Local Political Participation
Transcript of Local Political Participation
Local Political Participation
• Why such variation across places/states in turnout?
• What barriers to participation? • Is high participation a good thing? • What ‘bias’ if low participation?
– What should be done?
• Thomas Jefferson believed that ordinary citizens should be engaged in local politics
• State and local governments are closest to most problems
• Yet, people more likely vote in national elections
Introduction: Is All Politics Local?
Democratic Theory and Local Participation
• Greek polis
• Anti Federalists
• Modern US Politics – “action” in DC
• Prepare paper topic proposal • 1 paragraph
– potential topic – potential sources – phrase topic as a question
• Due NEXT Tuesday (4/26)
• No lecture Thursday 4/21 – read Donovan et al Chapter 3 – Judd Chapter 5 & 6
This Week
• 40 years of trying • 1960s riots, powerlessness
– Voting Rights Act, War on Poverty
• 1980s - today – GOTV, fewer barriers
• People trust local govt more than national.. • Participation is much more than voting Voting • What vehicles for mass participation? • What barriers?
Irony of Political Participation
• 1) Voting • Registration barriers • Election system barriers
– VRA 1964….”pre-clearance” rules
• What if voting = no chance of representation? – At-large elections
• What if no information? – Non partisan elections
Modes of Political Participation
• Voting: effects of reforms On year Off Year
Non-partisan 55% 38% Partisan 64% 47%
Modes of Political Participation
• Voting Lower turnout when: Council - manager Off-year Bedroom community West, south
Modes of Political Participation
• 2) Contacting and Contributing – Why?
• NIMBY, ___________ , __________
• Who? – Wealthy
– efficacy
Modes of Political Participation
• 3) Attending Meetings – 63% of wealthy attend mtgs, 31% of poor.
• 4) Interest Group Activity – Lobbying
• 30% of wealthy in groups that took action; 9 % of poor
Modes of Political Participation
• 4) Interest Groups • Civic
– Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, L of WV, etc. – 1960s, councilors said these most important
actors at meetings; few mentioned economic groups…in decline??
• Economic – Chamber of Commerce, BIAW, merchant groups – Logic of Collective Action
Modes of Political Participation
• 4) Interest Groups
• Neighborhood Groups – NIMBY, episodic groups – City Plan inspired groups – Federal program inspired groups
• “maximum feasible participation
Modes of Political Participation
• 5) Social Movements & Protest – Public demonstrations – American Civil Rights Movement – What contemporary equivalent?
Modes of Political Participation
• 6) Local Political Parties – Limited role / ltd power – PCOs; County committees – Set platforms, recruit candidates, GOTV – Some local orgs with $$
• WA Initiative 134
Modes of Political Participation
• Local participation is declining
– Down 50% since 1967 (?!?) • Is local politics less relevant to people’s
lives today?
• Why so much variation across states?
Political Participation
• Turnout varies across states • Most race based barriers gone
– Racial gerrymandering – Literacy tests – Poll taxes – Grandfather clauses – The Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to
end discrimination against African Americans
Barriers to Participation at the State and Local Level
Barriers to Participation at the State and Local Level
• Registration barriers that remain • Ineligible voters
– Felons (except ME and VT) – Non-citizens – Some states are more restrictive than others
• Non-competitive elections – At-large elections are city-wide – Part of Progressive Era reforms
Barriers to Participation at the State and Local Level
• The effect of place – Smaller communities participate more
• Independent of SES …. Why? – Those with social capital—social skills
• Personal barriers – Lack of information, lack of time, lack of
efficacy
Breaking Down Barriers to Voter Participation
• Federal government involvement – Voting Rights Act of 1965, & amended – Anti-poverty programs, 1960s – 1970s
• State-level reform efforts – Early voting – Internet voting
• Reforms may increase turnout slightly – But interest & engagement matter…
Breaking Down Barriers to Voter Participation
• How increase citizen engagement ? – Competitive elections, more access
• Experiments with alternative local elections – Semi-proportional elections – Cumulative voting
• E-government – Electronic media – Cable TV – The Web
Does Participation Make State and Local Policy More Representative?
• Primary election systems allow more participation – Affect how ‘representative’ officials are
• Participation bias—those who participate are different from those who don’t
• Low turnout may result in over-representation of the wealthy
Local Elections and Representation
• Local campaign spending reforms – Spending affects who wins, loses
• What bias re: who runs, who wins?
