GENDER AND ETHNICITY: THE POLITICAL INCORPORATION OF LATINA AND LATINO STATE LEGISLATORS

Transcription

1 GENDER AND ETHNICITY: THE POLITICAL INCORPORATION OF LATINA AND LATINO STATE LEGISLATORS Luis Ricardo Fraga Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study Stanford University Valerie Martinez-Ebers Texas Christian University Ricardo Ramírez Stanford University Linda Lopez American Political Science Association Inequality and Social Policy Seminar, John F. Kennedy School of Government, November 10, 2003 An earlier version was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30-September 2, We gratefully acknowledge research assistance provided by Christina Bejarano, Elena Villarreal, Catherine Crump, Vanesa López, and Jacob Valtierra.

2 GENDER AND ETHNICITY: THE POLITICAL INCORPORATION OF LATINA AND LATINO STATE LEGISLATORS The growing participation of communities of color, including African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, reflects major change in the structure and operation of American politics in the latter part of the twentieth century. Beginning with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the numbers of African Americans, Latinos, and Asians who are members of the electorate has increased considerably. 1 For example, the Current Population Survey (CPS) determined that in % of eligible whites were registered to vote, as were 63.7% of African Americans. In that year, it was also estimated that 55.2% of Latino citizens and 49.1% of Asian Americans were registered. The disparity between blacks and whites is small and although Latinos and Asian Americans lag behind, they have been making steady progress over the last twenty years. Perhaps even more important is the increased and sustained presence of elected representatives of communities of color. In 1970, for example, it was estimated that there were 1,469 African American elected officials. In 1980 there were 4,912 and it is estimated that there are currently over 8, The National Association for Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) found that there were 3,128 Latino elected officials in 1984, 4,625 in 1994, and now over 4, By these measures, the political incorporation 4 of communities of color has increased significantly in the last twenty-five years. A little appreciated and largely understudied aspect of these above changes, however, is whether incorporation has included equal participation by men and women. For example, has electoral 1 The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was passed by a bipartisan coalition in Congress in It had the full endorsement of President Lyndon Baines Johnson. In 1975 the Voting Rights Act was expanded to include language minorities. Among the groups now protected under certain provisions of the VRA were Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. See Grofman and Davidson, 1992, and Davidson and Grofman, Williams (1990); Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, NALEO 1984, 1994, Political incorporation is defined as the extent to which self-identified group interests are articulated, represented, and met in public policy making (Fraga and Ramírez, 2001, p. 2). For a fuller discussion of political incorporation see Fraga and Ramirez, 2001, pp

3 participation among women of color been below, equal, or superior to that of men of color? Relatedly, given gender disparities in American electoral politics, has the number of women public officials of color reached parity with the number of men of color who have been elected to office? Lastly, will the presence of elected women of color change the nature of policy making in any systematic way? In this essay, we analyze patterns of election and policy advocacy for Latinas in state legislative office in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for the period Our focus on the state level stems from the increasing role that states play in the implementation of much national policy. Additionally, state government arguably has the greatest policy responsibility in areas of special relevance to communities of color such as health care, education, and criminal justice. We begin by examining patterns of election. It is well documented that women and members of ethnic groups have been more successful in gaining office than at any previous time in our nation s history. What is this precise trend in the 1990s? Are these trends increasing or have they begun to plateau? We are especially interested in determining if the success of women and members of ethnic groups also results in similar success for women of color? Additionally, do these trends hold in each of our states? We then conduct an exploratory analysis of legislative priorities, strategizing, and success among a group of Latina and Latino legislators in California and Texas. 5 Our purpose here is to begin to understand how female legislators affect public policy making as they simultaneously reflect gender interests, ethnic interests, and constituency interests. We conclude our essay with a consideration of whether Latina representatives have the greatest potential to successfully advocate not only on behalf of the interests of Latinas, but on behalf of all Latino interests as well. Although representation is critical to any understanding of increasing access to government by communities of color, this representation is highly limited if it does not translate into effective public policy benefit on behalf of communities of color. Is it possible that in embodying the largest multiplicity of identities and therefore interests, as defined by fundamental 5 We make no claim that our small sample of initial face-to-face interviews is a representative sample. We use these semi-structured interviews as a pretest to better understand the issues under examination. We will use the information from these interviews to construct a survey questionnaire that will be submitted to all Latina and Latino state legislators in eleven states across the country. 2

