how america’s diversity explosion is changing the...

DIVERSITY/VOTING

The Council of State Governments 267

DIVERSITY/VOTING


Rising Racial Diversity Among the U.S. Population and VotersThe increased growth of new minorities—Hispanics and Asians and persons of two or more races—has begun to make its mark on the nation’s electorate by reducing the white portion of total voters. As recently as the 1980 presidential election, racial minorities comprised less than 10 percent of voters, compared with fully 26 percent in 2012. Yet the minority share of voters was still lower than its share of the total U.S. population, which was 37 percent.

The reason for this discrepancy between the racial makeup of voters and the population might be termed a “voter representation gap.” A large part

of this gap for Hispanics and Asians is attributable to two factors. First, compared with whites, more Hispanics in America are under 18 years of age and are, therefore, too young to vote. Second, even among those Hispanics and Asians who are old enough to vote, a smaller share have become citi-zens, even if they reside in the United States legally.

As a consequence, the portion of all Hispanics and Asians who are eligible to vote—citizens age 18 and above—constituted only about one-half or less of their total populations. (See Figure A.) This contrasts with blacks and whites, of whom 69 per-cent and 79 percent of their respective populations were eligible to vote.

How America’s Diversity Explosion Is Changing the Political Landscape

By William H. Frey

The sweeping diversity explosion now underway in the U.S. will continue to impact the political landscape as the racial profiles of the electorate and voters continue to change.1 Testament to this is the election of the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, which can be attributed, in large part, to a growing minority electorate both nationally and in previously Republican-leaning Sun Belt states. This article reviews the nation’s new racial demographic shifts with an eye to how it has changed the electorate and outcomes of the past three presidential elections, and suggesting what it may mean for the future.

Figure A: Share of Population Eligible to Vote, 2012

Source: Current Population Survey, November 2012 Supplement, from William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

Under Age 18

Non-Citizen, Age 18+

Eligible Voters

26%52%

22%

Asians

22%

44%34%

Hispanics

69%

27%

4%

Blacks

79%

20%1%

Whites

DIVERSITY/VOTING

268 The Book of the States 2016

Figure B illustrates the lag in translating the His-panic and Asian representation in the total popu-lation (left panel) to the population that is eligible to vote (middle panel). For example, the Hispanic portion of the total population increased from 14 to 17 percent between the 2004 and 2012 elections. Yet, its portion of eligible voters increased from just 8 to 11 percent, respectively. In contrast, whites are more highly represented among eligible voters compared with the total population (71 percent versus 63 percent in 2012).

The representation gap for Hispanics and Asians that existed between the total popula-tion and eligible voters is even further widened among actual voters (Figure B, third panel). This is because, compared with whites and blacks, fewer Hispanics and Asians who are eligible to vote actu-ally show up at the polls. Because of their recent residence status or lack of information, Hispanics and Asians are less likely to register to vote and to cast ballots. Thus, Hispanics represented only 8 percent of voters in the 2012 presidential election

despite constituting more than twice that share of the population. Whites, on the other hand, are far more highly represented among voters than in the population as a whole.

Higher Minority Turnout Impacted the 2008 and 2012 Popular VoteAlthough the nation’s electorate still lags behind its population with respect to its racial makeup, the minority population made the difference in electing Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. A key reason for this was the improved turnout of racial minorities, which magnified their clout among voters.

Minority turnout is important for Democrats in presidential elections. Since the mid-1960s, minorities (as a whole) favored Democrats and whites favored Republicans for president in the national popular vote. The black population has shown the most consistent voting patterns, favoring Democratic presidential candidates since the 1936 second-term election of Franklin D. Roosevelt. While not as

Figure B: U.S. Total and Eligible Voter Population by Race-Ethnicity, 2004–2012

Source: Current Population Survey November 2004, 2008, and 2012 Supplements from William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%All others

Asians

Hispanics

Blacks

Whites

201220082004201220082004201220082004

U.S. TotalPopulation

Eligible VoterPopulation

Voters

68% 65% 63%

75% 73% 71%79% 76% 74%

12%12%

12%

12% 12%12%

11%12%

13%

14% 16% 17%

8% 9% 11%6% 7% 8%

4% 5% 5% 3% 4% 4% 2% 3%

DIVERSITY/VOTING


DIVERSITY/VOTING


strongly favoring Democrats as blacks, Hispanics and Asians also have voted primarily for Demo-cratic candidates in recent elections.