– Limit contributions • In WA new limits in local races ($800) • Mayor, city council, county council
– Campaigns need $; spending = information – “Clean money” proposals
• full public financing…what effects?
• A healthy LOCAL democracy depends on engaged citizens
• There are still barriers to participation
• Since institutions change, they can be altered to reduce these barriers
Summary
• Political incorporation of non-whites slow in cities (see Chpt 6 J&S)
• Why important? – Virtues of “descriptive” representation – Empowerment theory – Fairness
• History of discrimination
• Progress in US House & in larger cities
Minority Representation
• Voting Rights Act, 1965 • Section 2 coverage (permanent, national) • Section 5 coverage (temporary, extended) • Section 203 coverage • Amended and extended
– (1975, 1982, 1992; 2006 for 25 more years)
Minority Representation
• Section 2 coverage enforces 15th Amend. • Prohibits “minority vote dilution”
– Tactics, rules, situations that weaken the voting strength of minorities (literacy tests)
– Prohibits local governments from using discriminatory election rules that give minorities unfair chance of electing candidates of their choice
• What tactics? Which minorities? • What proof of discrimination
Minority Representation
• Section 2 allows plaintiff to challenge local election rules if
• (1982 amendment): – History of discrimination – Racially polarized voting – Use of rules (like At Large) that dilute vote support – Exclusion of candidates from ‘slating’ process – Discrimination in education, employment, health – Overt or subtle racial appeals in campaigns – Levels of minority success in election to office – Lack of policy responsiveness
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage • Requires US Atty General or US DC of DC
to “pre-clear” any changes to state and local election rules in “covered jurisdictions”
• Must consider EFFECT of rules (retrogression) • Is “purpose” or “intent” to dilute minority
vote power – District to At-large; Number of seats, district
boundaries…
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage • Any change can’t deny right to vote on
basis of race, color, or language group
• What about right to representation?
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage • Will change affect the number of minority elected
officials? • Covered areas:
– Places that had used ‘test’ or ‘device’ to restrict registration and voting; places where less than 50% registered or voted
– All of AL, AK, AZ, GA,LA, MS, SC, TX, VA (+ HI & ID originally?)
– Parts of CA, FL, MI, NH, NY, NC, SD
Minority Representation
• Section 5 coverage
• Should places be able to opt out • Should new places be added
Minority Representation
• Section 203 coverage (1992, 2006) • Language minorities
– Link btwn. language and low turnout – Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Native
American, Eskimo • 10,000 in jurisdiction, or 5% of citizen VAP
– Rules & practices must be evaluated to see if language group discriminated against.
Minority Representation
• Section 2 cases still common • US v. Salem Co. NJ (2008) • US v. School Board of Osceola Co, FL (2008) • US v. City of Philadelphia (2007) • US v. City of Long County GA (2006) • US v. City of Boston (2006) • US v State of South Dakota (2000)
Minority Representation
[T]hrough the use of various practices and procedures, citizens of language minorities have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. Among other factors, the denial of the right to vote of such minority group citizens is ordinarily directly related to the unequal educational opportunities afforded them resulting in high illiteracy and low voting participation. The Congress declares that, in order to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, it is necessary to eliminate such discrimination by prohibiting these practices, and by prescribing other remedial devices.
Minority Representation
• Section 203 Covered jurisdictions • Based on VRA formula & census: • US Citizens of single language group over
10,000 in jurisdiction • Is more than 5% of population
• On reservation, 5% of all residents • Illiteracy rate of groups higher than national
average • What remedies?
Minority Representation
White AfrAm Latino US pop 69% 12 13 State leg 89 8 2 Local ??? ??? Most non-whites elected at local level are
from states covered by the VRA: 66% of Asians, 61% of Blacks, 82 %
Latinos
Minority Representation
• But representation does not always require Majority Minority context
• % of Local Black elected officials from Majority Black counties • County 30% • School Board 18% • City Town 20%
Minority Representation
• USSC backing away from VRA • 2009 challenge to Section 5 • Granting places power to “bail out”
• Nortwest Austin v Holder
• Some site election of Obama as reason to
weaken VRA
Minority Representation
• Last points:
• The issue in WA
• Cumulative voting as alternative
• Number of votes = number of seats
Minority Representation