If there is a checklist for Election Day preparations, policy makers, candidates, and voter registration advocates have covered many bases for 2010: state legislation has moved to improve (or sometimes impede) voting rights; voter registration drives are technologically advancing; and campaign spending is reaching record heights. But, a major component of elections-voter outreach and voter turnout-remains to be seen. If 2008 turnout is an indicator for voter participation in the upcoming major elections, would this be an opportunity for the electorate to finally close its representational gaps?
Which brings me to my theory. I believe that Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer have been planning to introduce an immigration-reform bill in 2010, not because they think it can be passed -- I think Drum is right, it has virtually no chance -- but because it will raise the issue back up to the big, national conservative marketplace.
You see, one of the biggest problems facing Democrats this year is that Hispanics don't vote in mid-term elections. That doesn't make a huge difference in most swing House districts (in fact, the issue hurts in more districts than it helps) -- but it could make a huge difference in quite a few US Senate races (Cal., Fla., Tex., Col., etc.), Governor races (Cal., Fla., Ariz., NM, NY, etc.), and (duh-duh-duuummm...) control over state legislatures heading into redistricting.
How do you get Hispanics to vote? You fill the TV with images of hateful conservatives screaming for mass deportation, that's how. You think Rahm didn't notice the effect in 2006?
On the one hand, there may be that benefit, as Mark opines, given the relative motivation on each side, particularly in what is likely to be a Republican year and how the Republican base feels about this issue. In addition, there's the December 2009 polling demonstrating immigration reform is a motivating factor for Hispanic voters:
A newly released poll of 1,010 Latino voters in twelve key states by Bendixen & Amandi reveals how Latino voters view the two major political parties on the issue, and how this perception impacts their vote. Among the findings:
* Immigration is a key issue for the Latino electorate. While more respondents chose issues such as the economy and health care than immigration as their number one priority, 78% said the immigration issue is important to them and their family, including 51% who called it "very important." The issue is particularly salient among the 55% of respondents who were foreign-born; 84% of foreign-born voters called the immigration issue "important," with 64% labeling it "very important."
* The vast majority of Latino voters support comprehensive immigration reform. By a 77%-11% margin, respondents favored an immigration plan that would legalize undocumented workers over one that would force most of the undocumented population to leave the country.
* Immigration reform is a personal issue to Latinos. Sixty-two percent of respondents reported having an undocumented friend, family member, neighbor, or co-worker. For these respondents, immigration reform is not an abstract concept discussed on the nightly news, but a personal matter that requires a fair and humane solution.
[...]
* Latinos are poised to make a difference in November. While this survey was conducted a year before the next election, and a lot can change in that time frame, 73% of respondents said they were very likely to vote in November 2010, and 20% said they were somewhat likely. Fully 65% said they were more likely to support generic Democratic candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, while 20% said they would vote Republican and 15% were undecided. However, 72% of Latino voters said they would not even consider voting for a candidate whose stance on immigration reform was to try and deport most undocumented immigrants.
Of course, you could say the same thing about many blocs on almost any issue- fill TV screens with Virginia Foxx and John Cornyn screaming about "special rights for homosexuals" and "men in women's bathrooms" on ENDA to turn out LGBT voters, for example. If this were true, then absent considerations about the legislative calendar and members not wanting to take certain votes, you'd hold votes on lots of things just for the inflammatory effect.
The other thing this whole discussion reminds me of is the discussion around holding a vote in the New York State Senate on marriage equality even if you knew it would fail by a large margin, 24-38. Since many members refused to state a position on the issue, having a vote gave advocates a target list to work with (Fight Back NY is one group that is already on the ground) and, in the aftermath, it certainly emboldened LGBT activists across the state.
Whether or not the same can be applied on immigration reform remains to be seen, but I wouldn't put it past someone at the White House seeing the politics of it, and it raises questions around the value of having issue fights for the sake of voter motivation, at least in part.
If California's non-voters made their voices heard, state policies could be dramatically reoriented in a more progressive direction, according to a new report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), "California's Exclusive Electorate," written by PPIC research director Mark Baldassare.
California's electorate is significantly whiter, older, wealthier, and more educated than the population at large. "As its population has become more diverse, its voters have become less representative of that population," the report, notes. "And the difference between voters and nonvoters is especially stark in attitudes toward government's role; elected officials; and many social issues, policies, and programs."
For example:
• Governor Schwarzenegger's reelection chances would plummet. In May 2006, non-voters disapproved far more sharply (61-21 percent) than likely voters (48-42 percent).
• The $3 billion affordable housing bond (Prop 1C) could easily pass: 80 percent of nonvoters support it, versus 49 percent of likely voters in a May poll.
• California could have bigger government and higher taxes: Nonvoters prefer higher taxes/more services to lower taxes/fewer services by a 66-26 percent margin, compared to 49-44 percent among voters.
The correlations revealed in the report reflect larger relationships observed across time and geographical boundaries. A 2001 paper from the Brookings Institute, "Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?" found a direct correlation between welfare state spending and the size of minority populations-the more minorities, the lower the levels of spending. This held true both internationally (comparing more then 60 different countries) and nationally (comparing all 50 states).
The broader pattern this report fit into strongtly indicates that similar sorts of results would be found all across America: if non-voters became voters, the political status quo could change dramatically. That's the number one reason that GOP hates and fears ACORN and Project Vote.
A couple of weeks ago, Brendan Nyhan caught my attention, pointing to a study dealing with a novel way of driving turnout that I found extremely interesting. But so much else was going on, and I was groping for the best way to contextualize it. Now I have my context---my diary earlier today, "Realignment Watch: Pew Reports On GOP Decline--Dems Have Yet To Capitalize".
The study, "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Largescale Field Experiment" [PDF] by Alan Gerber and Donald Green, both of Yale, and Christopher Larimer of the University Of Northern Iowa, was published in the American Political Science Review, What it says, simply, is that voter turnout can be dramatically increased--in some cases, at least--simply by sending folks a postcard with the right message on it. The right message was simply a record of their votring record, along with that of their nearby neighbors, a means of bringing social pressure to bear to motivate civic participation.
It's a hell of a lot cheaper than any of the more conventional GOTV methods, though of course it's significantly less targetted (no identifying "1s," "2s" and "3s"). But if your supporters are disproportionately folks who don't tend to vote automatically--i.e. if you're a progressive Democrat, or a moderate Republican in a primary--then this could make a lot of sense, particularly in tandem with the right mix of more conventional practices, which is probably more necessary for progressive Democrats than for moderate Republicans. It's my feeling that the potential realignment process going on around us offers another compelling reason to take a close look at what this study reports, and the opportunities it indicates.
STATE BLOGS
