ESSAY

UNEQUAL VOICES Who Speaks for California?

Part II

FEBRUARY 2017

Advancement Project is a next generation, multiracial civil rights organization. In California we champion the struggle for greater equity and opportunity for all, fostering upward mobility in communities most impacted by economic and racial injustice. We build alliances and trust, use data-driven policy solutions, create innovative tools and work alongside communities to ignite social transformation!

Our Political Voice program nurtures a healthy democracy by amplifying the voices of low-income communities of color in all political processes and ensuring that government responds to those voices.

University of California, Riverside

School of Public Policy

Serving Inland Southern California and Beyond

Our mission is to train a new generation of forward-thinking public policy leaders equipped to address the complex, interrelated challenges of poverty, disease, illiteracy, climate change, energy security, pollution and more. Their training will be informed by (i) a diverse, interdisciplinary curriculum that emphasizes evidence- based policy research as well as cross-learning from both international and domestic problem-solving experiences, and (ii) a rich internship program that emphasizes experiential learning.

We help change makers understand why people engage politically, through a comprehensive set of research methods and by careful examination of ethnorace, gender, class, geography, sexuality, etc. We help change makers ask and answer the right questions to unlock the power of the New American Majority. Using a culturally competent lens, we help clients align their research needs and strategic goals and then apply our multidisciplinary tools to conduct research of the highest caliber. We provide effective, customized research services that are designed and carried out in accordance with the unique needs of each partner.

FEBRUARY 2017

Written by

John Dobard, Manager of Political Voice, Advancement Project

Kim Engie, Data and Research Analyst, Advancement Project

Karthick Ramakrishnan, Professor, School of Public Policy,

University of California Riverside

Sono Shah, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, University of California Riverside

Lisa García Bedolla, Principal and Co-Founder, American Majority Project Research Institute

Unequal Voices, Part II was made possible by a generous grant from The James Irvine Foundation.

UNEQUAL VOICES Who Speaks for California?

Part II

2

Executive Summary

Racial Disparities in Democracy: Barriers to Justice in California

Gaps in Political Participation Among Adults (18+)

Gaps in Political Participation Among Millennials (18-34)

Racial Overrepresentation and Underrepresentation in Political Participation

What Predicts and Overcomes Racial Disparities in Political Participation?

Policy Reform for Change

Increase Participation in Democracy: Move California Toward Greater Justice

Notes

References

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

4

6

12

16

19

29

33

34

35

3

Reform existing public participation infrastructure to create new opportunities for

political participation and socialization.

Enact local public participation ordinances to institutionalize new forms of democratic engagement in municipal decision-making.

Create a statewide public participation program to support government efforts to

improve democratic engagement.

Encourage more widespread adoption of practices that regularly gauge constituent

sentiment and the quality of representation.

California’s democracy is neither adequately participatory nor representative. Although California has been a majority-minority state since 2000, its democracy does not reflect that demographic reality.

Part I of Unequal Voices, released in June 2016, highlights trends in political participation based on government data between 2004 and 2014. That analysis found significant disparities between whites and people of color in voting rates in presidential, midterm, and local elections. It also found that these gaps persist in most forms of political participation beyond voting, such as contacting public officials, contributing time and/or money to a campaign, attending political meetings, and engaging in consumer activism.

This report shows that racial disparity trends in participation beyond voting continue. Using original telephone survey data from 2016, we analyzed the rates at which Californians contact public officials, contribute money to campaigns, attend public meetings, protest, engage in consumer activism, and sign petitions in person or online. The survey design allowed for closely examining rates of participation within the general adult population (aged 18+), as well as within the millennial (aged 18-34) and Asian American populations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Asian Americans and Latinos are under-represented in most

political activities, while whites are overrepresented.

There are significant national-origin differences among Asian Americans, with Chinese, Korean, and Hmong Americans

tending to participate the least.

Attendance at public meetings is one of the few activities in which whites do not

participate at the highest rate.

Racial disparities in political participation are being reproduced in

the millennial generation.

Racial disparities are best explained by people of color being less empowered to participate, due to either structural

obstacles or poor mobilization by political parties and campaigns, rather than a lack

of interest in politics.

Participation in civic associations and mobilization by political parties and campaigns can overcome barriers to

political participation.

KEY FINDINGS

SOLUTIONS

Incorporate high-quality civic education curriculum into K-12 school districts across the state to provide all students the opportunity to

develop civic knowledge and skills.

4

1 | Racial Disparities: Understanding Barriers to Justice in California

Nationally, the prospects for greater racial and economic justice appear slim. By contrast, California is poised

to make progress toward greater equity and opportunity. The state has a majority-minority population,

strong multiracial and statewide networks of community organizations, and the largest number of union

members in the country. Conditions such as these have facilitated the passage and implementation of public

policies that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

Nevertheless, progress for these communities has been uneven, and there are significant local and statewide

challenges that remain. Now that the 2016 election cycle is complete and our elected representatives have

been sworn in, a new cycle of governance begins. The struggle for racial and economic justice will now

shift largely from the electoral arena to the legislative and administrative arenas. Decisions will be made

regarding which issues are important enough to receive legislative attention, what policies will address

those issues, and how well those policies will be implemented.

To meet local and statewide challenges, it is imperative that more

Californians participate in the policymaking process, especially low-

income Californians and people of color. These Californians and their allies

absolutely must turn out to vote in the upcoming elections. But it is just

as important that their voices are amplified within those governmental

processes that hold officials accountable for passing and implementing

important policies beneficial to all Californians.

Part I of Unequal Voices, released in June 2016, highlights trends in

political participation based on government data (Current Population

Survey) between 2004 and 2014. This report presents an analysis of original

telephone survey data from 2016.1 The responses mainly offer data on

political participation in the legislative and administrative arenas, such as contacting public officials, attending

political meetings, and signing petitions. They also offer information on predictors of participation, such as

socioeconomic status, political discussions, and community participation.2

The survey data largely affirm the findings from the government data: There are significant racial disparities

across a range of political activities, and whites are overrepresented in political participation.

The survey was designed to take a closer look at participation rates among millennials and Asian Americans.

In the case of millennials, we find that disparities within the larger adult population are largely replicated

within the young adult population. For instance, white millennials generally participate at higher rates than

millennials of color, even though youth of color make up two-thirds of the state’s millennial population.

There are significant racial disparities across

a range of political activities, and whites

are overrepresented in political participation.

5

Reducing and eliminating racial disparities in participation

through structural reform will build a more representative and

participatory democracy.

Our analysis also reveals that although Asian Americans

participate at lower rates overall, there are significant

differences within the population. For example, Indian

Americans regularly participate at higher rates, whereas

Chinese, Korean, and Hmong Americans regularly

participate at lower rates.

When combined with the results described in Unequal

Voices, Part I, the disparities confirm that racial gaps

in political participation between whites and people

of color have been the norm in California for at least

the last 12 years. Changing that norm is a racial and

economic justice issue because the gaps in participation

result in racial disparities in political influence, and

the structural factors that largely explain those gaps

disproportionately affect low-income Californians of

color. If we address these disparities, people of color

will, for the first time, have a representative voice in

public policy decision-making.

With the shared goal of a healthy democracy, advocates

for racial and economic justice must find common

purpose with advocates for good governance and

democratic engagement. By reducing and eliminating

racial disparities in participation through structural

reform, we will build a more representative and

participatory democracy. That revitalized democracy will

then turn the prospect of greater racial and economic

justice in California into a reality.

66

2 | Gaps in Political Participation Among Adults (18+)

Political participation is not only about voting. There are many other ways

individuals and groups can engage in the political process, which is often

referred to as non-electoral participation, or participation beyond voting.

