NewsTaco

By Sahil Kapur, Talking Points Memo

Voting rights advocates are sounding the warning sirens as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Monday on a low-profile but important case on whether states may require people to submit proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

At issue is whether the Arizona law, known as Proposition 200, violates a federal law that requires states to let people register to vote while renewing drivers licenses or applying for social services. The form provided by the National Voter Registration Act requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens, but not to provide documented proof, like the Arizona law does.

Click on picture top read full story.

[Photo by moonShadows7]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

We circled today’s date on NewsTaco’s calendar several months ago. Today is the day that the U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) hears arguments in the case that will decide the future of the Voting Rights Act as we know it. It matters because the specific issue at hand has been used for decades by civil rights groups to defend the voting rights of Latino voters.

In short order, here are the important details:

• The specific case before the Supreme Court is Shelby County v. Holder, that originated in the state of Alabama.
• The law suit challenges the need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Section 5 requires nine states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia) and parts of others (California, Florida, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, South Carolina and South Dakota) to get permission from the federal government before making changes to their voting processes.
• The challenge to the Act claims that voter turnout has changed in the covered jurisdictions, and that the change is evidence that the country has moved past the violations that made them necessary. In other words, that minority voting rights in the covered jurisdictions no longer need to be defended.

There are nuances, and stark arguments on both sides. The case is not as simple as a four point bullet list. But it’s the simplest of starts. Our endeavor at NewsTaco is to put issues and debates at your fingertips, to curate the discussion as it regards the U. S. Latino community.

This particular issue has been covered extensively in the national news bubble. At NewsTaco we’ve covered the issue at length as well. So with that in mind, here’s a list of articles, opinion pieces and editorials about today’s SCOTUS hearing that we’ve culled form today’s publications. They’re in no particular order of importance, I list ‘em as I found ‘em:

Voting Act Challenge Hinges on a Formula, New York Times

Supreme Court to weigh ongoing validity of voting rights law, Reuters

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Voting Rights Act, Washington Post

Judging the Voting Rights Act, Los Angeles Times Editorial

The Voting Rights Act’s work isn’t finished, Washington Post Editorial

Voting Rights Act isn’t obsolete, Baltimore Sun Editorial

Force Behind Race-Law Rollback Efforts Talks Voting Rights Case, NPR

Has The U.S. Outgrown The Voting Rights Act?, NPR

Landmarks to civil rights converge on Capitol Hill, USA Today

What Is Alabama’s Problem With the Voting Rights Act?, Colorlines 

GOP Rep. backs voting restrictions and Voting Rights Act, MSNBC

What Happens If The Voting Rights Act Loses In The Supreme Court, Think Progress

Rep. John Lewis defends Voting Rights Act, USA Today

Proposed changes to Voting Rights Act stir controversy in Alabama, CBS News

 Last Days of Voting Rights?, Daily Beast

Voting Rights Act: Is major portion outdated? Supreme Court to hear arguments, Christian Science Monitor

Who controls Voting Rights?, Reuters

Our Past Still Speaks: Re-examining the Voting Rights Act, PBS Newshour

[Photo courtesy c-span]

By Victor Landa, NewsTaco

Here’s a small blip on the radar that’s sure to be getting brighter this year: Six out of the nine states covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are supporting a challenge, in the Supreme Court, that could overturn one of the strongest tools that advocates have in their defense of voting rights.

It’s called preclearance, and it says that when any of the nine fully covered states (Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia and Alaska), and parts of seven others (Florida, California, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Michigan and New Hampshire) make any changes to their voting rules, those changes must first be cleared by the federal government.

Shelby County, in South Carolina, has challenged the rule saying it’s out dated and no longer needed. The challenge has ended up in the Supreme Court. Five states, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, are backing Shelby’s suit.

That’s where the issue now lies. Not a big concern compared to gun control or the series of impending fiscal cliffs – but that just may be what makes this issue all the more serious, it’s a sleeper, just because there’re more immediate things to worry about these days. But this case should have our full attention, it’s that important.

The preclearance clause provides the teeth to the voting rights advocates’ bite. Without it there’s no fight, no defense against an election authority arbitrarily changing times, locations, language on a ballot, rules, etc… The final authority on election changes and practices would be the very same authority that made the change.

We should point out that the preclearance rule is not universal. It only applies to states where voting discrimination practices were and are proven to still be a problem. So the Shelby County challenge is expected. And if Section 5 prevails this time, we should expect more of the same brought by other counties and states in the future, it’s the nature of the law. And that only means that our vigilance on the issue shouldn’t wane.

This is as important as immigration reform, health care, gun control and the rest. The difference is that this one is going to keep sneaking up on us.

[Photo by yeowatzup]

Friday July 13, 2012

Obama Slips With Latino Voters: Quinnipiac Poll (Huffington Post):  President Barack Obama still has a considerable lead with Latino voters, but it may be slipping, according to a poll out Wednesday from Quinnipiac University.

Mitt Romney demonizes immigrants and still expects Latino support in November (New York Daily News):  Unless the presumptive GOP candidate Mitt Romney responds with real relief plans for immigrants, Latino support will carry Obama to a second term as President.

Hispanic pols slam Marco Rubioc (Boston Herald):  Two of Boston’s Hispanic political leaders took issue yesterday with the notion that U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio could warm Latino voters to former Gov. Mitt Romney if the presumptive GOP presidential nominee asks the Florida senator to share the Republican ticket.

Central American immigrants flood north through Mexico to US (Associated Press/Fort Wayne News Sentinel):  While the number of Mexicans heading to the U.S. has dropped dramatically, a surge of Central American migrants is making the 1,000-mile northbound journey this year, fueled in large part by the rising violence brought by the spread of Mexican drug cartels. Other factors, experts say, are an easing in migration enforcement by Mexican authorities, and a false perception that Mexican criminal gangs are not preying on migrants as much as they had been.

National, local Latino groups step up LGBT support (Wisconsin Gazzette):  Twenty-one of the nation’s leading Hispanic organizations are launching a public-education campaign to build support within the Latino community for LGBT family members. The campaign, called “Familia es Familia” (”Family is Family”) was announced on July 8 at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza in Las Vegas. Freedom to Marry, a nationwide coalition that campaigns for marriage equality, is providing seed funding for the project, which also has a financial commitment from the Gill Foundation.

Texas’s Road To Victory in Its Decades-Long Fight Against Voting Rights (The Nation):  Earlier this week, Attorney General Eric Holder declared in his address to the NAACP national convention in Houston what many voting rights advocates had been saying for months: that the photo voter ID law passed in Texas is a poll tax. Determining whether voter ID laws are as unconstitutional as poll taxes won’t be up to him, though. That honor goes to the US Supreme Court justices who lately have been signaling they may be ready to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

 Why Hispanics Don’t Like Catholic Education (Huffington Post):  It looks like the Catholic Church school strategy to reach out to the Hispanic population is working. As Stephanie Banchero and Stephanie Levitz stated in a recent story in The Wall Street Journal, “For the first time in decades, Catholic education is showing signs of life. Driven by expanding voucher programs, outreach to Hispanic-Catholics, and donations by business leaders, Catholic schools in several major cities are swinging back from closures and declining enrollment.”

Latinos Take Over Comic-Con, Making Comics Browner (Fox News Latino):  From traditional comic book sellers and trends in popular culture, to some of Hollywood’s biggest film production and gaming companies, Comic-Con San Diego is the convention to see and be seen. Celebs are as ubiquitous as the comic book geeks, steam punk and animae fans who roam through the Convention Center in droves. The Latino creators – cartoon artists, editors, actors, directors, and comic and graphic writers – are fewer in number. But behind the scenes, these creators are actively inventing future worlds and characters more brown than their predecessors.

The way things now stand, 10% of Latino voters have had their right to vote suppressed in the states that have approved voter ID laws. The prospect for the future is that more states will follow suit. We know that much. NewsTaco has been reporting on the issue for several months along with a swell of information and concern that has grown within the Latino community.

We bring the issue up again because we promised we would every time we thought it would be pertinent – and it’s always pertinent. But also because of the publication of a very well put-together infographic that explains the issue and its consequences. It was done by the good folks at Craigconnects, the brainchild of Craig Newmark, the same Craig Newmark that thought-up Cragislist. Think of this as his giving-back site. Craigconnects’  tagline is: Using technology to give the voiceless a real voice and the powerless real power.