The higher voter turnout of minorities in 2008 and 2012 is shown in Figure C. Black voter turnout increased to a point where nearly two-thirds of black eligible voters cast ballots in 2008 and 2012. Along with the decline in white voter turnout, the 2012 black voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout for the first time since such statistics have been recorded. Although lower than voter turn-out for blacks, Hispanic and Asian turnouts were higher in both Obama elections than in 2004. This higher turnout among all three groups enlarged the size and effect of these voters on the final elec-tion outcome.

Obama’s two victories followed the 2004 election in which Republican George W. Bush was reelected by 3 million votes—gaining a net of 16 million white votes and losing 13 million minorities. In the sub-sequent two elections, Obama versus John McCain in 2008 and Obama versus Mitt Romney in 2012,

the sizes of minority gains rose to 21 million, and then 23 million votes, respectively. Meanwhile, Republicans showed a decline in white gains, down to just 12 million in 2008, before registering an insufficient gain of 18 million votes in 2012.

Obama’s continued gains in the minority vote were attributable, in part, to the rise in the portion of eligible voters who were minorities (shown in Figure B). But it was also attributable to higher turnout rates for minorities—increasing their share of all voters—as well as the stronger ten-dency for these minorities to vote Democratic.2

Race and the Nation’s Battleground StatesThe increased minority influence on the popular vote outcomes of the 2008 and 2012 elections were magnified in the Electoral College vote outcomes as the nation’s racial demographic shifts dispersed across regions and states. In particular, the Sun Belt region is becoming part of an enlarged battle-ground of states as minorities become increasingly represented there.

Figure C: Voter Turnout by Race in the 2004, 2008, and 2012 Presidential Elections

Note: Turnout rate is defined as percent of eligible voters who votedSource: Current Population Survey November 2004, 2008, and 2012 Supplements from William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: HowNew Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%201220082004

AsiansHispanicsBlacksWhites

67% 66%64%

60%

65% 66%

47%50%

48%

44%

48% 47%

DIVERSITY/VOTING


Figure D portrays the racial makeup of eligible voters by state at the time of the 2012 election. Clearly, racial minorities make up a sizable presence in many states including those not in traditional coastal settlement areas. Minorities constitute nearly one-half or more of the electorates in Hawaii, New Mexico, California, Texas and D.C., and at least one-third or more in a swath of additional states in the South and interior West. (See Table C.)

Hispanics embody substantial and increasing portions of the electorates in many Western states as well as Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Texas. The Hispanic population may soon approach the black population in electoral clout. Minorities constitute more than one-quarter of the electorate in most Southern states and blacks are the largest group except in Florida, Oklahoma and Texas. Blacks still dominate the small minority populations in whiter heartland states such as

Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, though their much smaller Hispanic populations are rising as in other parts of that region.

Although the nation’s electorate is still divided somewhat between whiter heartland states and heavily minority coastal states, states in the Sun Belt stand in the forefront of racial electorate change. These include fast-growing Western inte-rior states that are receiving Hispanics and other minorities, and prosperous Southern states that are attracting blacks along with Hispanics from other regions.

The geographic dispersion of new minorities and southward migration of blacks advantage the Dem-ocrats by enlarging the number of available battle-ground states. This allowed Democrats to cut into a new electoral turf that Republicans held steadily for a long period, and these trends should pave the way for new state battlegrounds in the future.

Figure D: Minority Percent of Eligible Voters, November 2012

Source: Current Population Survey.

Percent Minority:

Under 5%

5%–14%

15%–24%

25%–34%

35% and over

Dominant Minority:

Hispanics

Blacks

Neither

DIVERSITY/VOTING


DIVERSITY/VOTING


Democrat Win, Due to Whites and Minorities

Democrat Win, Due to Minorities but not Whites

Republican Win

2004

2008

2012

In the 2004 election, as in the election four years earlier, George W. Bush won by taking a nearly clean sweep of the interior West and South, along with Great Plains and several Northern states—most notably Ohio—that were then dubbed battle-grounds (See Figure E). This Sun Belt sweep was not new to Republicans. Although they lost some Sun Belt states when Southerner Bill Clinton ran in the three-way elections of 1992 and 1996, and

when Southerner Jimmy Carter ran in 1976 and 1980, Republicans held fairly firm control of the South since the Civil Rights years when white Southerners started voting in large numbers for Republican candidates. With very few exceptions, the mostly white conservative-leaning interior West states voted for Republicans continuously from 1968 to 2004, aside from the three-way elec-tions of the 1990s.

Figure E: States Won by Democratic and Republican Candidates, 2004, 2008, 2012

Source: William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

DIVERSITY/VOTING


The Democratic strongholds for the two elections prior to 2008 consisted of urbanized, racially diverse coastal states such as California and New York and a swath of New England, Northeastern, and Mid-western states with industrial or farming histories. Although these states held constituencies reflecting both new and old strengths of the party—minorities, union workers, progressive professionals and women —they did not represent the most rapidly growing parts of the country.

This geographic map changed with both the 2008 and 2012 elections owing to the changing racial demographics of a number of New Sun Belt states. This can be seen in Figure E, which shows that, in contrast to 2004, Obama won new West and South battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and, in 2008, North Carolina.

The effect of the changing demography along with the heightened minority enthusiasm for Obama is illustrated in Nevada. In 2004, Nevada’s voters were 80 percent white, 8 percent Hispanic, 6 percent black, and 6 percent Asian or another race. Nevada’s white share dropped to 73 percent in 2008 and to 67 percent in 2012 such that, in the latter year, the voters included 15 percent Hispanics, 9 percent blacks, and 9 percent Asians or another race. Aside from demographics alone, the Democratic voting margins (percent vot-ing Democrat minus percent voting Republican) continued to increase particularly for Hispanics from 21 in 2004 to 54 in 2008 and 47 in 2012.

Shifts in this direction were evident in most of the other Sun Belt states that Obama won in 2008, where a rise in the minority Democratic vote over-came the Republican white vote. (See Table B) For

most of these South and West battleground states (North Carolina is the exception), Obama’s minority support was strong enough to overcome an increased white Republican margin in 2012. This was espe-cially crucial in Florida, where the white Republican margin increased from 14 to 24 between 2008 and 2012. But due to a larger minority turnout and increased Democratic margins, Obama won this key battleground state again.

Racial minorities were responsible for winning five Southern and Western states designated as “battlegrounds” in 2008 (Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia) and a similar number in 2012 (excluding North Carolina but including Colorado)—besting the white Republican advantages for these states. This means that the growth of Hispanics, Asians and other new minori-ties as well as the southward migration of blacks was opening the door to greater future Democratic prospects in the Sun Belt.

Among such states are Arizona and Texas, which are among the five states with the highest minority voter representation gaps, (See Table A) due largely to their substantial and younger Hispanic popula-tions. While both states have voted solidly Repub-lican in past elections, this could change if current race-related Republican and Democratic voting proclivities continue. In these and other states, this representation gap should eventually close—albeit gradually. The “too young to vote” share of the Hispanic population is projected to decrease over time and, as more in the population turn 18, it has been estimated that they will add up to one million new voting-age Hispanic citizens annually for the foreseeable future.3

Moreover, the ceiling for greater “new minority” voter participation will increase for two reasons. First, there will be higher rates of naturalization among Hispanic and Asian permanent residents who are eligible to become citizens. Naturalized citizenship rates have increased in recent years, though there is room for further growth. Second, voter turnout rates among Hispanics and Asians, discussed below, will increase as members of these communities become more familiar with registra-tion and voting practices with the help of local gov-ernment and civic organizations.

It is highly likely that the continued dispersion of minorities to many of the interior Sun Belt states will continue into the future. This would make the longstanding “solid Republican” South and much of the Mountain West become more open to gains by Democrats.4

Table A: States with Largest Voter Representation Gaps, November 2012

*Difference between Racial Minority Percent of Voters and Racial Minority Percent of Population in November 2012.

Source: U.S. Census Current Population Survey, November Supplement 2012 (compiled from Public Use Microfile).

State Population Voters Difference

Minority percent of

Arizona .................... 48 28 -20California ................ 60 43 -17Texas ........................ 58 41 -17New Mexico ............ 58 43 -15Nevada ..................... 47 33 -14

DIVERSITY/VOTING


DIVERSITY/VOTING


Table B: State Minority Percentages of Total Population, Eligible Voters and Voters, 2004, 2008 and 2012

Source: U.S. Census Current Population Survey, November Supplement, 2004, 2008, 2012 (compiled from Public Use Microfiles).

