Archives for posts with tag: Race

Here’s the race/ethnic share of the 549k Democrats, 588k Republicans, 272k NPAs, and 35k 3rd party voters who didn’t vote in 2012 but who cast ballots ahead of Election Day.

Dem Rep NPA 3rd Total
Other 5.0 3.2 9.3 4.19 5.1
Black 23.2 0.87 5.7 3.9 10.3
Hisp. 18.5 12.9 25.8 10.2 17.4
White 53.3 83.1 59.2 81.8 67.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100

And inversely, here’s party breakdown for the 73k other, 149k blacks, 251k Hispanics, and 970k whites who’ve already voted but who didn’t vote in 2012..

Dem Rep NPA 3rd Total
Other 37.9 25.4 34.8 2.0 100
Black 85.3 3.4 10.4 0.9 100
Hisp. 40.5 30.2 27.9 1.4 100
White 30.1 50.4 16.6 3.0 100
Total 38.0 40.7 18.8 2.4 100

 

Most importantly, here’s the breakdown of the analysis of the Florida electorate that I’ll be crunching tomorrow…

Here’s the racial/ethnic breakdown by gender of the 2.27m Democrats who have voted Early-In-Person or have had their Vote-by-Mail ballots processed by the the state’s 67 Supervisors of Elections through yesterday, November 5, 21016.

democratic-gender-raceethnic-breakdown-nov-4

Here are the latest numbers I’ve crunched from this morning’s update from the Florida Division of Elections.

Old Florida hands know that aggregate breakdown of EIP and VBM votes cast by party are generously provided by the Florida Division of Elections. The state does not provide other breakdowns. That’s what I’ve been cranking out this election cycle. And I match the daily totals with those cast in the 2012 GE.

So, enough with the primer. Here are the Early In-Person votes cast by party and race/ethnicity as of 5am this morning, as well as a 2016 graph of age by day.fl-ev-through-nov-3-2016-2012-comparison-partyfl-ev-through-nov-3-2016-2012-comparison-raceethnicityfl-ev-through-nov-3-2016-2012-comparison-age

fl-2012-eip-ballots-cast-by-party-by-racefl-2012-eip-ballots-cast-by-party-by-race-daily

fl-2012-absentee-ballots-received-by-race-by-day

In light of several news articles that have reported the findings of a recent joint NCSL & PEW Report, “Who We Elect: The Demographics of State Legislatures,” I thought it might be useful to convey some points made by Dr. Carl Klarner regarding the inherent problem when comparing “average” state legislative racial and ethnic (and other socio-demographic data) with national averages.  As Klarner writes in his recent Report (p6),

“state level figures [should] always [be] weighted by state population when being averaged to the nation level. This is done to approximate the importance of a particular state legislative chamber….
The issue of weighting by population is especially relevant to assessing minority representation, as it makes a big difference. Reports of minority state legislators frequently state them as a percentage of all legislators in the country.17  It is also sometimes asserted that descriptive representation is lower in state legislatures than in the U.S. House. But it is important to take the varying size of state legislative districts into account. For example, there are currently 498 African-American state house members, or 9.2% of the 5,411 state house members in the United States. But African-American state house members actually represent 11.9% of the United States, if you factor in the size of the districts they represent. This is substantially closer to the 13.7% of the United States that is African-American.18  The simple reason for this is that Northeastern states, with unusually large state houses, have few African-Americans living in them. Looking at minority descriptive representation in this way gives us more insight into what types of electoral arrangements are conducive to the fair representation of racial minorities.”

I agree with Dr. Klarner. Weighting state legislators by population is essential when comparing national averages with minority representation across the 99 state legislative chambers.

According to the 2010-2014 5-year averages of the American Community Survey (ACS), conducted by the U.S. Census, African-Americans make up approximately 13.7% of the national population, Hispanics 16.9%, and Asians 5.9%.

According to Dr. Klarner, here are the percentages of current state legislators who are racial/ethnic minorities, unweighted v. weighted:

State House Members                   Unweighted                Weighted

  • African-American:                       9.2%                             11.9%
  • Latino                                           4.0%                               8.5%
  • Asians                                          1.5%                              2.3%

 

State Senators                                Unweighted                Weighted

  • African-American:                         8.3%                             10.1%
  • Latino                                           3.6%                               6.9%
  • Asians                                          1.7%                              1.9%

 

More later…

 

William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Mitchell D. Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith
Forthcoming in Political Research Quarterly.
Available here.
Abstract
We undertake a comprehensive examination of restrictive voter ID legislation in the American states from 2001 through 2012. With a dataset containing approximately one thousand introduced and nearly one hundred adopted voter ID laws, we evaluate the likelihood that a state legislature introduces a restrictive voter ID bill, as well as the likelihood that a state government adopts such a law. Voter ID laws have evolved from a valence issue into a partisan battle, where Republicans defend them as a safeguard against fraud while Democrats indict them as a mechanism of voter suppression. However, voter ID legislation is not uniform across the states; not all Republican-controlled legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voter ID laws. Instead, our findings show it is a combination of partisan control and the electoral context that drives enactment of such measures. While the prevalence of Republican lawmakers strongly and positively influences the adoption of voter ID laws in electorally competitive states, its effect is significantly weaker in electorally uncompetitive states. Republicans preside over an electoral coalition that is declining in size; where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.

Race, Party, and the Consequences of Restricting Early Voting in Florida in the 2012 General Election

Political Research Quarterly

Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith

Abstract

In mid-2011, the Florida legislature reduced the state’s early voting period from fourteen days to eight and eliminated the final Sunday of early voting. We compare observed voting patterns in 2012 with those in the 2008 General Election and find that racial/ethnic minorities, registered Democrats, and those without party affiliation had significant early voting participation drops and that voters who cast ballots on the final Sunday in 2008 were disproportionately unlikely to cast a valid ballot in 2012. Florida’s decision to truncate early voting may have diminished participation rates of those already least likely to vote.

OnlineFirst: February 24, 2014

Available: Full Text (PDF)

“Race, Shelby County, and the Voter Information Verification Act in North Carolina”
Michael C. Herron and Daniel A. Smith
February 11, 2014

Abstract

Shortly after the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the state of North Carolina enacted an omnibus piece of election-reform legislation known as the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA). Prior to Shelby portions of North Carolina were covered jurisdictions per the VRA’s Sections 4 and 5—meaning that they had to seek federal preclearance for changes to their election procedures—and this motivates our assessment of whether VIVA’s many alterations to North Carolina’s election procedures are race-neutral. We show that black early voters in North Carolina have in presidential elections cast their ballots disproportionately in the first week of early voting, an early voting week that VIVA has eliminated; that blacks in the state disproportionately have registered to vote during early voting and in the immediate run-up to Election Day, something that VIVA prohibits; that North Carolina registered voters who lack two VIVA-acceptable forms of voter identification, drivers licenses and nonoperator identification cards, are disproportionately black; that VIVA’s identification dispensation for voters at least 70 years is a disproportionate benefit to whites; and, that preregistered 16 and 17-year old voters in North Carolina, a category of registrants that VIVA prohibits, are disproportionately black. These results illustrate how VIVA will have a disparate effect on black voters in North Carolina.


Available for download, here

Early Voting in Florida in the Aftermath of House Bill 1355
Michael C. Herron & Daniel A. Smith
April 15, 2013
%d bloggers like this: