Does Race Affect Access to Government Services

Gomez 1

Are Local Governments Representative?: The Link Between Low Turnout at Local Elections and

Minority Representation

David Alexander Gomez

June 12, 2020

Abstract

Democracy is rule by the people, which is not to be confused with rule by the majority. If

the United States is governed by a democracy, then why are most American minorities

unsatisfied with the representation they have in their local governments? Some theories have

claimed that in the end, democracy will only represent the privileged, but is that where America

intends to remain? Current protests in support of the Black Lives Matter Movement have

solidified minority dissatisfaction with local governments. Politicians in office claim that

protestors are ignorant and do not understand their government. Low levels of turnout make it

plausible that minorities in the United States are detached from local governments. This comes

down to a simple question: why is that the case? Turnout at local elections is considered high if

half of a city’s eligible voters show up to vote. Low turnout has been associated with less

representative local governments. In this literature review, I seek to provide an analytical

meaning of a representative bureaucracy and use literature to assess why local governments in

the United States fail to be representative bureaucracies. The major obstacle to increasing

representation that I find through literature is the low level of turnout at local elections. Local

governments in the United States continue to endorse and maintain structural and institutional

factors that reduce minority participation in local governments.

Gomez 2

Introduction

The idea of a representative democracy was founded with a significantly different

meaning than what it implies today (Elias 2013). As political scientists have shifted their views

on diversity, a more valuable meaning of representative democracy has been created. It holds

that passive representation is the strongest factor that leads to active representation. In this paper

I use literature to answer the question of why minorities are more detached from local

governments than the majority and how that impacts minority representation in local

governments. My goal is to provide why local governments in the United States are not

representative bureaucracies, how local governments push away minority participation, and how

low participation or turnout affects minority representation in local governments. I begin with an

analysis of the qualities of a representative bureaucracy because I believe that most local

governments in the United States fail to meet the guidelines. “Representative bureaucracy” refers

to a local government made up of politicians who represent the local population through duties

such as policy enactment. There is debate that bureaucrats’ race is not the primary cause of

minority representation. Some theorist state that the race of a bureaucrat is not as important as

that bureaucrat’s adaptation of a minority representative role (Bradbury & Kellough 2007).

However, a study on active representation, which states that the beneficiaries are those who are

represented by those in office, implied otherwise. Passive representation, or the employment of

minorities to government jobs, is the best way to create active representation. This draws into my

next point of why representation is important. Then I examine the major reason that local

governments are not representative bureaucracies. Most of the literature I examine allows me to

draw links between low turnout and low representation in local governments. I provide an

analysis of each of these major factors that reduce turnout and tie them directly or indirectly to a

Gomez 3

reduction on minority representation. The factors I examine that reduce turnout are

accountability, election timing, contestation, incumbency effect, voting style, mobilization, and

stake holder interest. All of these factors reduce turnout and are obstacle to fair representation in

local governments. Several, if not all, of these components can be linked to why minorities are

becoming more detached from their local governments.

Representative Bureaucracy

The term representative bureaucracy responds to the question of what is required of a

local government to produce fair representation. Originally, the term was developed by Kingsley

in 1944 to serve White elites who owned land or property. However, since its origin, the term

representative bureaucracy implied that those who are elected into power should mirror the

characteristics of the people they serve (Elias 2013). The term evolved and eventually the factors

of passive and active representation were added by Mosher in 1968. Passive representation is

achieved when a local government hires or appoints bureaucrats with the same demographic

characteristics as the people they serve. If passive representation is achieved, then active

representation is more likely to take place. Active representation takes place when policies that

are enacted properly represent or benefit the citizens who they affect. In more recent times, the

question of fair representation has pushed for policies such as President Obama’s executive order

13583 which requires local governments to promote diversity in the workforce (Elias 2013).