Participation beyond voting is an important way community residents can

make their voices heard in the policymaking process between elections. In this

section, we present survey findings about a variety of these activities, including

contacting public officials, contributing money to political campaigns, attending

public meetings, protesting, engaging in consumer activism, and signing

petitions in person or online.

TH E

AS IA

N AM

ER IC

AN A

ND P

AC IF

IC IS

LA ND

ER C

ON TE

XT Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) are the fastest-growing racial groups in California. There are about 6.3 million AAPIs in California, accounting for about 1 out of every 6 residents in the state (16%). Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders are distinct racial groups as measured by the U.S. Census, and there are significant differences in educational attainment, language proficiency, and economic outcomes within each group. Thus, for example, Filipino and Chinese Americans, the largest Asian origin populations in the state, tend to have higher-than-average levels of educational attainment and income, while Vietnamese Americans (the third largest group) and various other Southeast Asian groups such as Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian Americans score well below the statewide average on these measures. In addition, Pacific Islanders are, on the whole, much more likely than Asian Americans to be born in the United States, and tend to face greater disadvantages with respect to educational attainment, income, and health outcomes.

Counties in Southern California and the Bay Area have the largest AAPI populations in the state, but there are also significant Southeast Asian populations in the Central Valley. There have been long-settled populations of Asian Americans in various parts of the state that bear the legacy of not only early waves of migration such as the 1849 Gold Rush and agricultural entrepreneurship of Japanese and Indian Americans in the Central Valley, but also of discriminatory laws and actions ranging from internment to “alien land laws” and anti-Asian riots. The biggest increase in the Asian American population occurred in the decades following the expansion of U.S. immigration law in 1965, with a notable increase in the Southeast Asian population in the 1970s following the end of the Vietnam War. The last two decades have seen a significant increase in the suburban Asian population, particularly in the counties of Orange, Santa Clara, Alameda, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside. For more details on the AAPI population in California, visit http://AAPIdata.com/.

Rates of contacting public officials were especially low among Asian Americans and

Latinos.

Attendance at public meetings is one of the few political

activities in which whites do not participate at the highest rate.

Blacks and Pacific Islanders reported relatively high rates

of campaign contributions.

Among Asian Americans, groups with lower

socioeconomic status protest more frequently than those with

higher socioeconomic status.

Petition signing is one of the more frequent acts of political

participation in California.

KEY FINDINGS

7

Participation Method: Contacting Public Officials Contacting public officials is an important way for constituents to voice their policy preferences or concerns.

Contact can take various forms, such as making phone calls and office visits, and sending emails, tweets, and

other forms of social media communication.

Contacting elected officials offers several advantages that go beyond voting. Constituents are not limited

to a single act of participation, nor are they limited to participating at a specific time or place. Additionally,

contact also enables constituents to hold their representatives accountable between elections.

In a recent study, those who emailed a public official were equally likely to receive a response and equally

likely to be satisfied with the interaction as those who contacted in person, by phone, or by letter (Smith

et al. 2009). In some cases, targeted contacts by constituents significantly increased the likelihood of a

representative supporting relevant pieces of legislation (Bergan and Cole 2015).

Despite these potential benefits, few constituents reported contacting a public official, especially respondents

of color (Table 1). Rates of contact were especially low among Asian Americans (9%) and Latinos (7%). Among

Asian American groups, participation rates ranged from a low of 4% (Cambodian Americans) to highs of 13%

(Indian Americans) and 19% (Japanese Americans).

Participation Method: Contributing Money to Campaigns Campaign contributions help constituents elect candidates they support and gain access to elected

officials. In the 2015-16 election cycle, candidates received $176 million in in-state contributions, according

to California’s campaign finance database (Cal-Access). Prior research has

shown that elected officials tend to meet with donors more often than non-

donors, and they also tend to better represent the preferences of donors

over their general constituencies (Kalla and Broockman 2016; Barber 2016;

Bartels 2008).

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN RATES OF CONTACTING ELECTED OFFICIALS

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

17% 9% 18% 7% 18% 26%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

4% 9% 9% 5% 13% 19% 6% 8%

TABLE 1

As a group, donors tend to be whiter, wealthier, and more educated than the rest of the population.

8

Past research has also shown campaign contributions to be a fairly exclusive activity, involving significant

class and racial disparities. As a group, donors tend to be whiter, wealthier, and more educated than the rest

of the population. For example, a recent nationwide analysis of campaign contributions found that in the

2012 and 2014 election cycles, 91% of federal election donors were white (McElwee, Schaffner, and Rhodes

2016).

Among respondents in our 2016 survey, overall rates of political contributions were higher than those found

in prior studies (Wong et al. 2011). It is possible that small-donor contributions to presidential candidates

such as Bernie Sanders might have increased the number of contributors in California without changing

racial disparities in levels of giving. This is an issue that deserves further analysis based on Federal Election

Commission contribution data. Still, it is remarkable to note that blacks (27%) and Pacific Islanders (26%) in

California reported relatively high rates of campaign contributions. By contrast, Asian Americans (13%) and

Latinos (9%) were much less likely to report making political contributions.

Participation Method: Attending Public Meetings Public meetings or hearings, such as those offered through a school board or city council, give the public

an important opportunity to convey information to officials. Interestingly, attendance in public meetings

is one of the few actions in which whites do not participate at the highest rate. Pacific Islanders and black

respondents reported attending public meetings (35% and 30%, respectively) at higher rates as compared

to whites (26%).

Similar to work by other scholars (Fraga and Frost 2010), we find that Latinos reported attending public

meetings at comparable rates to whites (24% and 26%, respectively). Asian Americans, however, have

8

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN RATES OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

21% 13% 27% 9% 26% 33%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

9% 9% 16% 5% 22% 14% 7% 12%

TABLE 2

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN ATTENDING PUBLIC MEETINGS

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

24% 14% 30% 24% 35% 26%

TABLE 3

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

30% 7% 14% 15% 27% 16% 11% 16%

9

Pacific Islanders and blacks reported attending public meetings at higher rates compared to whites.

considerably lower rates of participation in public meetings (14%), with rates lowest

among Chinese Americans (7%) and highest among Cambodian (30%) and Indian

Americans (27%).

These results differ from what we found in our initial report using Current Population

Survey data. Due to recent research by other scholars, who found that blacks

are significantly more likely to attend public meetings than whites (Williamson

& Scicchitano 2015) and that Latinos are likely to report attending school board

meetings (Fraga and Frost 2010), we worded our survey question to specifically mention city council and

school board meetings as “public meetings.” This factor may help to explain our results. Another possible

explanation is that the launch of the Local Control Accountability Plan process in school districts throughout

California increased individuals’ opportunities to attend public meetings. At a minimum, we still find

important differences across groups, suggesting the need for further research into this important question.

Participation Method: Protest Activity Contributing to campaigns, contacting elected officials, and attending public meetings can all be

considered conventional forms of institutionally oriented political participation. Past research has indicated,

however, that marginalized groups tend to also engage in activities such as protests and boycotts, which are

considered outside the traditional avenues of communication with policymakers (Tate 1993; García Bedolla

2014). Indeed, these activities are often interpreted as challenging existing power structures or as methods

of seeking representation (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001).

Our findings indicate that it is not only marginalized communities who engage in protest. Indeed, protest

activity by whites (12%) is on par with rates of participation among blacks and Latinos (14% each). As is the

case with many other forms of political participation, Asian Americans tend to have the lowest rates of

participation in protest activity (8%), although there is significant variation across sub-groups, with Vietnamese

Americans having the highest levels (18%) and Korean Americans having the lowest (3%). In general, protest

activity seems to be much more frequent among Asian-origin groups with lower socioeconomic status

(Hmong, Cambodian, and Vietnamese) than those with higher levels of socioeconomic status, such as Indian

and Chinese Americans.