So in that vein they put together a voter suppression infographic that’s easy to read and share. It’s a quick go-to reference for statistics, cost, percentages and politics having to do with voter suppression and voter I.D. Here’s a copy of it, and you can also see it directly at craigconnects.org.

[Photo By daquella manera]

By Rafael Anchia, Texas State Representative, District 103

On March 12, 2012 the Department of Justice (DOJ) stood up for Texas voters by refusing to pre-clear the strict photo ID legislation that Texas Republicans passed during the 2011 legislative session. According to the DOJ’s ruling, the state of Texas has failed to prove that the new law will not disenfranchise Hispanic voters who lack a state-issued identification card. Since July of 2011, the state has twice submitted data from the Department of Public Safety office indicating that between 600,000 and nearly 800,000 Hispanic registered voters do not have a state-issued ID card.

For those not familiar with the term “pre-clearance,” it means that, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, changes to Texas’ election laws must be reviewed to ensure that the laws do not have discriminatory effects. Immediately following the end of last session, several voting rights advocacy groups sent letters to the DOJ stating that the new law will disenfranchise many Texas voters, including seniors, college students, the disabled, and ethnic and racial minorities. The restrictive nature of the bill defies common sense. For example, a college student in Texas who holds an out-of-state driver’s license, but is registered to vote on campus will not be able to use that driver’s license or even their college photo ID to vote. Even worse, a Korean war veteran who no longer drives and does not have a government-issued photo ID such as a valid passport or concealed handgun license will not be allowed to vote with their voter registration card, despite the fact that his service to his country was supposed to ensure that very right for his fellow Americans.

I have always argued that any photo ID law contain vote-saving provisions ensuring no duly-registered Texas voter is left behind. In Idaho, among the reddest of red states, the photo ID law allows duly registered citizens without photo ID to issue an affidavit under penalty of perjury in order to vote. In Florida, the Republican photo ID law allows voters without photo ID to cast a ballot that undergoes a signature match (like we do with mail-in ballots in Texas). During the debate on the House floor, I offered amendments based on these models, but they were rejected.

At the risk of saying, “I told you so,” it comes as no surprise to those of us who predicted that the DOJ would take issue with the more onerous provisions of this legislation. During the house debate, I also offered an amendment that would have delayed enactment of the strict photo ID law until the SOS had furnished the very type of data that formed the basis for the DOJ objection. Disturbingly, no voter impact analysis had been conducted by the State of Texas and, during the debate on this bill, I introduced studies suggesting that between 150,000 and 500,000 registered voters in Texas do not have the kind of photo ID that would be required to vote. As it turns out, I was too conservative in my estimates, and in fact we now know that up to 800,000 Texans might not be able to cast a regular ballot under the new law.

You would think that, before pushing for this legislation, the authors would have asked how the bill adversely affects Texans’ right to vote. What was their acceptable threshold for disenfranchisement? Was it 100, 100,000, or 800,000 Texas voters? To put 800,000 voters in context-that’s about the number of people who live in the entire state of South Dakota . It seemed as though Texas Republicans never really wanted to answer that question. Despite the studies predicting that the bill would adversely affect the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of Texans, undoubtedly among them thousands of Texas Republicans, the authors of the bill simply ignored these inconvenient data points.

What has become clear to me is that this legislation was not intended to deal with voter fraud – in fact, the only kind of voter fraud that regularly occurs, mail-in ballot fraud, is not touched by the photo ID legislation. A multi-year investigation by the Texas Attorney General has borne out that impersonation of a voter at the ballot box is extremely rare in the state of Texas. The real problem is not voter impersonation, it’s that too few people are voting. In the 2010 mid-term general elections, Texas was dead last among the 50 states in registered voter participation. So instead of trying to find ways to encourage more participation by voters, Texas Republicans passed legislation that would discourage voter turnout.

As legislators, we need to ensure that fundamental individual rights are protected. Now that the DOJ has decided not to pre-clear the strict photo-ID bill, we may get another shot at this legislation. And if we do, we need to act responsibly and pass legislation that will make voter participation a top priority.

Rafael Anchia is the Texas State Representative for District 103 in North Texas.

By Howard L. Simon and Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU

With Florida’s primary recently completed, all eyes have been on the Sunshine State. And in an effort to shine a light on the state’s new regressive voting laws, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin, recently held a federal field hearing in Tampa, Florida.

Florida is just one of many states now enacting discriminatory laws that block Americans from the ballot box. All these laws aim to do one thing: make it harder for people to vote. And who do these laws disproportionately impact? African-Americans, the elderly, people with disabilities, students, low-income and language minority voters.

The state’s new law now makes it nearly impossible for individuals like Belinthia Berry and organizations like the non-partisan League of Women Voters to register voters. For years, Belinthia has registered voters in East Tampa, a predominantly lower-income African-American neighborhood. But now, under Florida’s new law, Belinthia could face major fines if they fail to meet the new burdensome requirements.

Belintha says, “The problem with the new voter registration law in Florida is that the penalties that they impose for the smallest minute errors that previously weren’t there just make it very cumbersome for any non-profit, third party to want to go out and register voters.” These restrictions will no doubt have crippling effects on voter participation in this year’s election and have already led groups like the venerable League of Women Voters to pull out of all voter registration efforts in Florida.

The new restrictions on third-party voter registration come packaged as part of a larger elections bill (HB 1355) that contains 80 changes to the state’s election laws. Other provisions include reducing the number of early voting days from 14 to eight; prohibiting early voting on Sunday before an election; and only allowing voters who have moved from one county to another and need to update their address at the polling place to cast a provisional ballot, which may not even be counted.

In another setback to American’s most fundamental right, Florida authorities recently toughened the state’s rules around the restoration of rights, disfranchising nearly one million Florida citizens with past criminal convictions for life. These individuals — who account for nearly one in five disfranchised citizens in the country — are now only able to recover their right to vote through a difficult and burdensome clemency process which has resulted in very few grants of restoration.

We cannot afford to have laws that push people out of the electorate; every eligible American must be able to vote in order for this to be a true democracy. Our video below features interviews with Yvette Lewis of the NAACP, Christopher Cano of the Hillsborough County Democratic Hispanic Caucus and Belinthia Berry of the National Coalition of 100 Black Women. They discuss how this new law will suppress voter turnout in African-American and Latino communities.

[Video By acluvideos; ]

A three-judge federal panel in Washington will be hearing two weeks’ worth of testimony, starting this week, on Texas’ congressional redistricting maps. Again?

If you’re thinking, “Didn’t they already do this?” I’m with you. It seems like they have — or that someone has, somewhere, recently. Wasn’t that what the U. S. Supreme Court was doing last week or so?

I’m going to pull an overused cliché to explain this: it’s complicated. Even if you’re from Texas, it can get dizzying. But even if you’re not, it’s very relevant. So, yes, the Supreme Court did, in fact, hear arguments about this case; and yes, a Federal Court in San Antonio did make a ruling on it; and yes, a three judge federal panel will do another two weeks on it. So why the overkill?

Let me take a quick stab at explaining it:

• The case comes as a consequence of Latino population growth.
• Texas is due to get 4 new congressional districts because of it’s population growth — fueled primarily by Latinos.
• Latino leaders in Texas believe that at least 3 of the 4 new districts should be Latino-majority.
• The district maps drawn by the Republican-led Texas legislature allowed for only 1 new Latino-majority district.
• The same Texas Latino leaders believe these Republican-drawn maps discriminate against Latino voters.

So groups like MALDEF and Texas’ MALC (Mexican American Legislative Caucus) cried foul.

• They sued in Federal Court in San Antonio. That three-judge panel struck down the Republican maps, the parties then generated interim maps, and moved the Texas primary from March to April to accommodate the changes.
• The Republicans then promptly objected to the interim maps and took their concerns to the Supreme Court – they’d like the old maps to remain as drawn.
• Meanwhile, because of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (known as the preclearance section), the maps need to be approved by either the Justice Department or a District Court in the District of Columbia. But the
• Republican Texas leadership felt that they had little to no chance of having their maps approved by the Obama Justice Department, so they took their maps to the Federal court for approval (this is the hearing that started this week).
• If the panel in D.C. finds that the maps discriminate against Latino voters, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to see if it will validate the interim maps drawn at the Federal district Court level.

I told you it was messy:

• The D.C. Section 5 hearing is slated to last two weeks, but
• The U.S. Supreme Court could deliver its own verdict, on the interim maps, earlier than that.