4 cleavages in society, Latina legislators are best positioned to build the cross-cutting coalitions that are vital to the enactment of legislation at the state level? If this is so, what are the implications for understanding the most fruitful paths to the political incorporation of communities of color generally? LATINAS AND LATINOS IN ELECTIVE OFFICE Montoya, Hardy-Fanta, and Garcia (2000) recently published the most thorough review of gender differences among Latinos and Latinas in participation and representation. These authors reach several important conclusions regarding mass participation, party identification, nonelectoral participation, and public opinion (pp ). Few studies, however, have focused on Latinas in formal elective office. 6 Montoya, Hardy-Fanta, and Garcia (2000) list only four studies in this regard: Pachón and DeSipio (1992), Takash (1993), Sierra and Sosa-Riddell (1994), and Hardy-Fanta (2000). Pachón and DeSipio found in 1992 that Latinas comprised 30.1% of all Latina/o elected officials in 1992 when women as a whole were only 17.2% of all elected officials in the country (as reported in Montoya, Hardy-Fanta, and Garcia, 2000, p. 558). Takash s study was specific to Latina elected officials in California (1993). Her survey of 50.6% of the 150 existing Chicana/Latina elected officials in the early 1990s revealed that proportionally, more Latinas serve as elected officials than women in general (p. 341), and that 64% had never experienced prior elective or appointive office although 68% participated in campaign work, 61% claimed community activism and 70% served as board members of local organizations (p. 344). She also found that 67% won in at-large elections for local office, 68.2% were the first Latinas to serve in their positions (p. 344), and that while over 80% of Latina officials supported feminist goals, just over 50% actually labeled themselves as feminists. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, she found that these officials seemed more concerned with issues affecting Latinos generally that those that might be considered women-specific (p. 353). Sierra and Sosa-Riddell state that in 1987 there were a total of 592 Chicana/Latina elected officials and in 1989 there were 744. They also note that Latinas have been 6 Pachón and DeSipio (1990) published the most comprehensive review to date of Latino legislators and Latino caucuses. Their review includes the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, New York, and Texas. Although very interesting data is provided regarding generational status, previous offices held, constituency, average length of service, and policy priorities, there is no mention of gender. 3

5 recently elected to important positions at national, state and local levels (Sierra and Sosa-Riddell, 1994, pp ). Hardy-Fanta found that [b]etween 1968 and 1994, Latinas [in Massachusetts] won 56% of their election campaigns while Latino men won only 15% (as reported in Montoya, Hardy-Fanta, and Garcia, 2000, p. 559). Although not specific to elected officials, there is one conclusion that several authors note regarding the distinct ways in which Latinas generally view politics that has direct implications for the type of representation that may be provided by Latina as compared to Latino elected officials. Hardy- Fanta (1993) was among the first to develop the argument that Latino men define politics in the conventional terms of political positions, voting, and elections. Latinas, by contrast, view politics in a much broader sense. For them, politics is an interactive process that revolves around making connections. She states that Latinas emphasize connectedness, collectivity, community, and consciousness [that] promotes a participatory model of politics (Hardy-Fanta, 1993, p. 153). Relatedly, Pardo argues that grassroots politics, as distinct from electoral politics happens at the juncture between larger institutional politics and people s daily experiences. Women [she continues] play a central role in the often unrecorded politics at this level (1998, p. 5). Latino men do not serve in this role. These authors suggest that there may be a distinctive perspective to the politics of Latinas as compared to Latinos. It must be remembered, however, that the women examined in these studies were all community activists. 7 Are such differences in political perspectives and behavior reflected among men and women who hold similar elective office, such as within a state legislature, where formal hierarchies of power are very clear? Perhaps most importantly, should not strategies that focus on making connections and related building of consensus work particularly well in the legislative arena where coalition-building is a major goal of all legislators? 7 Although Pardo does note the very critical role played by County Supervisor Gloria Molina in informing her constituents of the policy issue that would serve as the focus of Mothers of East Los Angeles (Pardo, 1998, p ). 4

6 The literature on women in elective office has reached several important conclusions with implications for our study. Carroll (1985) noted that men and women in equivalent levels of elective office hold very similar political ambitions. However, Lyn (1994) found very significant differences between styles of advocacy among state legislators in committee hearings. Reingold (1996) found in her study of self-reported legislative strategies among a sample of male and female state legislators that they were equally likely to endorse feminine or feminist leadership styles and concepts of power that stress the value of compromise, consensus-building, equality, and honesty and not use stereotypically masculine behavior involving hierarchically based manipulation and coercion of others (p. 464). She concludes that perhaps institutional norms as opposed to gender norms are more useful bases of considering differences among men and women legislators (Ibid). Although legislative strategies may be similar, Thomas (1991) found that women in states with the highest percentages of female representatives introduce and pass more priority bills dealing with issues of women, children, and families than men in their states and more than their female counterparts in low representation legislatures (p. 958). PATTERNS OF ELECTION TO STATE OFFICE Our examination of the election of women, Latinos, and Latinas to legislative office 8 in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas reveals several interesting patterns. The election of women to state legislatures increased across the decade of the 90s, although gender parity was reached in no state. As revealed in Figure 1 and Table 1, despite some drops in the percentages of women in legislatures in Arizona and California between certain elections, the upward trajectories in each state are clear. However, there is considerable variation in the overall presence of women across these state legislatures. Texas consistently has the lowest percentage of women across the time period having gone from 12.7% women in 1990 to a high of only 18.2% in Arizona, by contrast, has the highest percentage across the ten years. In 1990, 34.4% of the Arizona legislature was comprised of women; it reached its highest 8 We summed the number of senators with the number of members in the lower chamber. We do not include election to statewide office in this analysis. 5