It may seem obvious that passive representation will lead to active representation, but

literature opens the door to new questions on what is required for a local government to be

considered a representative bureaucracy. The literature on representative bureaucracies speaks to

the debate of whether it is essential for bureaucrats to be of the same demographic, primarily

Gomez 4

race, as the citizens they serve to effectively exercise active representation and make local

governments representative bureaucracies. In her work published in 2013, Elias analyzes the

discourse of representative bureaucracy to find why bureaucrats of similar race, or passive

representation, are essential for fair representation. Moreover, Bradbury and Kellough provide a

study that strengthens the essentiality of passive representation. Before examining whether or not

the race of bureaucrats impacts representation, it is important to acknowledge that passive

representation has significant benefits that are undeniable. Passive representation ensures that the

voice of differing citizens is heard during policy enactment, it promotes the legitimacy of

government, and it gives all groups including minorities a stake in their local government

(Bradbury & Kellough 2007).

In Elias’s study of the discourse of representative bureaucracy she examines the

production (text), distribution (discursive practice), and consumption (social practice) on the

subject. She finds that there is a good understanding of what a representative bureaucracy should

hold, but there are huge flaws with distribution and consumption. Although policies, such as

executive order 13583, were enacted to increase diversity, a disagreement on the definition of

diversity causes flaws when put into social practice. A study in 1997, mentioned by Bradbury

and Kellough, provided that bureaucrats did not have to be the same race as the citizens they

served as long as they adopted a “representative role.” A representative role implies that a

politician in office is capable of enacting policies that benefit minorities if they decide to. This

claim does not outweigh the necessity of passive representation, but it is important to analyze the

literature on the topic to draw a conclusion on a representative bureaucracy.

The literature responds to the question of whether or not bureaucrats must share the

demographics of their constituents, which is the problem in the consumption stage of Elias’s

Gomez 5

analysis. Put simply, a White politician in office can absolutely enact redistributive policies or

policies that enhance the social welfare of minorities, but some translate that to mean minorities

are just as “well off” with representatives who do not share their demographics. The study by

Bradbury and Kellough concluded that 76% of Black administrators agreed with Black citizens

while only 44% of White administrators agreed with Black citizens on matters regarding the

wellbeing of Blacks. The questions in their study included support for simple welfare policies to

help Blacks, and the results make it clear that White and Black administrators have different

opinions about the importance and urgency for care assistance for a specific racial category.

Finally, I conclude that a representative bureaucracy describes a local government that

practices passive representation which in return ensues active representation, the entire purpose

of democracy. Politicians better represent citizens when they share critical demographics,

primarily race (Bradbury & Kellough 2007). This leads to the section of why representation is

important and how local governments fail to promote representative bureaucracies.

Fair Representation

Representation is a quality of democracy and all citizens living under a democratic

government are entitled to fair representation. A 2017 study by Sances and You discovered that

local governments that do not have Black representatives in office use a tickets and fines system

that disproportionately affects Blacks. When a Black representative was introduced to the local

government the amount of revenue accumulated by fines disproportionately affecting Blacks

reduced significantly. Representation not only ensures the political motivation and welfare of all

citizens, but it also impacts more practical matters such as how local taxes are spent. A 2018

study by Beach, Jones, Twinam, and Walsh studied the changes of housing prices in minority

Gomez 6

and non-minority neighborhoods and concluded that similar racial demographics of

representatives to the citizens increases the benefits of policies enacted. However, their findings

imply that multiple members must share the demographic and ideologies to actually impact

policy. Policies have been created to push for a more diverse and representative government

workforce, but minorities have not gained the political representation their populations are

entitled to. A 2016 chapter by Hajnal and Troustine provides that nationwide, in regard to city

council seats, Blacks are 12% of the American population but only hold 5.2% of seats, Latinos

are 19% of Americans but only hold 2.7% of seats, and Asians are 5.4% and only hold 0.5%

seats. Local governments spend around 25% of American taxes but mostly represent the White

population (Warshaw 2005). Important to note, increases in immigration populations have

increased the number of White partisans to the republican party (Hajnal & Rivera 2014).

Republicans are more conservative, support a small size (less representative) local government,

and spend far less on redistributive policies. Democrats have become more liberal and are likely

to enact redistributive policies to enhance social welfare, so they are more likely to be the

candidates favored by minorities.