And this matters because:

• Call it a dry-run of similar battles that will be fought in the not too distant future in places where Latino population growth will require redistricting – that means places like California in general, and Chicago and other cities specifically.
• The case, as it is vented at the Supreme Court, is seen by some folks as a validation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. What the Supreme Court Justices decide could hold the future of minority voting rights in the balance.

It sounds like a Texas thing, but it’s not; it’s just complicated.

[Photo by Mrs. Gemstone]

Today is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, or election day as the U.S. Congress calls it. There is voting going on across the country — from gubernatorial races to local and county elections and, in Texas, state level amendment matters.

This is not the type of election day that get the masses of voters excited about going to the polls, we’re not electing a president today. Nonetheless, the U.S. Justice department isn’t taking any chances. According to CNN:

 Federal civil rights officials announced Monday they have sent election observers to locations in five states to keep an eye out for potential trouble at the polls Tuesday.

Potential trouble? They must mean all of those voter fraud people, lying about who they are because no one asks them for ID when they vote. Surly they mean the hordes of undocumented people with fake identification who take advantage of our country’s benevolence and who stand in line on election day to exercise a right that isn’t theirs.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division dispatched 11 staff attorneys along with 85 trained election observers from the Office of Personnel Management to watch activities at the polls and report any irregularities.

And by irregularities they mean:

• monitors have been sent to 4 counties Mississippi where governor Haley Barbour is term-limited from running again. The DOJ sent 11 monitors there for the primary elections in August. Their job is to make sure that voters aren’t kept from the polls.
• monitors were assigned to Lorain County, Ohio, according to CNN “to protect the rights of Spanish-speaking voters. Last month, the federal government signed an agreement with Lorain County to resolve concerns that limited-English Hispanic voters were being denied their full voting rights because the county failed to provide language assistance as required by law.”
• in Alameda County, California, monitors will be there as part of an agreement between federal officials and the county, that Alameda County to provide election materials and information in Spanish and Chinese. According to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez the agreement “ensures that Alameda County’s Spanish- and Chinese-speaking citizens will be able to cast an effective ballot and successfully participate in the electoral process.”
• in Jasper, Texas,the monitors were called-in because of racial tensions after the recall of 3 African-American city council members who are responsible for the hiring of the city’s first African-American police chief.
• and in Springfield, Massachusetts, onitors were sent in response to claims by  Hispanic leaders, the NAACP and ACLU that minority voters were turned away from the polls in September primary. Also, they claim there was no assistance for Spanish-language voters.

By Rebecca Acuña, Dep. Political Director for Base Outreach for the Texas Democratic Party

As Chairman of the Hispanic Republican Conference, Aaron Peña has taken the lead in disenfranchising Latinos. When the Department of Justice (DOJ) objected to the newly redistricted Texas House map as violating the Voting Rights Act, they pointed to the district Aaron Peña gerrymandered for himself as a prime violation.

House District 40, which Hidalgo County residents elected Peña as a Democrat to represent, has 204,340 Hispanics. In a desperate attempt to remain in power, Peña drew himself a new House District 41 that was under-populated and has only 127,801 Hispanics. This means that the Chairman of the Hispanic Republican Conference, the person Republicans put in charge of Hispanic outreach, purged 76,539 Hispanics from his district.

Peña knows he has a better chance at staying in office if less people vote.

But just for extra insurance, Peña also voted in favor of the Republican voter suppression legislation which could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Texans and more than 22,000 voters in Hidalgo County. The Texas Secretary of State’s office recently released data showing that more than 600,000 people in Texas who are registered to vote do not have a Texas driver’s license or state issued identification. In Hidalgo County, 22,769 – or 7.98% of current registered voters – lack this identification. Of these, 17,984 are Hispanic. These figures don’t even take into account individuals who could register to vote in the near future.

Because of the hundreds of thousands of Texas voters that could be denied their fundamental right to vote, the DOJ has not pre-cleared the Pena-supported voter suppression legislation and has asked the state for additional evidence that the legislation will not disenfranchise voters. (My hunch is that if such evidence existed, the state would have submitted it in the first place.) In essence, the DOJ said that Texas, under the Voting Rights Act, had yet to prove that the legislation will not become an obstacle to the ballot box.