State or other jurisdiction 2004 2008 2012 2004 2008 2012 2004 2008 2012

Total population Eligible voters Voters

Alabama ....................... 30 30 34 27 27 29 26 27 29Alaska ........................... 28 31 35 23 27 29 18 19 22Arizona ......................... 43 42 48 27 30 35 19 22 28Arkansas ....................... 24 23 28 19 18 21 16 15 17California ..................... 56 58 60 43 45 49 35 40 43

Colorado ....................... 29 28 29 19 19 21 13 15 16Connecticut .................. 22 27 29 16 20 23 13 14 19Delaware ...................... 29 32 35 24 25 27 19 22 24Florida .......................... 37 38 43 28 31 34 24 29 33Georgia ......................... 39 42 45 32 36 38 30 36 38

Hawaii........................... 82 81 82 79 77 77 72 72 70Idaho ............................. 18 17 19 11 12 10 5 8 7Illinois ........................... 31 34 35 24 25 27 22 22 27Indiana .......................... 15 16 16 12 11 12 11 10 12Iowa .............................. 9 13 14 5 7 8 4 6 6

Kansas .......................... 20 21 24 12 15 16 9 12 11Kentucky ...................... 11 12 13 9 9 10 9 9 9Louisiana ...................... 37 39 38 32 34 34 31 32 35Maine ............................ 4 6 6 4 5 4 4 4 3Maryland ...................... 39 43 46 33 36 37 30 37 37

Massachusetts .............. 19 22 27 13 15 19 9 11 16Michigan ....................... 22 22 24 18 18 20 17 18 18Minnesota ..................... 13 15 16 9 9 10 8 7 9Mississippi .................... 41 40 43 37 37 38 39 38 40Missouri ........................ 18 18 19 15 14 15 15 15 15

Montana ....................... 11 10 13 7 8 10 5 7 8Nebraska ...................... 18 16 18 11 10 11 7 7 8Nevada .......................... 35 41 47 24 30 35 20 27 33New Hampshire ........... 6 6 10 4 5 6 3 4 5New Jersey ................... 34 41 41 25 32 32 23 29 30

New Mexico ................. 56 60 58 50 52 50 44 45 43New York ...................... 38 39 43 30 31 34 24 27 33North Carolina ............. 33 33 36 26 26 28 25 25 31North Dakota ............... 7 14 16 6 11 12 4 10 9Ohio .............................. 17 19 19 14 15 15 14 15 17

Oklahoma ..................... 28 31 36 23 24 30 19 22 25Oregon .......................... 16 21 22 10 13 14 7 10 11Pennsylvania ................ 16 18 21 13 14 16 11 13 15Rhode Island ................ 19 19 25 11 13 16 8 11 15South Carolina ............. 33 33 34 29 29 30 27 31 31

South Dakota ............... 10 12 17 6 8 13 4 5 9Tennessee ..................... 22 24 24 17 19 20 16 19 21Texas ............................. 52 56 58 42 45 48 34 37 41Utah .............................. 13 15 21 7 10 14 4 5 8Vermont ........................ 5 5 7 4 3 5 3 3 5

Virginia ......................... 31 33 34 25 26 27 19 26 26Washington................... 25 24 28 17 19 21 14 14 18West Virginia ................ 6 5 6 5 4 4 4 4 4Wisconsin ..................... 15 17 17 10 11 12 9 9 11Wyoming ...................... 10 11 14 8 8 11 6 6 6

Dist. of Columbia ........ 69 68 63 64 64 57 59 60 57

DIVERSITY/VOTING


Table C: State Racial Compositions of Total Population, Eligible Voters and Voters, November 2012 (Percentages)

Source: U.S. Census Current Population Survey, November Supplement, 2012 (compiled from Public Use Microfiles).

State or other jurisdiction White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other

Total population Eligible voters Voters

Alabama ....................... 66 26 4 4 71 26 1 3 71 26 0 3Alaska ........................... 65 3 6 26 71 4 4 21 78 2 2 18Arizona ......................... 52 3 35 10 65 4 23 9 72 4 17 7Arkansas ....................... 72 15 8 5 79 15 3 3 83 14 1 2California ..................... 40 5 40 15 51 7 28 15 57 7 23 13

Colorado ....................... 71 4 21 5 79 3 14 4 84 2 10 3Connecticut .................. 71 10 12 7 77 9 9 5 81 9 7 3Delaware ...................... 65 21 10 5 73 20 4 3 76 19 2 2Florida .......................... 57 15 24 4 66 14 17 4 67 13 17 3Georgia ......................... 55 31 8 6 62 30 4 4 62 32 3 3

Hawaii........................... 18 2 11 69 23 2 8 68 30 2 5 62Idaho ............................. 81 1 14 4 90 0 6 3 93 0 4 3Illinois ........................... 65 14 14 7 73 14 9 4 73 17 5 4Indiana .......................... 84 9 4 3 88 8 3 1 88 9 2 1Iowa .............................. 86 3 7 5 92 2 3 3 94 2 2 2

Kansas .......................... 76 6 11 8 84 5 5 5 89 4 3 4Kentucky ...................... 87 7 3 3 90 6 1 2 91 7 1 2Louisiana ...................... 62 31 4 3 66 30 2 2 65 31 2 2Maine ............................ 94 1 1 4 96 1 1 3 97 1 1 2Maryland ...................... 54 28 9 9 63 28 4 5 63 29 4 4