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN PROTEST AND CONSUMER ACTIVISM

12% 8% 6% 11% 8% 6% 3% 18%

16% 3% 15% 3% 18% 13% 11% 28%

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

12% 8% 14% 14% 11% 12%Protest

Consumer Activism 24% 13% 25% 16% 22% 31%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Protest

Consumer Activism

TABLE 4

1010

Participation Method: Consumer Activism Individuals can also choose to influence policymakers by engaging in consumer activism, such as

“buycotting” or boycotting products from companies (i.e., intentionally purchasing or not purchasing

goods or services), to gain leverage on a particular issue. Although these strategic campaigns are often

considered outside the traditional avenues of influence, they can have significant effects on policy.

An excellent example of this is North Carolina’s House Bill 2 (HB2), which blocked transgender people from

using the bathroom of their choice. The passage of

HB2 was met with widespread criticism and calls for

companies to refrain from doing business either in or

with the state. Since the bill’s passing, several major

businesses and entertainers cancelled or moved

events from North Carolina, with some estimating

that North Carolina lost more than $395 million as a

result (Grey Ellis 2016). This consumer activism played

a key role in leading the state legislature to consider

repealing the law through a special session, though

North Carolina’s Senate voted against repeal and its

House ultimately did not vote at all.

Our findings indicate that individuals regularly

engage in consumer activism, with nearly one in four

Californians reporting participating in buycotting or

boycotting activities. Among racial groups, whites

participate at the highest levels, with nearly one in

three reporting consumer activism compared to one

in four blacks. Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans,

and Latinos all participate at rates lower than the

California average, with just 13% of Asian Americans

reporting having engaged in consumer activism.

Even after examining Asian American sub-groups, we

still see participation below average for most groups,

with the exception of Vietnamese respondents.

Californians regularly engage in consumer activism – nearly one in four participated in buycotting or boycotting.

11

Participation Method: Signing Petitions & E-Petitions Signing petitions is an important form of political participation in California for several reasons. Citizens who

choose to sign petitions to place initiatives on statewide and local ballots have more influence in the agenda-

setting process than non-participants. In addition, e-petitions can play an important role in communicating

constituent preferences on particular issues to elected officials. This mechanism is particularly important for

state and local legislative districts, where surveys of constituents can be cost-prohibitive.

Petition signing is one of the more frequent acts of political participation in California, with about one in

three respondents (36%) reporting participation. As in other political activities, however, there are large racial

disparities, with whites being by far the most likely to participate (46%), and Latinos and Asian Americans

the least likely (27% and 24%, respectively). Within the Asian American category, Chinese Americans have

the lowest rates of petition signing (16%), while Indian Americans, Japanese Americans, and Vietnamese

Americans have much higher rates of participation, averaging around 30%.

When we examine those who sign online or e-petitions, the disparities remain. First, a smaller proportion

of respondents sign e-petitions (24%) than sign paper petitions (36%). However, as we discuss later, rates

of e-participation are higher among millennials. Latinos and Asian Americans reported engaging in this

activity significantly less than whites. Finally, even though Chinese Americans have participated in prominent

e-petitions on matters ranging from affirmative action to data disaggregation in California and have

received significant news interest as a result, we find that Chinese Americans have among the lowest rates

of participation in signing e-petitions.

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN PETITION SIGNING

22% 16% 24% 18% 31% 29% 26% 29%

24% 8% 17% 8% 27% 20% 15% 18%

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

36% 24% 37% 27% 40% 46%

E-Petitions 24% 16% 20% 18% 30% 31%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Sign Petition

Sign Petition

E-Petitions

TABLE 5

12

3 | Gaps in Political Participation Among Millennials (18-34)

More than eight million young people will enter the California electorate

between 2015 and 2030 (García Bedolla and Echaveste 2015). Seventy

percent of these new eligible voters will be people of color, with 53% Latino.

Given the size and diversity of the millennial population, it is important to

understand their civic engagement and determine whether the types of

political activities they engage in vary by population group.

Students of color lack as many opportunities to participate in high-quality

civics education as compared to their white counterparts (Kahne and

Middaugh 2009). Similarly, data from the Youth Participatory Politics project,

which explored youth political activity both virtually and in the real world,

showed important variations in how youth from different groups choose

to engage (Cohen et al. 2012). These studies show significant variance in

opportunities to learn about civics and invitations to engage in politics

across different youth communities. It is therefore unsurprising that we find

important racial differences in the types of political activities millennials

engage in.

Despite comprising only 35% of our millennial survey population, white

millennials made up the majority of youth who reported taking part in

political activities. White millennials accounted for 70% of those who reported

contacting elected officials and making political contributions, 63% of those who reported boycotting, and almost

60% of those who reported signing a petition. Thus, similar to the older adult population, white millennials in

California are significantly overrepresented in terms of their political voice.

We also find that millennials of color generally choose to engage in different

sorts of political activities than do white youth, and that Asian American and

Latino millennials are least likely to engage in a wide variety of political activities

(Figure 1). This suggests that the differences are not merely a product of personal

preference, but also a reflection of how millennials of different backgrounds see

themselves in relation to the political system (García Bedolla and Michelson 2012).

White millennials made up the

majority of youth who reported taking part in

political activities.

Disparities within the general adult population are largely replicated within the young

adult population.

There is very little difference between millennials and older Californian adults in attending

public meetings.

Black youth were the most likely to report participating in

protest activity.

Millennials were 15% more likely than older adults to report

having signed an e-petition.

KEY FINDINGS

13

Participation Method: Contacting Public Officials As discussed above, contacting public officials is an important way for constituents to get their voices heard in

the policymaking process. Given that few Californians reported engaging in this activity, it is not surprising that

only 14% of millennials (compared to 18% of older adults) reported having made this sort of contact (Figure 2).

But there are significant differences among millennials, with white millennials almost three times as likely as Asian

American or Latino millennials to have engaged in this activity (Figure 1).

RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN MILLENNIAL POLITICAL ACTIVITY FIG 1

Note: Data come from authors’ analysis of data from the 2016 National Asian American Survey (Ramakrishnan et al., 2016).

14

Participation Method: Contributing to Political Campaigns Undoubtedly, generational disparities in resources account for older adults being more likely to report

having made political contributions, as seen in Figure 2. Among millennials, we see that political giving is

driven predominantly by whites, who are twice as likely as blacks and three times as likely as Latinos and

Asian Americans to report having made political contributions.

Participation Method: Attending Political Meetings The idea that millennials are generally disengaged in institutional activity is undermined by what we see in

Figure 1, which shows significant attendance at political meetings, such as those for city council or a school

board. Contrary to expectations, we find very little difference between millennials and older Californian

adults in terms of their meeting attendance (Figure 2). However, which millennials attend these meetings

varies significantly by race. Black millennials are two-and-a-half times as likely as Asian American millennials

to report this kind of community activity. White and Pacific Islander millennials are the second most likely.

MILLENNIAL POLITICAL ACTIVITY AS COMPARED TO OLDER ADULTS FIG 2

Note: Data come from authors’ analysis of data from the 2016 National Asian American Survey (Ramakrishnan et al., 2016).

15

Participation Method: Protest Activity Millennials were about two-and-a-half times more likely to report having engaged in protest activities than

older adults. Among millennials, we see in Figure 1 that black youth were the most likely to report having

participated in these kinds of activities. This may possibly be attributable to the mobilization among black

millennials that has occurred as a result of the Movement for Black Lives. Asian Americans, by contrast, were

about half as likely to report having engaged in protests as any other group of millennial youth.