But Peña can’t point to his personal philosophy for supporting legislation to disenfranchise voters. In 2003 Peña was one of 52 Democrats that fled to Oklahoma to stop the Republican redistricting proposals which the Supreme Court later found unconstitutional. In 2009 when Aaron Peña sat on the Elections Committee as a Democrat, he voted against the Republican voter suppression legislation. It was only after joining the Republican Party that he supported legislation that will hurt Texas families and embraced proposals to disenfranchise voters.

Unfortunately, Peña’s votes aren’t just another tally. His votes will have tangible and devastating consequence on Texas, and specifically, Hidalgo County residents. He repeatedly put the interests of his party ahead of the interests of his constituents during the last legislative session, and now he’s scared. That’s why Aaron Peña and his Republican colleagues are using every trick in the book to try and pre-determine the outcome of elections.

From drawing an illegal district that purges 76,000 Hispanics to supporting legislation that could disenfranchise 22,000 in Hidalgo County, Peña is eager to trample on the voting rights of his constituents, all to improve his chances of stealing an election.

And although Peña might not care about the Voting Rights Act, fortunately for his constituents, the Department of Justice does.

Rebecca Acuña is the Deputy Political Director for Base Outreach for the Texas Democratic Party.

By Dr. Matt Barreto

With the recent release of the national Census data, pundits have been quick to point out the obvious: the Latino population is growing! As if data points from the annual Current Population Survey, and now American Community Survey did not already tell us this on a yearly basis, the official 2010 decennial census now confirms that more than 50 million Latinos are part of America and politicians should take note.

However, the lingering question on journalists minds is whether or not this population growth will transfer into immediate political power? With 33 U.S. Senate contests and a Presidential election across 50 states in 2012, the Latino voter is positioned to have a bigger impactthan ever on the political landscape of America. Even as the citizen eligible population is increasing rapidly, Latinos continue to face a registration gap vis-a-vis whites and African Americans. Despite massive voter registration drives in 2008 and 2010, only about 60% of Latino citizen adults are registered to vote, compared to 70% of Blacks, and 74% of whites. Thus, while the Latino population is growing dramatically (43% growth since 2000, compared to 1% growth in the white population), it’s influence in 2012 could be even greater than expected if voter registration drives take shape.

Using data from the 1996 – 2008 Current Population Survey, Voting and Registration supplement, and 2010 Census data where available, we have projected the Latino eligible voter population, by state for November 2012. Given the trends in growth rates over the previous decade, and new data from 2010, we project linear estimates for each state in 2012. By the 2012 election, Latinos will account for over 10% of the citizen adult population – potential voters – in 11 states. In another 13 states, Latino account for 5-10% of the citizen adult population. All told, that’s 24 states where Latinos have the capacity to influence electoral outcomes, given a competitive statewide election. In the table below, we outline the potential states where Latinos votes might matter in elections for U.S. Senate and President in 2012. For each state, we list the percentage of the total citizen adult eligible population that is Latino, as well as an estimate of how many eligible Latinos are not yet registered to vote. States are sorted by where Latinos are likely to have the most influence in 2012.

[ Click Here to see table above sorted by % Latino in state, largest-to-smallest ]

[ Click here for table of estimated % Latino among registered voters in 2012 ]

In 2012, Latino voters have the best chance to influence outcomes in 10 states for either Senate, President, or both. Four of the top five states will be “Latino influence states” on everyone’s map – New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Colorado all have large and growing Latino electorates in otherwise politically competitive states. In addition to close presidential contests, New Mexico, Florida and Nevada will likely see very competitive Senate elections. Another state we include, Arizona, has a large Latino population, and depending on who the nominees are for U.S. Senate, could have a fairly competitive election with Latino voters proving decisive. In 2010, Latinos registered voters in Arizona demonstrated the highest turnout rate of Latinos in any state.

The next batch of states that Latinos may influence are ones that historically are not obvious Latino states, but significant population growth over the last decade has left a substantial Latino eligible voter population. In Connecticut, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, Latinos account for over 5% of potential voters, and each state is expected have a competitive U.S. Senate or Presidential contest in 2012. For example, in Georgia, the Latino population grew by 96% since 2000 while the White population grew by 6%; a state McCain won by just 5% (52-47) in 2008. In Wisconsin Latinos grew by 74% compared to 1% growth for Whites, and could be one of the most fiercely contested states in 2012.