Massachusetts .............. 73 6 11 9 81 6 7 6 84 6 6 5Michigan ....................... 76 13 5 6 80 13 3 3 82 13 3 2Minnesota ..................... 84 5 4 7 90 3 2 4 91 3 2 4Mississippi .................... 57 37 2 4 62 35 1 2 60 39 0 1Missouri ........................ 81 12 4 3 85 11 2 2 85 11 2 2

Montana ....................... 87 1 2 10 90 0 2 8 92 0 1 6Nebraska ...................... 82 4 9 4 89 3 5 3 92 4 3 2Nevada .......................... 53 8 28 11 65 9 17 10 67 9 15 9New Hampshire ........... 90 1 4 4 94 1 2 2 95 1 2 2New Jersey ................... 59 12 19 10 68 12 13 7 70 14 11 6

New Mexico ................. 42 2 43 13 50 3 38 9 57 3 35 5New York ...................... 57 15 18 11 66 15 12 7 67 17 11 5North Carolina ............. 64 21 10 5 72 22 3 4 69 26 2 3North Dakota ............... 84 1 3 12 88 1 3 8 91 1 2 7Ohio .............................. 81 12 3 4 85 11 2 2 83 13 2 2

Oklahoma ..................... 64 7 8 20 70 7 5 18 75 7 3 15Oregon .......................... 78 2 10 10 86 1 4 9 89 1 3 7Pennsylvania ................ 79 10 6 4 84 10 4 2 85 10 3 2Rhode Island ................ 75 6 14 5 84 5 8 3 85 6 7 2South Carolina ............. 66 27 4 3 70 27 1 2 69 29 1 2

South Dakota ............... 83 1 3 13 87 1 2 10 91 0 1 8Tennessee ..................... 76 15 6 4 80 15 3 2 79 16 3 2Texas ............................. 42 12 41 6 52 13 30 5 59 15 22 4Utah .............................. 79 1 14 5 86 1 8 4 92 1 5 2Vermont ........................ 93 1 2 5 95 1 1 3 95 1 1 3

Virginia ......................... 66 19 7 8 73 19 3 6 74 19 3 5Washington................... 72 3 11 14 79 3 6 12 82 2 4 11West Virginia ................ 94 3 1 2 96 2 1 1 96 3 1 1Wisconsin ..................... 83 6 6 5 88 5 4 3 89 6 2 3Wyoming ...................... 86 1 9 4 89 1 6 4 94 1 3 2

Dist. of Columbia ........ 37 48 11 5 43 49 4 4 43 49 4 3

DIVERSITY/VOTING


DIVERSITY/VOTING


Still, this longer-term prognostication makes some strong assumptions. First, that longstanding white, Republican preferences and minority, Democratic preferences continue into the future. Second, that many of the nation’s industrial Midwest states, which will continue to remain “whiter” than the rest of the country, shall remain Democratic.

At least in the short term, the latter assumption may not hold, given that recent Democratic wins were fairly small in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and that Republicans could also be competitive in Iowa and Wisconsin and perhaps Michigan. This is because largely white Republican-leaning baby boomers and seniors could turnout heavily for a popular candidate in these states and could, at least in the short run, counter the growing Demo-cratic-leaning minority populations in the Sun Belt. Still, in the long run, both parties will come to recognize that the larger minority shares of the electorate will not only continue but also need to be reckoned with by adjusting their messages and policy agendas appropriately.

Notes1 William H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial

Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

2 William H. Frey, ”Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election” (Washington DC: Brookings Institution, May 10, 2013). http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/ 2013/05/10-election-2012-minority-voter-turnout-frey.

3 Pew Research Center, “An Awakened Giant: The His-panic Electorate is Likely to Double by 2030.” (Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center, November 14, 2012), p. 7. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/hispanic_vote_likely_to_double_by_2030_11-14-12.pdf.

4 See William H. Frey, Ruy Teixeira and Robert Griffin, “America’s Electoral Future: How Changing Demographics Could Impact Presidential Elections from 2016 to 2032” (Washington DC: Center for American Progress, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, February 2016). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/ 2016/02/25-states-of-change-frey/SOC2016report.pdf?la=en.

About the authorWilliam H. Frey is a senior fellow with the Brookings

Institution and research professor in population studies at the University of Michigan. An expert on U.S. demographics and American political demographics, he is author of Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

how america’s diversity explosion is changing the...

Documents