Jason P. Casellas

A latino on the ballot: Explaining coethnic voting among latinos and the response of white Americans

In recent campaigns, candidates have sought to attract votes from the growing Latino electorate through ethnic cues. Yet, we know very little about the impact of appeals to ethnicity. This article examines the role that ethnic cues play in shaping the political opinions and choices of Latinos, as well as the response of non-Hispanic White Americans (Anglos). We take up the simplest of group cues, the ethnicity of the candidate. We argue that candidate ethnicity is an explicit ethnic cue that alters the political choices of Latinos through priming of their ethnic linked fate, but only affects Anglos through spreading activation of primed ethnic attitudes to national identity considerations. Evidence from an experiment that manipulated exposure to candidate ethnicity information provides evidence for these claims. Our results help to explain coethnic voting among Latinos and resistance to Latino candidates among Anglos.

Coalitions in the House

What kinds of districts do Latinos and African Americans represent? Are biracial coalitions forming to elect minority candidates in state legislatures? Is it easier for minorities to get elected in lower chamber districts? This article addresses these questions to assess whether Latinos are indeed becoming more alienated from African Americans. Using data from six diverse states and Congress, this article explains the conditions under which African Americans and Latinos are elected to some of the most important legislative institutions in the United States. Among the key findings are that biracial coalitions are not electing minority legislators in all of the states studied. That is, African American majority districts elect African Americans and Latino majority districts elect Latinos. In the U.S. House, however, African American members do benefit from Latino voters.

Partisanship or population? House and Senate immigration votes in the 109th and 110th Congresses

This article tests multiple hypotheses for the structure of congressional voting on recent immigration reform legislation. In particular, it examines the influence of partisanship, constituencies, and member characteristics. While some accounts have emphasized the cross-cutting nature of immigration policy debates, more recent research finds a growing partisan divide. These votes also provide the opportunity to (1) explore whether a contemporary version of the threat hypothesis – an association between Latino populations and immigration voting – is at work in Congress, and (2) extend the immigration voting literature to the Senate. We find that partisanship is the only consistent factor across votes and chambers. By contrast, district demographics and the personal attributes of members of Congress were not consistently associated with votes. We also found several chamber differences; Latino population was associated with more House than Senate votes, economic competition dynamics may have influenced senators but not representatives, representatives but not senators may have voted with re-election concerns in mind, and the substantive effect of partisanship is larger in the House than in the Senate. Lastly, African-American population was not associated with immigration voting, which stands in some contrast to accounts that emphasize competition between African Americans and Latinos.

Changing Political Landscapes for Latinos in America

The increased demographic presence of Latino individuals has gradually resulted in growing political influence and representation. This growing presence and influence has altered the American political landscape, drawing sudden attention among scholars, the media, and political pundits. This article investigates four aspects of the growing influence of Latino/a individuals in the American political system.

No Latino Left Behind? Determinants of Support for Education Reform in the U.S. Congress

With education consistently ranked as the highest priority for Latino voters, how have members of Congress responded to Latino constituents on this dimension? This article explores the relationship between Latino constituencies and the importance members of Congress have placed on this issue. Through an analysis of National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA) prioritized roll call votes, one can gain a fuller understanding of the importance of this issue. In particular, this article examines the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the extent to which the Latino population and Latino members of Congress had an impact on a series of educational policy–related bills and amendments. We find that the percentage of Latinos in a district is unrelated to vote outcomes on NCLB and related amendments and that Latino members of Congress voted against the interests of the NHLA on NCLB and a key amendment.

Lobbying for Inclusion: Rights Politics and the Making of Immigration Policy

Lobbying for Inclusion: Rights Politics and the Making of Immigration Policy. By Carolyn Wong. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. 225p.

Latino representation in state houses and Congress

50.00. In 2006, unprecedented crowds took to the streets to protest proposed legislation in the House of Representatives that would have, among other things, made it a crime to “assist” undocumented immigrants to remain within U.S. borders. HR 4437, also known as the Sensenbrenner Bill, never became law, but it nonetheless sparked a fierce debate about immigration policy, which has divided the Republican Party in particular. Carolyn Wongs book provides a timely account of the making of immigration policy, commencing with the Hart Cellar Act of 1965 and proceeding through the last major piece of immigration in 1996.