Participation Method: Consumer Activism Millennials were more likely than older adult Californians to report buycotting or boycotting certain products.

Similar to what we found for many political activities, whites were the most likely to report having engaged

in consumer activism, and Asian Americans the least likely.

Participation Method: Signing Petitions and E-Petitions With the rise of social media, it is assumed that millennials are more active in activities readily available

online, such as signing petitions. Figures 1 and 2 appear to support this assumption. Millennials were 15%

more likely than older adults to report having signed an e-petition. Again, we see racial differences in

engagement, with whites and Pacific Islanders the most likely to report having engaged in this activity, and

Asian Americans and blacks the least likely.

Millennials were more likely than older Californians to report buycotting or boycotting certain products.

1616

4 | Racial Overrepresentation and Underrepresentation in Political Participation

In the previous two sections, we have examined racial disparities in political

participation by inspecting differential rates of participation across groups.

Another important way to understand these disparities is to take a snapshot

of each group’s share of the participating population and compare those

patterns to the adult resident population. These kinds of analyses are often

done with respect to voting; after each election, we seek to understand

each racial group’s share of the electorate, and the extent to which any

particular group may be overrepresented or underrepresented.

Unequal Voices, Part II extends the analogy to other forms of participation

– for example, to examine the degree to which Latinos may be

underrepresented in an activity, such as contacting public officials versus

attending public meetings. As we can see from Figure 3, Latinos and

Asian Americans are underrepresented and whites are overrepresented in

most forms of political participation in California, while black participation

is on par with that group’s share of the adult population. Even though

OVERREPRESENTATION AND UNDERREPRESENTATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES IN CALIFORNIA

FIG 3

Whites are overrepresented in most forms of political

participation.

Latinos and Asian Americans combined account for only

one quarter or one third of the participating population in many

political activities.

Whites are the most politically empowered group in California’s

democracy.

KEY FINDINGS

Note: Bars aggregate to slightly less than 100% because of groups not included in the survey (Native Americans and “other” racial groups). Population data is derived from CA Department of Finance Population Projections (Table P-3); survey data are weighted to the California population and reflect only the groups included in the survey.

17

Latinos and Asian Americans combined are a majority of California’s

adult population, they account for only one quarter or one third of the

participating population in many political activities.

Racial disparities are particularly significant when it comes to contacting

public officials and making political contributions. This is troubling given

prior research that shows these forms of participation are the surest

paths for constituents to gain access to elected officials and influence

policy agendas. Latino and Asian American underrepresentation is also

apparent in important activities like signing petitions and engaging in

consumer activism.

Protest activity and attending public meetings are the bright spots in terms

of showing lower racial disparities in political participation. But even in

these instances, Asian Americans remain significantly underrepresented:

they make up 14% of the adult population, but only 8% of the population

that is heard at public meetings of school boards and city councils.

Data on participation among millennials indicate that these racial

disparities are being reproduced in the next generation. Even though whites accounted for only

35% of the millennial population in our survey, they accounted for a majority of millennials who made

campaign contributions, contacted public officials, and participated in consumer activism, and they were

also overrepresented in petition activity. As with the overall population, attending public meetings and

protesting were the only activities in which white millennials were not overrepresented in their political

participation.

RACIAL OVERREPRESENTATION AND UNDERREPRESENTATION IN CALIFORNIA MILLENNIALS FIG 4

Racial disparities are particularly significant when it comes to contacting public officials and making political contributions. Research shows these are the surest ways to gain access to elected officials and influence policy agendas.

Note: Population data derived from CA Department of Finance Population Projections (Table P-3); survey data are weighted to the California population and reflect groups included in the survey (Native Americans and other racial groups not included).

1818

Using this data on participation activities, we devised a summary measure of political empowerment in California: the Index of Political Empowerment (IPE).

The IPE combines the non-electoral forms of participation because our analysis reveals that participation in these different activities is highly correlated. For instance, people who contact public officials are also very likely to attend public meetings and vice versa. Those who argue that certain types of political participation are more consequential than others may prefer to see these activities in disaggregated form, as in Figures 3 and 4 above.

We find that whites participate the most in California’s democracy, as shown in Figure 5, followed by Pacific Islanders and blacks. Asian Americans and Latinos rank the lowest on political empowerment, a fact that is extremely concerning given that these populations currently represent a majority of California’s population and are expected to grow significantly in the future.

INDEX OF POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT, BY RACIAL GROUP IN CALIFORNIA

The Index of Political Empowerment

Note: Index ranges from a minimum of 0 activities to a maximum of 7

FIG 5

1919

5 | What Predicts and Overcomes Racial Disparities in Political Participation?

This report has provided a detailed look at the inequities that exist across

varying types of political participation in California. In our analysis, a clear

pattern emerges: in most types of activities, whites are overrepresented,

and Asian Americans and Latinos are underrepresented. Once we establish

these important facts and consider their implications, another important

question emerges: what accounts for these racial gaps in political

participation?

To answer this, we examine survey data on potential barriers, such as lack

of socioeconomic resources and low levels of English proficiency, political

interest, and sense of political efficacy. Next, we discuss factors that can

help overcome these barriers, including those operating at a social level

(discussing politics with family and friends and posting online about politics

and race relations) and at the level of organizations and institutions (civic

participation and mobilization efforts by parties and campaigns).

To preview our findings, our analysis indicates that barriers to participation,

particularly those stemming from a lack of outreach by parties and

campaigns, as well as educational and language barriers, bear some of the

strongest relationships to political disempowerment. By contrast, political

apathy plays a relatively small role. Thus, it is not that people of color do not

want to participate or do not care about achieving a healthy democracy,

but rather that they are much less likely to be empowered to participate,

either through mobilization or through the removal of other obstacles.

Socioeconomic Barriers

Past research has indicated that socioeconomic factors like educational attainment and income are significant

predictors of participation, especially for white Americans. There are several reasons for this: those with lower

levels of educational attainment and income are less likely to be part of social networks that mobilize people

into politics, they have had fewer opportunities to develop civic skills, and they are also less likely to be

homeowners and have a stake in local policy issues.

There are significant differences in socioeconomic status across racial groups in California, with whites and

Asian Americans significantly more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than the statewide average, and blacks,

Latinos, and Pacific Islanders less so. Similarly, blacks, Latinos, and Pacific Islanders are much less likely than

whites and Asian Americans to earn over $100,000 a year.

B A R R I E R S T O PA R T I C I PAT I O N

Low political interest is most prevalent among whites and

least prevalent among Latinos.

Latinos and Asian Americans were much less likely to feel adequately equipped

or empowered to understand the process of politics and

decision-making.

Black millennials were much more likely than those of any

other group to report engaging in political discussion and

community problem-solving.

Those who participate in civic associations have significantly

higher levels of political empowerment.

Those who have been mobilized by political parties or campaigns

also have significantly higher levels of political empowerment.

KEY FINDINGS

2020

Political Interest

Political apathy is often cited as a barrier to participation. Those who have low interest in politics are less

likely to be informed about candidates and issues, particularly at the state and local level (Delli Carpini and

Keeter 1996). Those with low levels of political interest also have less motivation to get involved in politics.3

There are significant differences in political interest across racial groups in

California. Interestingly, low political interest is most prevalent among whites

and least prevalent among Latinos, running counter to expectations, given

the racial disparities in participation. Similar patterns hold true across racial

groups for millennials. Thus, political apathy is an unlikely explanation for why

Latinos and Asian Americans under-participate in California’s democracy,

and we need to look to other factors to explain racial gaps.