If literature is clear on what fair representation entails, then why do minorities not have

fair representation in local governments? The literature I analyzed covers several different

factors that reduce representation and they all tie to low turnout in local elections, which leads to

the next section.

Low turnout at local elections and its impact on representation

Voter turnout at local elections has been on the decline and is a major cause of poor

representation in local governments. A 2016 study by Hajnal and Troustine found that Whites

Gomez 7

turnout to vote at significantly higher rates than minorities. On average 63% of Whites vote in

presidential elections where only 39% of Latinos, 36% Asians, and 55% Blacks turnout to vote

(Hajnal & Troustine 2016). More importantly, their study used a simulation to check for results

in local elections if turnout was perfect and found that increased turnout by minorities would

absolutely increase representation. In a 2005 article, also by Hajnal and Troustine, they

acknowledge that presidential elections are likely to not be impacted by higher turnout since

plurality voting allows the majority to win, even if that is a 51% majority. This led the authors to

examine local government and the impact of increased turnout on representation. Here it is

important to note that data shows that Blacks and Latinos are likely to live in cities where each

race is around 30% of the population (Hajnal & Troustine 2005). Literature has made it evident

that minorities can promote representation by showing up to vote, but that is easier said than

done. Structural and institutional factors that are kept alive by incumbents push minorities away

from local government. Many factors that reduce turnout are not directly endorsed by

incumbents or the majority, but their unresponsiveness to promote inclusive change is added

contribution to the unchanging status quo of lacking minority representation. In the following

sections I cover several subpoints that decrease turnout and discuss how they directly or

indirectly decrease representation in local governments.

Accountability

The purpose of decentralization and the foundation of over 90,000 local governments in

the United States was to move power closer to those affected by the power (Ribot 1999;

Warshaw 2005). Decentralization was meant to foster a growth in participation by making

politicians in office accessible to the citizens. Since citizens and politicians are technically

Gomez 8

neighbors, it is more difficult for politicians to undermine marginalized citizens. The proximity

allows for accountability, or the ability of citizens to hold politicians responsible for certain

actions. Several factors including low turnout and partisan elections have made politicians less

accountable for their actions. Moreover, the lack of media attention to local politics makes it

difficult to know who is responsible for what (Warshaw 2005). This makes minorities, who are

already much less aware of their local government’s actions, to become more detached from

local government. Intense media scrutiny can increase incumbent politicians’ accountability, but

literature provides other ways for minorities to increase the accountability of elected politicians

and increase voter turnout at local elections that may or may not feature other contests.

In an article published in 2020 Cook, Kogan, Lavertu, and Peskowitz discovered that

increased enrollment in charter schools decreased participation in local elections. The authors

also tied their findings to the fact that the cities they studied had lower Black representation in

local governments in comparison to cities with less charter school enrollment. The key to their

findings is that outsourcing public services, such as education, decreases accountability for local

governments and reduces participation, primarily of minorities, in local government elections. In

other words, outsourcing public services has a negative effect on minority participation in local

government, which in turn reduces representation of minorities. Since politician’s accountability

is reduced, they can undermine minority interests even though citizens are not able to undermine

taxes or local policies that may work against them. With this conclusion, minorities should not

endorse the outsourcing of public services and instead become more involved with their local

government. The resulting increased level of turnout should also increase representation, making

the idea of outsourcing public services unnecessary. This is obviously easier said than done,

since the primary reason for outsourcing education was due to distrust in local government, but if

Gomez 9

local governments are to satisfy the requirements of a representative bureaucracy then

accountability must be scrutinized, and turnout must increase.

