seats. Second, the GOP has attacked the Administration for not being fiscally conservative, yet they have no problem with wasting up to an additional billion dollars to enact this scheme. Talk about Hypocrisy! Third, they claim that our country has precedent for not counting all people. Again, do you really want to have this debate? Finally, they claim that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that when drawing congressional districts, they should be comparable in number of voters according to Reynolds v Sims. Well Senator Bennett, you should hire a new legal counsel. The SCOTUS case regarding Reynolds v Sims was in relation to state legislative districts not congressional districts. That issue was dealt with a year later by SCOTUS in Wesberry v Sanders, in which they determined that congressional districts need to comparable in POPULATION.
So now that we got that over with, once again we will ask all US Senators to stand against this amendment. I understand that some members may see supporting this amendment as a short-term political gain for their states, but ultimately this is a long-term loss for America. Our nation has a great history of overcoming its past to build a better future, and I am confident that we can continue that tradition.
For more background on this subject, please read the following posts.
I am writing to you in regards to your recent column in “The Americano” titled “The Misguided Drop Dobbs Now Latino Campaign.” It is amazing to me that a Latino who chooses to work for an outfit funded by Newt Gingrich would call any other Latino efforts “Misguided.” In case you have forgotten, Newt Gingrich had one of the worst records in supporting Latinos during his tenure in Congress. In fact, during his last term in Congress, he received a score of 0% by the nonpartisan National Hispanic Leadership Agenda Congressional Scorecard.
You also mention that our efforts are “another tactical mistake just like they did a few years back when they organized major street protests.” How funny! Let me enlighten you again. The major protests that occurred during the heated immigration debate led to the largest increase in citizenship applications by Hispanic immigrants, and then translated into record turnout by Hispanic voters in the 2008 presidential election. You can learn all about it in our report Hispanics Rising II. The only tactical mistake going on here is that Newt thinks that simply by taking Spanish lessons and starting this website, that he will be able to deceive Hispanics into supporting his presidential bid.
“I am sure he would be more than happy now to have a leading Latino from La Raza come on his show so he could try to show them up.” What???? It seems as if you have no knowledge of anything that has been occurring in the Latino community for the past several years. Then again, that would make you a perfect choice for Newt’s new publication. Tell you what Ricardo, I would be more than happy to have you come to an NDN event so that you can try to show me up. If you are going to come after our efforts, you are going to have to come at us with more than that. Talk about misguided efforts.
Some Rights Reserved 2008 - Present, NDN.