7 point in 1996 at 37.8%, and was at 35.6% in The trend in Arizona was basically flat, however, the magnitude of gender representation remained impressive. California, by contrast, had 17.5% female state legislators in 1990 and increased to 25.8% in The greatest increase occurred in New Mexico which went from a low of 13.4% in 1990 to an impressive 31.3% in 2000, an increase of over 250 percent. To what extent are these patterns of gender representation replicated in patterns of ethnic representation? Do states with higher levels of gender representation also have higher levels of ethnic representation in their state legislatures? Are the trends developing at similar rates? Figure 2 reveals that in the 1990s, the level and pace of ethnic representation was quite distinct from that of gender representation. In Arizona and New Mexico, Latino 9 representation in the state legislature has remained the same across the years examined. In 1990, 12.2% of Arizona state representatives were Latino, and in 1998 the figure was the same 12.2%. In New Mexico, Latino representation was 35.7% in 1990, and 36.6% in Texas displays a slight increase from 13.8% Latino representatives in 1990 to 18.8% in Only in California is there an increase in Latino representation over the decade that is substantial. Only 5.8% of the California legislature was comprised of Latinos in By 1998, however, a full 19.2% was comprised of Latino representatives. This is an increase of just over 330%. What these data allow us to conclude is that patterns of gender representation do not predict similar patterns of ethnic representation. This is not altogether surprising. It is well understood that just over half of the registered voters across the country is female, whereas the percentages of voters comprised by Latinos can vary considerably based on region and especially citizenship status. Relatedly, it is also well understood that ethnic representation tends to increase as house and senate districts are comprised by higher percentages of ethnic voters. This voter concentration does not apply to women candidates. What then are the patterns of representation for Latinas? Do they seem to benefit from greater representation of women generally? Alternatively, is their representation greater if there is greater representation of Latinos overall? 9 As used here, Latino includes both male and female Latina/o representatives. 6

8 In each of our states, the number of Latinas elected to legislatures has increased substantially. This has occurred even though it was only in California where overall Latino legislative representation greatly increased. Stated differently, as revealed in Figure 3, Latinas have come to comprise larger percentages of the Latino delegations in each of our states. Such an increase especially occurred in Arizona and New Mexico where, as previously stated, ethnic representation was basically flat throughout the period examined. Texas experienced a modest increase in Latino representation, but an even higher increase in the presence of Latinas. Again, as revealed in Figure 3 and Table 1, California is an anomaly. At the same time that Latino representation generally was increasing, Latina representation was increasing at an even faster rate. In 1990 Latinas in California comprised only 14.3% of the California Latina/o state legislative delegation; by 1998 Latinas comprised a full 43.5%. These data suggest that the patterns of Latina state legislative representation may be more tied to increasing gender representation than to increasing ethnic representation. Latina representation increases even when Latino representation remains constant. One final way to understand the increasing presence of Latinas in state legislatures is revealed in Table 2. We calculated an ethnic-gender representation parity ratio (EGPR) where: EGPR = # Latina Legislators / # Latina/o Legislators # Women Legislators / # Total Legislators As the EGPR approaches 1.0, the gender parity within the Latina/o delegation matches the gender parity in the legislature as a whole. Values over 1.0 reveal that gender representation of Latinas is greater within the Latina/o delegation than in the legislature as a whole; values under 1.0 reveal Latina underrepresentation relative to gender representation in the legislature as a whole. In Arizona and New Mexico, Latinas are consistently represented at lower levels than one would expect given gender representation in their respective legislatures as a whole. In Texas, Latinas are present at levels that surpass those of women generally. It must be remembered, however, that Texas has the lowest level of gender representation of any of our states. Although in 1990, California Latina representatives were 7