Thus, we can expect socioeconomic barriers to account for part of the participation disparities by race,

particularly between whites and Latinos, but it cannot account for participation disparities between whites

and Asian Americans.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES BY RACE IN CALIFORNIA

Bachelor or Higher Income < $35,000 Income > $100,000

California Average 32% 28% 32%

Asian American 51% 23% 43%

Black 24% 41% 20%

Latino 12% 35% 18%

Pacific Islander 17% 26% 25%

White 42% 24% 38%

TABLE 6

LEVELS OF POLITICAL INTEREST BY RACE IN CALIFORNIA

Low Medium High

Asian American 52% 35% 13%

Black 56% 28% 16%

Latino 45% 39% 16%

Pacific Islander 51% 38% 11%

White 71% 24% 5%

Low political interest is most prevalent among whites and least prevalent among Latinos, running counter to expectations, given the racial disparities in participation.

TABLE 7

21

Sense of Political Efficacy

In addition to political interest, there are other attitudinal factors that can serve as barriers to participation.

These include a sense of external efficacy, often measured as the extent to which individuals believe that

public officials care what people like them think, and a sense of internal efficacy, often measured as the

extent to which individuals believe that politics and government are too complicated for people like them

to really understand. We find that racial gaps in internal political efficacy tend to mirror racial gaps in

participation, with Latinos and Asian Americans much less likely to feel adequately equipped or empowered

to understand the process of politics and decision-making. These same racial gaps reproduce themselves

among millennials. By contrast, there are no statistically significant differences with respect to racial gaps in

external efficacy, either among millennials or among the overall adult population in California.

Language Barriers

Language barriers can also hamper political participation, as shown in many previous studies (Tam Cho 1999;

Leighley and Vedlitz 1999; Wong et al. 2011). Without robust levels of language assistance at the state and

local level, individuals with low English proficiency are less likely to have the requisite information needed to

participate in politics, and they are less likely to be mobilized into politics by parties and campaigns (Wong

et al. 2011; Parkin and Zlotnick 2011).

Among our survey respondents, Latinos and Asian Americans had much lower levels of English proficiency

(54% and 57%, respectively) than Pacific Islanders (97%), whites (99%), and blacks (100%). These patterns

mirror the documented racial gaps in participation, and we believe that language proficiency plays a

significant role in accounting for the observed racial disparities in political empowerment among Latinos

and Asian Americans.

Among millennials, English proficiency was lower among Asian Americans (73%) than among Latinos (88%).

This is understandable given that nearly a majority of the Asian American millennial population in California

is foreign-born, compared to less than a quarter of the Latino millennial population.

Note: Internal political efficacy is measured by those who agree that people like them can understand politics; external political efficacy is measured by those who agree that politicians care about what people like them think. 4

POLITICAL EFFICACY BY RACE IN CALIFORNIA

Internal Political Efficacy External Political Efficacy

Asian American 26% 25%

Black 39% 29%

Latino 30% 31%

Pacific Islander 37% 34%

White 45% 29%

TABLE 8

2222

Here we turn to structural pillars of civic engagement that play an important role in influencing individuals’

levels of political participation. For example, prior research has indicated that working with others to solve

community problems and belonging to community organizations are both significant predictors of political

engagement (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). These activities have been shown to provide individuals

with the skills, motivation, and opportunities for mobilization that lead to an increase in political participation

(García Bedolla 2005; Wong 2006). In addition to civic participation, other factors like discussing politics with

friends and family and contact by political parties have been noted as important to overcoming barriers to

political participation.

Engaging in Political Discussion

Engaging in discussion of political issues and news with friends and family is an important part of the political

socialization process. Discussing politics and current events with others can lead adolescents to score higher

on measures of civic life, such as political knowledge, and be more likely to participate in other types of

behaviors such as voting (McIntosh, Hart, and Youniss 2007).

Political discussion can therefore be considered a structural or social context factor that can either deter

or foster civic participation. We analyze traditional measures of political discussion, such as those involving

friends and family, and newer forms of political discussion, such as posting information about politics online

via platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

The rates of political discussion we found in our survey are encouraging. A majority of each racial group in

California takes part in political discussions with family or friends. However, racial gaps still exist. Nearly nine

in 10 whites reported discussing politics with friends, compared to only about six in 10 Asian Americans. Asian

Americans and Latinos had the lowest reported rates of political discussion. This may relate to their status

as immigrant-origin communities, but it means that members of these communities have social networks

that are simply less politicized than those of whites or blacks, potentially decreasing their opportunities

F A C T O R S T H AT C A N O V E R C O M E PA R T I C I PAT I O N B A R R I E R S

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN DISCUSSING POLITICS

46% 51% 65% 44% 78% 71% 60% 70%

30% 24% 18% 25% 20% 10% 11% 14%

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

77% 63% 80% 67% 70% 89%

29% 20% 32% 25% 33% 33%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Discuss with family/friends

Discuss with family/friends

Post about politics online

Post about politics online

TABLE 9

23

for political engagement (Knoke 1990). Among Asian Americans, a majority of all but two ethnic groups

(Cambodian and Hmong) reported engaging in political discussions.

In terms of specifically political social media activities, we see rates of participation that are slightly more

equal among racial groups compared to other popular forms of civic participation. One in three Pacific

Islanders, whites, and blacks reported engaging in political social media activity, compared to one in four

Latinos and one in five Asians. Among Asian Americans, we see larger variations in participation, with

Cambodian, Hmong, and Chinese participating at higher rates than other Asian sub-groups.

The popular narrative is that millennials are much more disengaged from politics than their older adult

counterparts. Yet, looking at Figure 6 we see that millennials were more likely than older adults to report

talking about politics with family and friends.

However, we also see that there are important racial differences among millennials. White millennials were

30% more likely to report discussing politics with family and friends than Asian American millennials. Similar

racial disparities exist among millennials when it comes to posting information about politics online.5

If we understand political socialization as operating through social networks, then these findings suggest

that Asian American and Latino millennials are situated within networks that contain much less political

conversation. This disparity makes it more difficult for these individuals to have access to the political

information needed to support their civic engagement.

POLITICAL DISCUSSION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AMONG MILLENNIALS FIG 6

2424

Community Participation

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

24% 9% 26% 11% 33% 34% 20% 15%

13% 27% 42% 11% 45% 55% 56% 28%

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

36% 20% 42% 26% 44% 47%

42% 38% 42% 31% 51% 52%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Solve Community Problems

Involved in Comm- unity Organization

Community participation (i.e., Californians working with their neighbors to solve common problems) is an

important aspect of healthy civic life. As indicated earlier, community participation can help individuals

overcome barriers to participation by furnishing them with the requisite skills, motivation, and mobilization.

TABLE 10

Solve Community Problems

Involved in Comm- unity Organization

2525

POLITICAL DISCUSSION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AMONG MILLENNIALS AS COMPARED TO OLDER ADULTS

Past research has indicated that civic participation promotes important leadership skills and service

experiences useful for political participation (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). Positive peer pressure

within community organizations can also help increase motivation. Finally, community organizations are also

grounds for political mobilization, whether through parties and campaigns or through social movement

activity. Here, we use two measures for community participation:

1 Whether individuals have worked with others in their community to solve a problem,

and

2 Whether they are involved in community organizations.

Across all racial groups, we see participation in solving community problems, but there are significant

differences. Whites, blacks, and Pacific Islanders participate at the highest rates, while Latinos and Asian

Americans are much less likely to engage in community problem solving.

Similar patterns hold true when we look at involvement in community organizations, with Latinos and Asian

Americans significantly less likely to be involved as whites, Pacific Islanders, and blacks. There are significant

differences in community participation within the Asian American community, with Indian and Japanese

Americans reporting the highest levels of engagement, while Cambodian, Hmong, and Chinese Americans

reported the lowest levels. The low level of civic participation among Chinese Americans is especially

notable given that they constitute the largest Asian ethnic group in the state.

FIG 7

26

Mobilization by Parties and Campaigns

Finally, a wealth of prior research indicates that mobilization by political parties and campaigns helps

overcome barriers to participation (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Harris 1994; Calhoun-Brown 1996; Leighley

2001; Wong 2006; García Bedolla and Michelson 2012). This is particularly true for low-income communities,

where contact by political organizations can help increase levels of political interest, political information,

and a sense of external efficacy.

Our survey results indicate that Latinos and Asian Americans in California are much less likely to be contacted

by political parties (22% and 23%, respectively) than are whites and blacks (30% and 32%, respectively). As

we demonstrate further in the study, this lack of engagement by parties highly impacts racial disparities in

political empowerment, including activities that go well beyond voting.

Popular assumptions hold that millennials are more volunteer-oriented and more willing to engage in collective

activity when it is less focused on formal political institutions. Figure 7 seems to support this perception, with

millennials 7 to 9% more likely to report having engaged in these sorts of activities than older adults.

At the same time, we see the importance of examining differences among millennials of differing racial

backgrounds. Black millennials were much more likely than those of any other group to report engaging in this

sort of volunteer-oriented activity; Asian American millennials were less than half as likely. Again, this suggests

the need to address disparities in the political opportunities available to youth from these different groups.

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN POLITICAL MOBILIZATION

Overall Asian American Black Latino Pacific Islander White

26% 23% 32% 22% 25% 30%

Cambodian Chinese Filipino Hmong Indian Japanese Korean Vietnamese

15% 22% 27% 19% 25% 31% 15% 18%

TABLE 11

27

In Unequal Voices, Part I, we outlined factors like political interest and political mobilization as potentially

important in explaining racial gaps in participation. However, we were unable to test the effects of these

factors given the limitations of the dataset we used. Current Population Survey data from the federal

government does not include attitudinal measures, such as political interest, and measures of mobilization,

such as contact by political parties and/or campaigns. Fortunately, our 2016 California survey data contains

these measures, and we are able to analyze their relationship to empowerment.

As we can see from Figure 1, racial gaps in political empowerment are

statistically significant: whites participate the most in California’s democracy,

followed by blacks and Pacific Islanders. Asian Americans and Latinos have

the lowest levels of political empowerment, a fact that is extremely concerning

given that these populations represent a majority of California’s population

today.

When it comes to predicting political empowerment, we find that racial gaps

are partially accounted for by socioeconomic resources. The gap in political

empowerment for Latinos gets halved when we take into account gender,

education, and income, and the gap for Asian Americans gets reduced by

C A N B A R R I E R S B E O V E R C O M E ?

Those who participate in civic

associations or who have been mobilized

by political parties and campaigns have

significantly higher levels of political

empowerment.

PREDICTING RACIAL GAPS IN POLITICAL EMPOWERMENT, AS COMPARED TO WHITES FIG 8

Note: Estimates are predicted values of the index of political empowerment, with whites as the baseline.

2828

about 25%. Even after controlling for socioeconomic resources, however, Latinos and Asian Americans still have

significantly lower levels of political empowerment than do whites (See Appendix Table 1 for more details).

Then we considered the role of other barriers, including political apathy, low levels of political efficacy, and

low levels of English proficiency. As expected, all of these factors affect participation levels. Controlling for

these factors reduces racial gaps in political empowerment even further, although they still remain statistically

significant and sizable for Latinos and Asian Americans.

Finally, we controlled for factors that can overcome these barriers, including political discussions, community

participation, and mobilization by political parties. Each of these factors is significantly related to political

empowerment. Importantly, those who participate in civic associations or who have been mobilized by political

parties and campaigns have significantly higher levels of political empowerment (See Appendix Table 1).

These latter two findings are important, as they suggest there are concrete ways to overcome the disadvantages

that Latinos and Asian Americans may face with respect to their political empowerment. As the prior literature

has shown, mobilization by political parties or community organizations helps individuals overcome barriers to

engagement, and civic associations are where constituents gain important skills, motivations, and opportunities

for mobilization (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995; Gerber, Green, and Larimer 2008; Wong et al. 2011;

Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad 2011; García Bedolla and Michelson 2012; Ramírez 2015).

Controlling for all of these factors still leaves some racial disparities intact, but it goes a long way towards

eliminating racial disparities in political empowerment (Figure 8).

29

6 | Policy Reforms for Change Our analysis has demonstrated significant gaps in political voice across California’s racial groups. Further, those

gaps persist among millennials.

These disparities are not simply the result of personal choice. As our data on political interest and discussion of

political issues show, Californians of color care about politics. The gaps are instead a reflection of the different

political opportunities available to members of particular racial groups and the political socialization process

they each experience.

For example, lower levels of political discussion among Asian Americans

reflect less politicized social networks. Similarly, lower levels of community

participation among Asian Americans and Latinos reflects fewer efforts to

politically mobilize members of these populations, and fewer opportunities

for those members to participate in politicized civic associations.

How should these structural issues of opportunity and socialization be

addressed? As we suggested in Unequal Voices, Part I, enacting policies to

reduce racial disparities in income, education, and homeownership would

help increase political participation among people of color.

But advocates for greater participation should not focus solely on

socioeconomic factors. Policies that aim to equalize educational and

economic opportunities for specific racial groups are both extremely difficult

to achieve and take a considerable amount of time to have an effect. Also,

as our analysis and the history of mobilization among blacks and low-income

whites suggest, mobilization and outreach by political institutions can

overcome socioeconomic barriers to participation.

We recommend, of course, that advocates continue

to support efforts for greater economic justice. But

their attention should be focused on reforming the

participation infrastructure: “the laws, processes,

institutions, and associations that support regular

opportunities for people to connect with each other,

solve problems, make decisions, and celebrate

community” (Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015, 6).

Reform is needed in communities across California,

particularly those with large Asian American and Latino

populations.

This infrastructure reform will result in significant

progress to increase political participation. It will create

opportunities and support new socialization processes,

thereby directly influencing or offsetting all of the

factors we have identified as facilitating or limiting

participation.

Attention should be focused on reforming

the participation infrastructure: “the laws,

processes, institutions, and associations

that support regular opportunities for people

to connect with each other, solve problems,

make decisions, and celebrate community.”

PARTICIPATION INFRASTRUCTURE

GOVERNMENTAL

ELECTORAL

EDUCATIONAL

CIVIC

LEGAL

30

Due largely to the Ralph M. Brown Act of 1953 (Brown Act), the general legal standard for public participation

in policy decision-making is the comment period during a typical public meeting. This standard has become

frustrating for many government officials and community residents. As recent studies have shown, local

officials and civic leaders in the state believe that typical public meetings usually attract a narrow range of

residents, lead to “gripe sessions,” and do not facilitate “meaningful discussions among ordinary residents”

(Immerwahr, Hagelskamp, DiStassi, and Hess 2013).

Local participation ordinances will set a higher legal standard than the Brown Act. Such ordinances should

outline guiding principles for achieving effective participation, call for officials to have public participation

advisory boards, and mandate that officials report regularly on existing disparities and outreach efforts

across race, class, and geographic areas.

The ordinances will result in government officials implementing opportunities for resident engagement

that are better designed and more meaningful than the public comment period. Officials will also

proactively reach out to historically marginalized communities to invite them to participate in decision-

making processes, and they will inform the public about how resident input was used in making a final

decision.