Election Timing

Election timing is a major proponent to low turnout in local elections. Countless studies

have found that simply moving an election to on-cycle, or concurrent with presidential elections,

can significantly increase turnout. On a study based in California the researchers found that

elections that were on-cycle had a 40% turnout while off-cycle elections had an average of 18%

turnout (Marschall & Lappie 2018). There are several reason why off-cycle elections receive

such a low level of turnout. Marschall and Lappie note that there is vague information available,

media attention is lacking, and the increased voting cost is more likely to negatively affect

minorities. The policy SB415 in California requires that local governments switch to on-cycle

elections if turnout falls under a certain threshold but around 35% of elections in California are

still off-cycle (Hajnal, Lewis, & Louch 2002). To exacerbate the fact that current elected

officials hold on to non-representative practices, it has been found that holding an election on-

cycle significantly reduces the cost. Researchers found that on-cycle elections expenses average

$25,000 while hosting an off-cycle election averages $58,000. Reform in this area can

significantly increase minority participation and representation in local governments.

Contestation

As shocking as it may sound, the lack of contestation is a factor that reduces turnout at

local elections (Bowler & Donavan 2013). When there is only one candidate running for office it

is easy to wonder why hosting an election has a purpose. In general, it makes the elected

Gomez 10

politicians feel legitimate, but in reality, no competition at local elections defies democracy. A

study by Marschall and Lappie found that more than half of the elections in six states they

studied only featured one candidate. This is an obvious threat to fair representation and

significantly reduces minority participation in local governments. The researchers also found that

only 71% of mayoral elections in California featured more than one candidate from 2011-2014

(Marschall & Lappie 2018). Several factors contribute to the lack of candidates, such as the

incumbency effect and a lack of information, are greatly appreciated by incumbents because it

keeps them in office.

Incumbency Success

Contestation is a major problem that reduces turnout and an important factor contributing

to low contestation is the incumbency effect. Incumbents, or politicians in office, are

significantly more likely to win re-election. Researchers provide that incumbents already have

better resources than opponents to promote themselves. The increased probability of incumbents

winning ranges from 30-80%. In 2002, researchers concluded that incumbents had an 80%

chance of winning at re-election, while a 2005 study concluded that incumbents had a 32%

higher chance than opponents of winning at re-election (Warshaw 2005; Hajnal, Lewis, & Louch

2002). The incumbency effect exists for countless reasons beginning with the fact that

incumbents have power in a locality while opponents do not. This makes it easier for incumbents

to reach and influence voters. Name recognition at the poles increase the probability that less

informed voters will vote for incumbents (Benedictis-Kessner 2017). Benedictis-Kessner

examines different reason why the incumbency effect remains strong. In many cases, competitive

opponents are strayed away due to their knowledge of a significantly lower chance of winning.

Gomez 11

This leaves incumbents to face less competitive opponents (Benedictis-Kessner 2017). With the

incumbent success rate so high, minorities are pushed away from competing in local elections.

Voting Style

According to literature, the most effective way to increase turnout and representation is

by moving away from plurality voting. In the United States, plurality voting has created a system

where the majority always wins. This is a major flaw in democracy and studies have found that

switching to a proportional voting system increases representation. Local governments that use

plurality voting eliminate fair representation since excellent turnout would still mean that

minorities can either agree with the majority or lose to it. Although some forms of proportional

voting, such as cumulative voting, sometimes require a strategy to achieve better representation,

proportional voting has the ability to create fair representation and increase voter turnout (Hajnal

& Troustine 2016). A study conducted in Amarillo, Texas illustrates the effects of proportional

voting systems versus plurality voting (Richie, Amy, McBride 2000). In this study, the

researchers examined the result of the shift from plurality voting to proportional voting in

Amarillo, a local government that severely lacked minority representation. Over 20% of citizens

were minorities but only White candidates had taken office for over twenty years. On the first

election that the local government used proportional voting, two of the four open seats were

taken by minorities. These researchers provide that only a little over two hundred local

governments in the United States have switched to proportional voting but reforming all

elections to proportional voting would open the door to the fair representation that plurality

voting eliminates.

Gomez 12

Mobilization

Studies have found that mobilization can have a huge impact on increasing voter turnout.

Mobilization is as simple as a phone call to inform citizens about their local elections. Minorities

are the least likely to turnout to vote and they are also the least likely to be mobilized.

