Tonight NDN will host a special screening of acclaimed documentary9500 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 filmmakersAnnabel 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This afternoon, the United States Senate voted 60-39 on the motion to invoke cloture on HR 2847, Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, rejecting the harmful amendment proposed by Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Bennett (R-UT). NDN, along with 20 other leading advocacy organizations worked relentlessly over the past weeks to defeat this divisive amendment. The Vitter-Bennett amendment would have irresponsibly disrupted the census next year and threatened the accuracy of the national reapportionment process in the years that follow.
Today's important vote would not have been possible without Harry Reid's strong leadership and commitment to justice. NDN would also like to thank the strong coalition of advocacy groups that joined together to lead this effort.
Andres Ramirez, Senior Vice President at NDN and a leading voice in this debate said, "The Vitter-Bennett Amendment would have irresponsibility disrupted the census process next year. We are proud of Senator Reid and the Senate for voting it down. It is now much more likely that we have a clean and accurate census count next year."
Simon Rosenberg, President of NDN, said "I want to thank the 60 Senators who voted for cloture today, and for the dozens of groups who worked so far to defeat this irresponsible amendment. There is no doubt that if it had passed it would have disrupted the census next year, and reapportionment the years after. I don't think this fight is over but this was an important victory for common sense and good government today." For more information, follow this link to NDN's backgrounder on Census 2010, Immigration and Reapportionment.
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.
Happy Friday! For those of you that have been following the Vitter-Bennett amendment discussions, we wanted to make sure you knew about another forum for information: Don't Wreck The Census
We have partnered with this site in order to provide another excellent resource for up to date information surrounding the census debate. On it, you will also find resources that allow you to take action by calling or writing your representative. Click here to tell your representatives to vote NO on the Vitter-Bennett amendment.
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.
Some Rights Reserved 2008 - Present, NDN.