9 present at levels lower than those of women generally, this changed in By 1998, Latinas in the California legislature had the highest level of presence in the Latina/o delegation of any state. LATINA LEGISLATORS IN CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS The above discussion reveals that state specific analysis can be extremely useful in more fully understanding the varying patterns of Latina political incorporation. We continue this state specific methodology by examining patterns of legislative advocacy by Latinas in California and Texas. We look at these two states because they contain the largest numbers of Latinos among the fifty states. Half of all Latina/os in the U.S. live in the states of California and Texas; 31% of all Latinos live in California and 19% live in Texas. Latinos also represent the largest minority population in both states and the fastest growing, except for the Asian population, which is still considerably smaller. Aside from these similarities, however, there are significant differences in these states political institutions, practices, and culture. Institutional characteristics such as legislative structure, partisan competition, and term limits might work to structure the ways in which Latina legislative advocacy occurs. These differences allow us to consider the effects of political context on the nature and success of Latina incorporation. THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS California is a state that is known for its extremes in politics as it is known for its extremes in lifestyle. It is the state that has produced electoral majorities for former presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan within its Republican ranks, as well as former Governor Jerry Brown and current Senator Barbara Boxer from the Democratic Party. The state can boast both the conservative politics of Orange County in the south as well as the progressive politics of San Francisco in the north. Not surprisingly, California is a state with a politics that has rarely been fixed for extended periods of time. Both Democrat and Republican parties have been dominant in the past, and other periods have largely been characterized by two-party competition. It has had a history of business dominance with related allegations of corruption and graft ( ), progressive-republican reform ( ), Republican dominance ( ), Democratic dominance ( ), and periods of two-party competition ( , ) (Bell and Price, 1992, pp ). 8

10 Four characteristics of California state government are most important for understanding the current institutional context within which legislators operate. One, since the early 1900s, California has had several of the most important legislative, electoral, and partisan reforms of the Progressive Era. California voters can directly enact legislation through the initiative process, overturn legislation through the popular referendum, and remove state officials from office through recall election (Bell and Price, 1992, p. 48). 10 Each of these reforms can place considerable limits on the formal processes of policy making in the state legislature. Two, since the adoption of Proposition 1A in 1966, California has had one of the most professionalized legislatures in the country. Legislators can set their own salaries within certain limits, determine their own legislative calendar, meet annually for a nine-month legislative session, maintain sizeable personal and committee staff, and have the nonpartisan Assembly and Senate Offices of Research (Bell and Price 1992, pp ). Both members of the Assembly and Senators receive an annual salary of $99,000 as well as a car, per diem, and other benefits. Three, and in potential conflict with this professionalization, since 1990, California state officials have operated under lifelong term limits. A legislator can serve in the Assembly for a maximum of three two-year terms (six years), in the Senate for a maximum of two four-year terms (eight years), and statewide elected officials including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, and Superintendent of Public Instruction are limited to two four-year terms (eight years). 11 Such term limits allow for more political amateurs to gain office and could enhance the influence of lobbyists in the state capital. Four, among the most important players in the legislative process are the Governor and the Speaker of the State Assembly. The formal authority of the governor, as exercised through the budgetary process, the general and item veto, and the powers of appointment, makes this office one of the most powerful in the country. The Speaker s powers make this position the second most powerful in the 10 California has also long had the direct primary, state mandated nonpartisan local elections, and a civil service (Bell and Price, 1992, p. 48). 11 The other statewide executive position is the Insurance Commissioner. This person is not subject to any term limits. 9

11 legislative process. This person appoints all committee chairs, all members to committees (except the Rules Committee), and controls floor action (Bell and Price, 1992, p. 179). California is now the third most Democratic state in the nation as measured by the number of state and national elected officials. 12 Currently, Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in both the Assembly and the Senate. Democrats hold 48 (54%) of the 80 Assembly seats and 25 (63%) of the 40 Senate seats. Democrats hold, however briefly, every statewide partisan elective office including governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, controller, treasurer, insurance commissioner, and superintendent of public instruction. 13 Although Latinos comprise an estimated 32% of the statewide population, they accounted for only 16% of the statewide electorate in 2002, and were estimated at 17% in This 17%, however, represents a doubling of their electoral influence since Perhaps most importantly, Latinos are the fastest growing component of the successful statewide coalitions put together by Democratic candidates. For example, a total of thirteen elections have been held for president (3), governor (5), and U.S. senator (5) from Democrats have won ten of these. 14 In seven of these nine, i.e., just over two-thirds, Latinos were critical contributors, in combination with African American and Asian Americans, to the victories of the Democratic candidates. In four of these ten, i.e., 40%, the Democrats would not have won without Latino support. 15 Most significantly, Latinos are the largest and fastest growing segment of the California from One study estimates that Latinos account for 90% of all newly registered voters in California in the last ten years (Field Institute, 2000). In comparison to California, the Texas political context has had few institutional changes since the passage of its current state constitution in Beginning in 1872, state politics were dominated for 12 The state where Democrats hold larger percentages of state and national office are Hawaii and Maryland. 13 The Governor initially appoints all members of the State Supreme Court. They must however stand for election if they wish to serve a second term. The elections are formally nonpartisan. 14 The two successful Republican victories were by Pete Wilson for governor in 1990 and These findings are based upon analysis of exit poll data. See Fraga and Ramírez, 2001, for a fuller discussion of the increasing electoral influence of Latino voters in California.. 10