For greater assistance on language and content for participation

ordinances, officials should refer to the Model Municipal Public

Participation Ordinance developed by the Working Group on

Legal Frameworks for Public Participation.6 They should also refer

to Oakland’s Budget Process Transparency and Public Participation

Policy.7 In Oakland’s case, the city council adopted the model

ordinance’s section on guiding principles for the city’s biennial

budget process. Although we encourage a more robust policy,

officials could follow Oakland’s example and start by adopting a

portion of the model ordinance and doing so for a specific issue

instead of for governance more generally.

LEGAL: Local elected officials should pass local public participation ordinances that institutionalize new forms of democratic engagement in government decision-making.

1

Local participation ordinances will set a higher legal standard than the Brown Act.

WE PROVIDE HERE SOME SPECIFIC REFORMS THAT COMMUNITY RESIDENTS SHOULD ADVOCATE FOR AND THAT POLICYMAKERS

SHOULD ENACT IN THREE OF THE FIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AREAS.

31

Most local officials view staff and resource limitations as major obstacles to implementing stronger forms

of public engagement (Hagelskamp, Immerwahr, and Hess 2013). A statewide participation program

would combat these limitations. The program should be administered by professionally trained staff who

would support state and municipal governments in efforts to bring community residents into governance

processes. Program staff would provide training and technical assistance, such as support on developing

and implementing outreach models and metrics for tracking progress. Such a program could supplement

anything done at the municipal level and could be administered at the county level to ensure it best suits

the needs of local legislative and municipal districts.

Through a statewide participation program, state and local government officials will have a high-

quality capacity to implement innovative and stronger models of public engagement. They will also

be able to build better relationships with groups of residents that many local officials acknowledge

are difficult to engage, such as racial/ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and immigrants (ibid.).

If officials have the resources they need to successfully design participation processes and mobilize

residents, more residents will feel welcomed into decision-making processes, have the support they

need to participate (e.g., language assistance8), and have greater impact on policy decisions.

South Australia has an inspiring model of this type of program. In 2013, the South Australian government

established the Better Together program.9 Through the program, the state government proactively and

thoughtfully facilitates participation among citizens in a wide range of decision-making and problem-solving

initiatives, such as citizens’ juries and participatory budgeting. As a result of one citizens’ jury, $6.5 million

was included in the state budget for bike boulevards and greenways. Since 2013, 24,427 votes have been

cast through participatory budgeting initiatives to allocate $1.21 million to community organizations that

provide services to disadvantaged residents and for community-based projects that address economic and

social needs.

B. State and local elected officials should create pilot programs to track and publically share data on the frequency and quality of representation afforded to constituents of diverse backgrounds.

For example, a growing number of cities in California and elsewhere have worked with the National Research

Center and International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to conduct regular mail and online

surveys of constituents, known as the National Citizen Survey (NCS). While the NCS provides comparisons

between cities and national benchmarks on issues of governance and community engagement, these

efforts need to be expanded to consider racial disparities at the local level. State and local governments

can also gain more real-time assessments on the quality of constituent engagement. For example, in the

corporate sector, customer service calls are often audited by a third party to gauge the quality of support

provided. Similar programs could be piloted for state and local legislative offices, to ensure that elected

officials and community organizations alike are better aware of any racial disparities that may exist in

constituent access and the quality of their representation.

GOVERNMENTAL: A. State elected officials should create a statewide public participation program for

government officials and staff that supports government efforts to create and implement new forms of democratic engagement in government.

2

32

This curriculum would include, among other features, a sequence of instruction for civic education from

kindergarten through twelfth grade and metrics for tracking the development of students’ civic literacy.

Over the last three decades, civic education in public schools has been deprioritized. Students of color and

low-income students have been particularly affected. Previous research has found racial and socioeconomic

gaps in opportunities for civic education. A survey that included 2,500 juniors and seniors in California high

schools revealed that students of color and low-income students had fewer civic learning opportunities

than white students and students from high socioeconomic status families (Kahne and Middaugh 2008).

Widespread incorporation of high-quality civic education curriculum, especially in districts that

serve large numbers of students of color, will result in greater opportunities to learn about and

discuss community problems and response strategies, experience community service, and simulate

government processes. Students will then graduate with higher levels of civic knowledge, such as an

understanding of which government entity is responsible for addressing a particular community issue. They

will also develop civic skill, such as the ability to persuasively express a concern to an elected official.

Altogether, this will increase their likelihood of participation in civic and political life as adults (Gibson and

Levine 2003; García Bedolla 2005; Kahne, Chi, and Middaugh 2006; McDevitt and Kiousis 2006; McFarland

and Thomas 2006; Hart, Donnelly, Younnis, and Atkins 2007; Kahne and Sporte 2008).

For further guidance on developing curricula and programs, officials and administrators should refer to

the recommendations provided by the California Task Force on K-12 Civic Learning.10 They should also

join the Civic Learning Partnerships program through Power of Democracy – an organization responsible

for implementing the Task Force’s recommendations and offering technical assistance to school officials.11

EDUCATIONAL: School district officials and administrators at the K-12 level, especially those serving large populations of Asian American and Latino students, should incorporate high-quality civic education curriculum into their districts.

3

The health of our democracy is dependent upon its ability to provide opportunities for all Californians

to effectively voice their concerns and policy preferences. By reforming the participation infrastructure

in California, we have the opportunity to be a model for the Unites States on how to build an

inclusive, multiracial democracy. But doing so requires a shared commitment to this goal, targeted

policies, and ongoing evaluation, in order to ensure that our efforts are successful and progressing

in the right direction.

33

7 | Increase Participation in Democracy: Move California Toward Greater Justice

Our study shows that there are significant gaps between whites and people of color when considering

non-electoral forms of participation among millennials and the broader adult population. Combined with

recent research showing similar gaps in voting (Baldassare 2016), our findings make it clear that whites are

overrepresented in almost every form of political voice in the state. Our analysis also shows that when non-

electoral forms of participation are considered collectively, whites are by far the most politically empowered

racial group in California.

Closing the racial gap in voting is imperative to ensuring that California has a healthier

and more racially just democracy. However, it is equally important to close the gaps in

non-electoral forms of participation and, more generally, in political empowerment.

California’s democracy is neither adequately participatory nor representative. It

needs to be enriched in particular by more Asian American and Latino voices. This is

especially true in the legislative and administrative arenas, where most public policy

decisions are made and all are implemented.

Our state has community organizers, labor leaders, and government officials who have successfully brought

an increasing number of Californians of color into policymaking processes. But those efforts must be

supplemented with large-scale structural change to combat the structural factors that depress participation

among people of color. That change can happen through racial and economic

justice advocates joining forces with advocates for good governance and

democratic engagement to reform the participation infrastructure in California’s

communities.

Once we have that change, government officials will be more proactive and

capable of facilitating productive political participation. Additionally, all

Californians will have more meaningful opportunities to engage in governance beyond voting, such as

advisory boards, citizens’ juries, and participatory budgeting. Overall, our democracy will be a beacon for

the nation: participatory, representative, and able to deliver public policies that achieve greater racial and

economic justice.

California’s democracy is

neither adequately participatory nor

representative.

Structural change will make our democracy a beacon for the nation.

34

Notes 1 We surveyed a diverse mix of 2,574 Californians, including an additional 914 young adults (aged 18-34), from August 10 through October

27, 2016. For more information on the methodology, see the Appendix.

2 According to the California Department of Finance, whites accounted for about 32% of the millennial population in California in 2015. See http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/.

3 Our fall 2016 survey asked respondents, “How interested are you in politics – very interested, interested, somewhat interested, or not at all interested?” Low political interest includes those who indicated they were somewhat interested or not at all interested.