Information for local elections is poor which makes this lack of mobilization to minorities a

problem with transparency from local governments (Marschall & Lappie 2018). Researchers

have found that mobilization efforts by incumbents are correlated with turnouts twice as high

than when there are no mobilization efforts (Hajnal and Troustine 2016). City councilors are

capable of promoting voter mobilization, but most efforts are directed to Whites (Newman

2014). A survey provided that Whites were more likely to receive calls regarding candidates up

for elections than minorities (Marschall & Lappie 2018). Simple efforts of mobilization can

increase turnout. If voters are well informed by mobilization efforts representation is likely to

increase.

Stake-holder Interest

The final factor I analyze that contributes to minorities’ reduced participation in local

elections is stake-holder interest. Citizens who are less informed and live in poverty are less

likely to vote; both characteristics are more likely to relate to minorities. Minorites are less likely

to attain a college education and suffer from poverty (Ryan and Bauman 2016). These factors

reduce the stake of poor and less-informed minorities in local elections. For example, a poor

citizen who rents an apartment has less stake than a wealthy landowner in an election where

property taxes or land-use reforms are taking place. Moreover, researchers found that while less

than half of citizens earning less than $15,000 a year turnout to vote in presidential elections,

Gomez 13

over 75% of citizens earning more than $75,000 annually turnout to vote (Richie, Amy, McBride

2000). This means that at elections, voters with higher social standings significantly outweigh

those of lower socio-economic status by more than double. The Tiebout model states that

citizens vote with their feet, which means that they can simply move cities if the local

government does not satisfy their needs. However, minorities with low education or in poverty

are constricted from simply packing up and leaving, so instead they become detached from their

local governments (Kelleher & Lowery 2004).

Background

It is important to acknowledge that these studies are estimates of reality. Many of the

studies were conducted in a small number of cities and there are many factors that are

unaccounted for. In particular, city size and demographics can skew results or make certain

conditions nonexistent in some localities. Furthermore, much of the literature that I analyzed is

over a decade old and conditions have likely changed. It is fair to note that these studies may

over-exaggerate or misrepresent some local governments, but the general truth is that minorities

are underrepresented in local governments. Minorities’ lack of participation in local government

affairs is a major factor contributing to the lack of representation but structural and institutional

factors that incumbent politicians fail to reform ensure that participation will not increase. All in

all, the numbers in the studies may be outdated or inaccurate but they are not misleading. The

lack of fair representation is a problem within local governments of the United States.

Gomez 14

Discussion

Studies have found that minorities turnout the least to vote and simulation results provide

that increased turnout can increase representation. There are several barriers that require reform

for minorities to be attracted to their local governments. Although citizens can be reformers, they

are poorly informed of their options and probably don’t know how. Minorities are the least likely

to acquire information about their local governments and therefore it is in the hands of current

politicians to push for reform. Bowler and Donavan provide that attempts to reform are more

likely to come from losing partisans who are self-interested, but they fail to realize that the

purpose is not who wins the election but how well the local government promotes fair

representation. They provided that reforms did not fix much in the countries they studied

(Australia, New Zealand, and Japan), but neither of these countries are as large and diverse as the

United States (Bowler & Donovan 2013). Researchers acknowledge that reform that increases

turnout will not entirely create fair representation, but increased participation from minorities is

more valuable than imaginable (Hajnal, Lewis, & Louch 2002). Less than half of the reforms to

local governments’ structural or institutional proponents are approved (Bowler & Donovan

2013). For reform to be effective it must come from the top, or politicians already in power. It is

obvious that incumbents will not push for change since it is likely to jeopardize their jobs, but

that is more corrupt than self-interested politicians pushing for reforms that will benefit the

citizens of the locality. Minorities must overcome countless obstacles to reach a state where local

governments are representative bureaucracies, but the best starting point is to simply begin to

participate and gain awareness.

Gomez 15

Conclusion

In conclusion, the majority of local governments in the United States are not

representative bureaucracies. Institutional and structural reforms are required for fair

representation to even become a possibility. Incumbents are less likely to push for these reforms

in comparison to minorities who are aware of the ways in which their local government fails

them; therefore it is more likely for change to come by the increase of minority participation in

their local governments, but this requires the mass spread of awareness. Minorities have become

detached from governments that do not serve them. Politicians have found ways to be less

accountable for their actions by being less transparent. The timing of elections not only cost local

governments more to host but increase the cost of voting for minorities in poverty. Low

contestation removes most, if not the entire, purpose of elections. Why would anyone cast a vote

if it is obvious who is going to win? Moreover, the rate of incumbent success sways away

competition and maintains the same structural and institutional factors that could promote fair

representation. Simple efforts from local governments could help mobilize voters and increase

turnout but it doesn’t benefit incumbents, so they have no reason to. In the same vein,

incumbents have no reason to push for reform to switch from plurality voting to proportional

voting because it can cause them to be voted out of office. Minorites stake in local government is

low and declining. Policies such as Obama’s executive order 13583 make diversity a requirement

from local governments but increased participation from minorities is essential for change to

happen. A local government cannot instill passive representation if minorities choose to not

participate. Moreover, resorting to segregation is not feasible and studies provide that

segregation does not increase participation in local government (Kelleher & Lowery 2004).

Local governments fail to represent their diverse population and incumbents have no reason to

Gomez 16

foster change, so the best way to increase minority representation is through minority

participation. Policies that are already in place will facilitate the growth of passive representation

to representative bureaucracies.

Gomez 17

References

- Beach, Brian, Daniel B. Jones, Tate Twinam, and Randall Walsh. 2018. “Minority Representation in Local Government.” NBER Working Paper.

- Benedictis-Kessner, Justin De. 2017. “Off-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage.” Boston Area Research Initiative.

- Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan 2013. The Limits of Electoral Reform. Oxford University Press. Chapter 1-2.

- Bradbury, Mark D. and J. Edward Kellough. 2007. “Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Potential for Active Representation in Local Government.” Oxford

University Press. 697-714

- Cook, Jason B., Vladimir Kogan, Stephane Lavertu, and Zachary Peskowitz. 2020. “Government Privatization and Political Participation: The Case of Charter Schools.” The

Journal of Politics.

- Elias, Nicole m. Rishel. 2013. “Shifting Diversity Perspectives and New Avenues for Representative Bureaucracy.” Southern Public Administration Educational Foundation.

331-372

- Kelleher, Christine and David Lowery. 2004. “Political Participation and Metropolitan Institutional Contexts.” Urban Affairs Review. 720-757

- Marschall, Melissa J. and John Lappie. 2018. “Turnout in Local Elections: Is Timing Really Everything?” Election Law Journal. Vol.17

- Newman, Ines. 2014. Reclaiming Local Democracy: A Progressive Future for Local Government. Bristol University Press, Policy Press.

- Ribot, J. C. 1999. “Accountable Representation and Power in Participatory and Decentralized Environmental Management.” Research Gate.

- Richie, Robert, Douglas Amy, and Frederick McBride. 2000. “How Proportional Representation Can Empower Minorities and the Poor.” Fair Vote.

- Ryan, Camille L. and Kurt Bauman. 2016. “Educational Attainment in The United States: 2015.” Current Population Reports. 1-11

- Sances, Michael W., and Hye Young You. 2017. “Who Pays for Government? Descriptive Representation and Exploitative Revenue Sources.” Journal of Politics.

Gomez 18

- Warshaw, Christopher. 2005. “Local elections and representation in the United States.” Annual Review of political Science. Vol. 22: 461-479

- Zoltan, Hajnal L., Paul G. Lewis, and Hugh Louch. 2002. Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing, and Competition. Public Policy Institute of California.

- Zoltan, Hajnal L. and Jessica L. Troustine. 2016. “Race and Inequality in Local Politics.” American Political Science Association. 1-17

- Zoltan, Hajnal L. and Jessica L. Troustine. 2005. “Where Turnout Matters: The Consequences of Uneven Turnout in City Politics.” The Journal of Politics. Vol.67: 515-

535