12 more than 100 years by Democrats, and most often conservative Democrats. This domination had its origins in reforms introduced in the post-reconstruction Era when Democrats regained control of the legislature from the Civil War Era Radical Republicans. In direct response to the desire to limit the powers of state government, Democrats enacted a constitution that significantly restricts the authority and compensation of elected officials and allows the legislature to meet for only 120 days every two years. As a result, Texas legislators are part-time nonprofessionals with annual salaries set at $7, Relatedly, legislators seldom play leading roles in the early stages of policy development (agenda setting and formulation) because the majority of their efforts during the short biannual session are spent working on the mandated passage of a two-year state budget. Unlike California, there are no term limits in Texas and no constitutional provision for public initiatives, referenda, or recall elections. However, short sessions and low pay coupled with other factors has resulted in moderate to high turnover among Texas legislators, from 20 to 25 percent over the years (Kraemer, Newell and Prindle, 2001). It also has resulted in expanding the influence and authority of the Lieutenant Governor and House Speaker who make all committee assignments and leadership appointments. During the 1990s, Texas became a very competitive two-party state and, since the election of 1998, has moved to GOP domination. A Republican currently holds every statewide office as well a majority of the state Senate, 19 of 31 (61%), and the state House, 88 of 150 (59%). 17 Recent special sessions of the state legislature may allow it to also allow the Republican Party to have a majority of the Congressional delegation that currently has a Democratic majority of 17 to the Republicans 15. The best prospects for Texas Democrats to retain legislative and congressional offices will be in the districts where voters of color are concentrated. Although Texas minority voters have traditionally identified with the Democratic Party and overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates, there is some 16 Since 1975, the annual salary is $7,200; this amount was established by constitutional amendment. This salary would qualify them for food stamps if legislative service were their only source of income. 17 Texans also gave decisive majority victories to Republican presidential candidates in 1992, 1996 and

13 indication that Democratic identification among Latino voters is declining. Republican Governor George W. Bush received 40% of the Latino vote in his 1998 reelection victory and a similar level of Texas Latino support in his 2000 presidential victory. While Latinos did not support Republican or third-party candidates further down the ticket in 2000, or in the 2002 gubernatorial election. There was a noted increase in the proportion of Latino voters who identified as independents, from 19% to 26% in the last ten years (Texas Poll, 1990, 1999, 2000). It remains to be seen whether the perceived erosion of Latino support for the Democratic Party is long-term or more accurately described as a short-lived affair with the personable George W. As Texas Republicans increase their efforts to court Latino partisans, Democrats cannot afford to take Latino loyalty for granted. More significant, perhaps, is the fact that Latinos voters in Texas have not increased as a percent of the statewide electorate. Although they increased from 13.6% of the statewide electorate in 1992 to 17.1% in 1996, they declined significantly to 13.4% in 1998, and declined further to only an estimated 10% in 2000, their lowest level in this time period (Fraga and Ramírez, 2000, p. 21). 18 LATINAS AND LATINOS ON LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES Among the primary means through which legislators can exercise influence is their presence on committees. Committee membership, and especially chairships, can structure the types of opportunities a legislator has to pursue policies that are highest on a legislative agenda. What are the differences in committee presence between Latina and Latino legislators in California and Texas? We find few, if any, gendered patterns in the committee membership of Latinos and Latinas serving in the Texas legislature in Latinos/as serve on a wide variety of committees with one Latina/o on nearly every committee. 19 With one exception, there does not appear to be any gender pattern with respect to their committee assignments. Latinas seem to be over-represented with respect to their 18 These data are taken from estimates provided by the Voter News Service. 19 Only three of 36 House committees are without Latino/a representation: Transportation, Agriculture and Livestock, and Land and Business Management. Among the 16 Senate committees, only the International Relations, Trade and Technology committee in the Senate has no Latinos/as. 12