Beyond these 10 states, there are others where Latinos will matter if elections are close, as expected in Nebraska, Virginia, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio. While the Latino population is a smaller percentage, the number of Latino citizen adults is growing rapidly, and with voter registration drives targeting potential Latino voters, we could very well be talking about the next “Latino upset” ala Reid vs. Angle in one of these five states. In Missouri the Latino population grew by 79% – 20 times faster than the White population (which grew by 4%), in a state that McCain won by just 4,000 total votes in 2008. One of the biggest keys to Latino influence in 2012 will not just be the population growth which has already occurred, but rather, voter registration drives that still need to occur.

Over 8 million more to be registered

Overall, we estimate 21.5 million Latino citizen adults will be eligible to vote in November 2012, up from 19.5 million in 2008. If registration rates remain constant, that will leave over 8 million Latino eligible voters who are not registered in 2012. With significant voter registration drives the Latino vote can go from influential to essential. In addition to the current Latino share of the citizen adult population in each state in the table above, we’ve also listed the estimated number of Latinos eligible to vote who are not registered, given growth rates. For example, while Latinos are growing in influence in Arizona, there are over 400,000 Latinos eligible to vote who are not yet registered. In Florida it’s even more – over 600,000 Latinos could be added to the voter rolls. Newly naturalized citizens and young Latinos turning 18 are adding literally a half-million of new potential voters each year.

Over the past decade, and well before, Latino civic and political organizations have led the charge in registering voters, as political parties rarely ventured into el barrio for campaign outreach. Groups such as NALEO, NCLR,Southwest Voter have invested millions of dollars and millions of hours into Latino voter registration and civic education drives.

Today, many new and influential groups have emerged and done considerable work in Latino voter registration and mobilization including Mi Familia Vota, Democracia USA, The Hispanic Institute, and Voto Latino among many other groups. However, these non-partisan groups operate mostly on soft money contributions and an extensive volunteer network. A significant investment in Latino voter registration is badly overdue by both major political parties. In Texas, for example, there are an estimated 2.1 million Latino eligible voters who are not yet registered, who could be crucial to either party’s desire to win and hold statewide office in Texas in coming years. In California there are another 2 million eligible Latinos to be registered. There are 300,000 unregistered Latinos who could be voters in Illinois where a U.S. Senate election was decided by less than 60,000 votes in 2010.

As pundits look towards 2012, Latino voters are positioned to cast crucial votes in many states. Beyond looking at just the likely 4/4 voters, or perhaps the pool of registered voters, campaigns and candidates would be wise to look at the growing pool of Latino eligible voters and invest now in bringing more Latinos into the political system – an investment that will pay off for decades to come.

Dr. Matt Barreto is an associate professor of political science at the University of Washington, and director of the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race (WISER). He is also the co-Director of the Washington Poll, a statewide opinion survey conducted by Pacific Market Research. matt.barreto@latinodecisions.com

[Photo By Esparta]

Here’s a trend of note. Brookline, Massachusetts, is the latest in a handful of cities in that state that have approved voting rights for non-citizens.

I remember hearing about the idea several years ago when I worked for the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. It was mentioned in conversations back then that some cities across the country were contemplating voting rights for green-card holders. It made sense since documented residents, although non-voting, had a stake in local political outcomes.

The news comes from wickedlocal.com: “Brookline Town Meeting approved a petition that would give immigrants with Green Cards the right to vote in local elections, rejecting the recommendation of selectmen and the Advisory Committee to let residents vote on the matter first.”

So it’s not a done thing; the matter will be placed before a community vote, and then the state legislature has to approve it. But if several other cities in Massachusetts have already taken that path, the local Town Meeting should have little to worry about.

It seems right and practical to give green-card holders the right to vote in local elections because matters of public safety and health, which are dealt with at the street level, are the ones that affect their lives in the most direct way.

A couple of things to note about Brookline are that the median income is around $94,000 and 81 percent of the residents have a bachelors degree or higher. The population is almost 80 percent white-non Hispanic, 7.5 percent of the population lives below the poverty level and 13 percent of the school children receive free or reduced price lunch.

We’ll follow how it goes.

[Photo courtesy wickedlocal.com]