4 Our fall 2016 survey asked respondents, “Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: a) Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on; and b) Public officials don’t care much what people like me think.” Respondents were given the following scale: “Disagree strongly; Disagree somewhat; Neither agree nor disagree; Agree somewhat; Agree strongly; Don’t know; Refuse.”

5 Millennials were more than twice as likely as older adults (47% v. 19%) to report posting information about politics online. Pacific Islanders and whites were the most likely to post about politics online (58% and 57%, respectively) and Latinos and Asian Americans the least likely (42% and 37%, respectively).

6 The model ordinance can be found in the following report: http://transformgov.org/m/en/knowledge_network/documents/kn/ Document/305669/Making_Public_Participation_Legal.

7 The policy can be found at the Oakland City Clerk’s website: https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail. aspx?ID=1345526&GUID=38E3173A-A96C-4469-AC34-11DED400D670&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=84385.

8 On the role of language assistance increasing political participation, see Ramakrishnan and Lewis (2005), Hopkins (2011), Marschall and Rutherford (2016), and Fraga and Merseth (2016).

9 Learn more about the Better Together program at the following website: http://bettertogether.sa.gov.au/.

10 The recommendations can be found in the following report: http://www.powerofdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CLTF-Final- Report.pdf.

11 Learn more about Power of Democracy at the following website: http://www.powerofdemocracy.org/.

35

Baldassare, Mark. 2016. California’s Exclusive Electorate: Who Votes and Why It Matters. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Barber, Michael J. 2016. “Representing the Preferences of Donors, Partisans, and Voters in the US Senate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (1): 225-249.

Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bergan, Daniel E., and Richard T. Cole. 2015. “Call Your Legislator: A Field Experimental Study of the Impact of a Constituency Mobilization Campaign on Legislative Voting.” Political Behavior 37 (1): 27-42.

Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 1996. “African American Churches and Political Mobilization: The Psychological Impact of Organizational Resources.” The Journal of Politics 58 (4): 935-953.

Cohen, Cathy, Joseph Kahne, Ben Bowyer, Ellen Middaugh, and Jon Rogowski. 2012. Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action. Oakland: Youth and Participatory Politics Research Network.

Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fraga, Bernard L., and Julie Lee Merseth. 2016. “Examining the Causal Impact of the Voting Rights Act Language Minority Provisions.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 1 (1): 31–59.

Fraga Luis R., and Ann Frost. 2010. “Democratic Institutions, Public Engagement, and Latinos in American Public Schools.” Public Engagement for Public Education, edited by Marion Orr and John Rogers, 117–138. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

García Bedolla, Lisa. 2005. Fluid Borders: Latino Power, Identity, and Politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press.

–––. 2014. Latino Politics, 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

García Bedolla, Lisa, and María Echaveste. 2015. “Voting and Registration in California: Demographic Differences.” Research Report. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Center for Latino Policy Research.

García Bedolla, Lisa, and Melissa R. Michelson. 2012. Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Christopher W. Larimer. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102 (1): 33-48.

Gibson, Cynthia, and Peter Levine. 2003. The Civic Mission of Schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Grey Ellis, Emma. 2016. “Guess How Much That Anti-LGBTQ Law Is Costing North Carolina.” Wired, September, https://www.wired. com/2016/09/guess-much-anti-lgbtq-law-costing-north-carolina/.

Hagelskamp, Carolin, John Immerwahr, and Jeremy Hess. 2013. Testing the Waters: California’s Local Officials Experiment with New Ways to Engage the Public. New York: Public Agenda.

Harris, Frederick. 1994. “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political Activism.” The Journal of Politics 56 (1): 377-394

Hart, Daniel, Thomas M. Donnelly, James Youniss, and Robert Atkins. 2007. “High School Community Service as a Predictor of Voting and Volunteering.” American Educational Research Journal 44 (1): 197-219.

Hopkins, Daniel J. 2011. “Translating into Votes: The Electoral Impacts of Spanish-Language Ballots.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (4): 814–830.

Immerwahr, John, Carolin Hagelskamp, Christopher DiStasi, and Jeremy Hess. 2013. Beyond Business as Usual: Leaders of California’s Civic Organizations Seek New Ways to Engage the Public in Local Governance. New York: Public Agenda.

Kahne, Joseph, Bernadette Chi, and Ellen Middaugh. 2006. “Building Social Capital for Civic and Political Engagement: The Potential of High School Civics Courses.” Canadian Journal of Education 29 (2): 387–409.

References

36

Kahne, Joseph, and Ellen Middaugh. 2009. “Democracy for Some: The Civic Opportunity Gap in High School.” Engaging Young People in Civic Life, edited by James Youniss and Peter Levine, 29-58. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Kahne, Joseph, and Susan E. Sporte. 2008. “Developing Citizens: The Impact of Civic Learning Opportunities on Students’ Commitment to Civic Participation.” American Educational Research Journal 45 (3): 738–766.

Kalla, Joshua L., and David E. Broockman. 2015. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: a randomized field experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 545-558.

Knoke, David. 1990. “Networks of Political Action: Toward Theory Construction.” Social Forces 68 (4): 1041-1063.

Leighley, Jan E. 2001. Strength in Numbers? The Political Mobilization of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Leighley, Jan E., and Arnold Vedlitz. 1999. “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation: Competing Models and Contrasting Explanations.” The Journal of Politics 61 (4): 1092-1114.

Marschall, Melissa J., and Amanda Rutherford. 2016. “Voting Rights for Whom? Examining the Effects of the Voting Rights Act on Latino Political Incorporation.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 590–606.

McAdam, Doug, Sydney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McDevitt, Michael, and Spiro Kiousis. 2006. Experiments in Political Socialization: Kids Voting USA as a Model for Civic Education Reform (Working Paper No. 49). Washington, DC: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

McElwee, Sean, Brian Schaffner, and Jesse Rhodes. 2016. Whose Voice, Whose Choice? The Distorting Influence of the Political Donor Class in Our Big-Money Elections. New York: Demos.

McFarland, Daniel A., and Reuben J. Thomas. 2006. “Bowling Young: How You Voluntary Associations Influence Adult Political Participation.” American Sociological Review 71 (3): 401-25.

McIntosh, Hugh, Daniel Hart, and James Youniss. 2007. “The Influence of Family Political Discussion on Youth Civic Development: Which Parent Qualities Matter?” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (3): 495-499.

Nabatchi, Tina, and Matt Leighninger. 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. Hoboken: Wiley and Sons.

Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick, and Irene Bloemraad. 2008. Civic Roots and Political Realities: Immigrants, Community Organizations, and Political Engagement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick, Jennifer Lee, Taeku Lee, and Janelle Wong. 2016. Fall 2016 National Asian American Survey [dataset].

Ramakrishnan, S. Karthick, and Paul G. Lewis. 2005. Immigrant and Local Governance: The View from City Hall. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Ramírez, Ricardo. 2015. Mobilizing Opportunities: The Evolving Latino Electorate and the Future of American Politics. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. Macmillan Publishing Company.

Smith, Aaron, Kay Lehman Scholzman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady. 2009. The Internet and Civic Engagement. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Tam Cho, Wendy K. 1999. “Naturalization, Socialization, Participation: Immigrants and (Non)-Voting.” The Journal of Politics 61 (4): 1140-1155.

Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Williamson, Anne R., and Michael J. Scicchitano. 2015. “Minority Representation and Political Efficacy in Public Meetings.” Social Science Quarterly 96 (2): 576-587.

Wong, Janelle. 2006. Democracy’s Promise: Immigrants and American Civic Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Wong, Janelle, S. Karthick Ramakrishnan, Taeku Lee, and Jane Junn. 2011. Asian American Political Participation: Emerging Constituents and Their Political Identities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

37

www.AdvancementProjectCA.org/UnequalVoices