14 legislative numbers on the education committees. Both Latinas served on the one Senate Education Committee and, among the six Latinas in the House, two served on Higher Education and two served on Public Education. There are even numbers of Latinos and Latinas serving on Economic Development (1man/1 woman) and Business and Commerce (1/1), as well as on the powerful House Rules Committee (2/2). Given the budgeting situation in Texas, Appropriations (or Finance as it is called in the Senate) are the largest committees and, arguably, the most important. A total of 12 Latinos/as currently serve on the appropriations committees, 6 men and one woman in the House and 4 men and one woman in the Senate. There are more Texas Latinos than Latinas serving in committee leadership positions, but this is primarily a function of their longer service in the legislature and/or on the committees. The presence of Latino and Latina legislators on committees in the 2001 legislative session in California is very similar to that in Texas. There were no systematic gender differences in likelihood to be chairs of committees, types of committees on which members serve, or likelihood to serve on influential committees such as Budget and Appropriations. In the Senate, the five Latinas are chairs of at least two committees each; Latinos are chairs of at least two committees as well. There is no greater propensity of Latina senators to serve on committees devoted to health, education, or welfare as compared to men. Both serve on committees such as Education, Housing and Economic Development, and Health and Human Services. One Latino Senator served as chair of the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. One Latina Senator served on the Appropriations Committee. In the California Assembly all Latinas and Latinos served as chairs of at least one committee or important subcommittee. All of the Latina members of the Assembly served on at least one committee devoted to health, education or welfare. Nine of the fourteen Latinos in the Assembly did so. Two of the five Latina members of the Assembly served on Budget and Appropriations Committees. Eight of the fourteen Latino members to the Assembly served on these committees. Interestingly, only one Latina served on the influential Rules Committee. No Latinos did. If gender differences exist in the legislative experiences of Latinas and Latinos it is not through the types of committees on which they serve, or their likelihood to serve as chairs of committees. It is 13

15 possible, however, that differences exist with regard to how each group sees themselves as legislators in their styles of representation, strategies of legislative advocacy, and issues on their respective legislative agendas. It is to these dimensions of representation that we now turn. LATINAS AND LATINOS AS LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATES How do Latina and Latino legislators see themselves as representatives? In answering this question we looked for systematic differences between Latinas and Latinos, and also between those serving in California versus those in Texas in the 2001 legislative session. We discovered more similarities than differences. First, both Latinas and Latinos serving in the legislatures are acutely aware of the multiple constituencies they represent as they carry out their duties of office. Second, all see themselves first as representing the people in their district. Third, both men and women also feel a strong commitment to represent Latino/a interests, but their ability to act on these commitments is tempered by the political context of their districts and state. Finally, gender specific identification plays an important role in the representational perspectives of Latinas in Texas but not in California. Throughout their interviews, both Latinas and Latinos identified their primary representational role as acting in the best interests of those in their district. However, they also expressed identification with and/or commitment to representing the concerns of other groups. One legislator s comment best summarizes this multiple constituency perspective: My first concern will always be to serve the needs of people in my district but I also take a broader perspective of my multiple responsibilities as a Latina and a mother. To the extent that I can I also speak and act on behalf of women and minorities (Representative, July 10, 2001). After their commitment to serving district constituents, both Latina and Latino legislators exhibited a strong attachment and desire to support Latinos generally. Almost every interviewee spoke of her/his commitment to serving as a role model for other Latinos or was supportive of legislative action addressing issues important to the Latino community, i.e. bilingual education, illegal immigration, and health care. Most interviewees also referred to the importance of their ethnic caucus organizations as places where a legislative agenda could be crafted to address the specific needs of the Latino community, 14

16 as an arena that provided the opportunity to discuss issues of empowerment, and as a place that could be used to enhance leadership skills. Latino representation was clearly important to the legislators but not an overarching consideration for some. One legislator commented when asked if he had a special responsibility to represent the Latino community: Absolutely, but it is secondary to my primary goal of solving poverty and it just so happens to be that so many Latinos happen to be people of poverty and I do feel it is important to project myself as a good role model for that reason and I also think particularly that all the underlying problems of California are problems that can be largely solved by solving issues of the Latino community and so it works from the nationalistic perspective but is also works from the perspective of California (Senator, July 24, 2001). For both California and Texas legislators, the degree of their commitment to Latino representation appears to be largely determined by the composition of their district. One Texas example: regardless of their expressed commitment to so-called Latino issues, among the seven Latino/a legislators from districts where Latinas/os comprised less than 50% of the eligible voters, only two authored or co-authored legislation identified as important to Latino communities during the 2001 legislative session. 20 There was no indication of gender specific roles among the Latinas/os serving in the California legislature. None of the Latinas interviewed in California perceived the enactment of legislation on behalf of women or the representation of women as a principal priority. One Latina legislator empathized with women but saw her primary role as being a representative of her constituents. She commented that If I am true to myself I represent women but in doing policy I do not do policy that is just for women (Senator, July 18, 2001). Another female Senator also explained I never think about...[women]. I think about my constituency; if it happens to be women then fine (Senator, July 18, 2001). Similarly, Latino 20 During the session, the Senate Hispanic Caucus identified six policy areas important to the Hispanic community: education, health care, criminal justice, immigration, colonias, and border issues. This example was derived from the information provided in a working document of the Caucus dated March 6, 2001 and from district statistics published on the individual legislators websites. 15

17 legislators said they were sympathetic towards women s issues and occasionally worked with other legislators to enact legislation that would benefit women in the long run such as child-care and work programs. One male legislator commented that women are central to the issues of poverty and the issues of rearing the next generation and I mean that as a pragmatic issue and so it is an easy consideration for me (Senator, July 24, 2001). In contrast to the limited role that gender appears to play in the representational perceptions of California legislators, gender plays a significant role in the minds of Latinas serving in the Texas legislature. Among the eight serving, all but two are active in multiple women s organizations. More importantly, all of them authored or co-authored legislation in the last legislative session that was specifically identified as benefiting the interests of women. The majority of those interviewed talked at length about their efforts to advance the concerns of women and the particular need for more women in the legislature. As one senator succinctly summarized their position, More women belong in the legislature because it is critical that the body more accurately reflects the Texas population. Without women, important perspectives are missing (Senator, July 12, 2001). Similarly, several Latinas specifically mentioned that they study an issue from a mother s perspective or described their policy agenda as a mother s agenda. Although both Latina and Latino legislators stated their desire to serve Latinos, are there any gender differences in the specific issues that they identify as most important on their policy agendas? How do they reconcile a simultaneous desire to serve Latinos and to serve their specific constituents? In our study, legislators clearly connect their legislative priorities with what is necessary for their constituents. Both female and male legislators primarily perceive their role as delegates and want to enact policies that will benefit their constituency. If their constituency is predominantly Latino they are more likely to propose policies important to the Latino community, but their legislative priorities are not necessarily Latino specific. To further illustrate this point, one female senator commented in response to a question about legislative priorities: 16

18 I have it deep in my heart, and in my mind all the time but I do not wear it on my sleeve what helps poor people helps my community and that is what I think about. The community I represent is 54% Latino so my legislation helps them but I do not propose legislation based on it being a Latino issue (Interview, Senator, July 18, 2001). Another assembly member representing an immigrant-based community with a Latino majority district also noted that: Whenever I talk to groups I always start by talking about what the Latino agenda is because you are always in front of a crowd and your relation to ethnicity is always there; it s a subtle question mark and sometimes people want to know what you are made of and what you are bringing because you are different. I always start out by talking about the Latino agenda which is education, jobs, health care and public safety which is the same thing as the American agenda I would like to think of myself as an American with Mexican heritage and an individual who seeks to better my community as whole and be integrated into the greater American society (Assemblyman, July 18, 2001). These perspectives illustrate the extent to which their legislative agendas are dictated by their primary consideration of representing their district constituency and also by their desire to be perceived as representing more than the Latino perspective. The policy areas consistently supported by both Latino/Latina legislators in California are healthcare, education, jobs, and public safety. These issues may be considered Latino issues, but they are framed and supported from the legislative viewpoint that they are representative of what is in the best interests of all Californians. A further interpretation that can be derived from this state benefit calculation is that this approach serves a more pragmatic political agenda that may serve to generate more policy benefits for Latino communities. 21 The legislative priorities of Texas Latinas mirror those previously identified with female representatives including issues of women, children and families (Thomas 1991). However, the priorities of Texas Latinos were very similar. Education was the single most important issue for both men and women. Interestingly, Texas Latinos were more likely than female counterparts to identify legislative priorities dealing with topics important to Latino/a constituents, such as education, health care, criminal 21 The argument here is that since Latinos now comprise 32%of the statewide population, it makes sense for Latina and Latino elected officials to talk about a California agenda which implicitly means an agenda that will benefit the Latino population. 17

19 justice, immigration, colonias, and border issues. Forty percent of the men identified as least two of these issues among their top legislative priorities compared with 13% of the women. On the other hand, Texas Latinas could be considered more effective in passing legislation that benefits Latino/a constituents, primarily because of the activism of one Latina Senator who co-authored 10 bills dealing with Latino/a issues and succeeded in passing 5 of them. Were there any gender differences in the primary strategies used by Latina and Latino legislators to enact policies that were most important to them? Simply stated, the legislative strategies employed by Latina/o legislators are the same as those used by non-latinos. They rely upon building coalitions of support with other legislators, higher-elected officials, interest groups, lobbyists and active constituents. The efforts they take to build these coalitions will vary depending on the legislation and its priority, on where it is in the policy making process, and on their assessment of the likelihood that the measure will pass. The following comments from a Latino legislator are typical of those made by others: Depends on the bill [S]ponsor selection is very helpful and you primarily look for issues that are just too good, that the governor will sign, and it will be hard to say no to and have good ideas. But certainly when you have millions of dollars on the line in some of these bills those aren t easy measures and so you work with a sponsor and a good coalition of groups that will lobby the legislature (July 26, 2001). In California there were no apparent gender differences in this area. However, Latinas in Texas appear to be more inclined to consult and work with outside pressure groups. In fact, one Latina representative specifically mentioned that women in the legislature are more comfortable working with interested organizations in developing the best legislation (July 19, 2001). She also felt the Latino legislators, who are generally more senior than the Latinas, did not need to rely on interests groups, Also, as a matter of personal style, a few of the Latinos are known to be lone wolfs who usually do not consult with anyone. The career paths of Latina legislators also provide some indication of their ability to successfully enact legislation on behalf of their constituencies. Obviously the career paths of elected officials are contingent upon a number of factors but it is possible to identify common experiences, behaviors, and 18

20 attitudes among the Latinas that we studied. The experience that inspired most Latinas to seek political office was the success they achieved as community organizers or activists. For California Latinas, the next step was to run for some local office, i.e., the school board or city council, and then run for the state legislature. Interestingly, Texas Latinas go straight from their community organizations to Austin none of the eight Latinas currently serving held any prior political office. However, Texas Latinas do not typically stay long in the legislature. This is very different from the men, who, on average, tend to serve twice as long as the women. Several Latina legislators in Texas noted that low legislative salaries require flexible full-time jobs or that one have other means of material support. Additionally, these legislators mentioned that the extremely short legislative sessions made it especially difficult to enact important public policies. As a result, Latina legislators with political ambition do not wait very long before they run for other offices. California Latina and Latino legislators, by contrast, are equally subject to relatively short periods of legislative service because of term limits. For reasons yet to be discovered, none of the Latina legislators who have ever served in Texas have been elected to higher political office. Some have tried but were unsuccessful. Others who ran for positions at the local and county level were significantly more successful. 22 The pattern in California is much more mixed. Several former Latina and Latino state legislators have won seats in the U.S. Congress, others have been elected to important county and local office, and still others have attained positioned of influence within the state party system. LATINA REPRESENTATION AND THE FUTURE OF LATINO POLITICS We began our study with two primary goals. First, we wanted to document the patterns of election of Latinas to state office in the decade of the 1990s. Although both gender representation and ethnic representation have been increasing in state legislatures, have Latinas experienced a similar trend? Second, we wanted to explore the possibility that Latina representatives might be best positioned to pursue policy gains on behalf of Latino communities. Unlike the view that tends to view women of color as suffering from the dual disadvantages of gender and ethnicity, we hypothesized that the 22 There are currently four former Latina legislators serving in county, local and judicial district positions in Texas. 19

21 multidimensional nature of individual backgrounds and constituency interests of Latina legislators might provide them a unique capacity to forge the varied and at times contradictory coalitions that are key to the passing of much legislation. Our examination of the patterns of election of Latinas to state office reveals that state specific analysis is key to fully understanding overall increases. In three of our four states, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the increasing election of Latinas seemed to be more tied to the increasing election of women, than to the increasing election of ethnic representatives. Nonetheless, in both Arizona and New Mexico Latina representation was lower within the Latina/o delegation than one would expect given gender representation overall. Texas and California have higher Latina representation than one would expect based on gender. California was noticeably different from each of our other states in the magnitude of increased election of ethnic representatives overall, and especially in the increased election of Latinas. Change has occurred over the period of the 1990s. More Latinas hold office than ever before. We suggest that future analysis of the election of women of color to office be specified by states as considerable variations can exit. Our exploration of the legislative roles and policy priorities of Latina legislators revealed a complex pattern that, based on our interviews, leads us to conclude that few gender specific differences exist among Latina and Latino legislators in California and Texas. There were no systematic differences in committee assignments and the propensity of Latinas and Latinos to be committee chairs. Most legislators understood themselves to be responsible for multiple constituencies, including ethnic groups, but each understood his/her district constituency as most important. The main differences that appeared in this regard were more between Californians and Texans than they were between men and women. Ethnic and gender specific advocacy among Latina and Latino legislators in California tends to be minimized in public pronouncements. Rather than pursuing a Latinospecific or woman-specific agenda, they speak more of a California agenda. Among the issues on this agenda are improved education and health care. These improvements are advocated on behalf of all Californians, but it is well understood that Latinos and working class women will especially benefit from 20