Latino Americans have received a growing share of the national vote in the United States due to their increasing population. As of the 2020 U.S. Census, 62.1 million Latinos live in the United States, representing 18.9% of the total U.S. population.[1] This is a 23% increase since 2010.[2] This racial/ethnic group is the second largest after non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. In 2020, the states with the highest Hispanic or Latino populations were; Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas. According to the Brookings Institution, Latinos will become the nation's largest minority by 2045 and the deciding population in future elections.[3] [4] With the help of laws and court case wins, Latinos have been able to receive the help needed to participate in American Politics. According to data provided by The Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), 72% of Latinos believe that it is very/somewhat important to get their voice heard by voting.[5] They have traditionally been a key Democratic Party constituency,[6] but more recently[7] have begun to split[8] between the Democratic and Republican Party.[9] [10] [11] Since the Latino population is large and diverse, a lot of political differences exist between gender, national origin, and generational groups.
Contemporary Hispanic politics has roots in the 19th century when the American empire expanded to include Latin American and Caribbean populations. State efforts to incorporate and exclude Latino populations also played a role in shaping current Hispanic politics, as noted by scholars Guillermo (2017),[12] de la Garza & DeSipio[13] (2019), and Montejano (1987).[14] Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, individuals of Mexican American descent residing in the Southwest and Puerto Ricans from the 1880s to the 1950s were often referred to using various terms. Today, the label "Hispanic" has been applied in retrospect to describe these groups, though this usage represents a modern interpretation of historical events. However, recognizing that they faced similar types of political exclusion and neglect that set them apart from other immigrant and native populations during this time is both accurate and important in understanding shared experiences. Three historical circumstances and geographic realities can be highlighted, as they conflict somewhat with common understandings of the Hispanic communities' political past. This gap between popular and scholarly understandings explains Congress's 1975 extension of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to Latinos in 1975.
Mexican Americans became part of the United States society with treaty-based assurances of land and repatriation rights, but these guarantees were quickly disregarded, leading to the dispossession of thousands of acres of land and political exclusion that continues to affect the Hispanic community today. This disregard was rooted in racism, manifesting itself in various institutional policies, regulations, and laws designed to exclude Mexicans—impacting generations within Mexican American families by denying certain opportunities afforded by U.S. citizenship despite legally residing within U.S. borders.[15] The Chicano Movement of the 1960s and 1970s played an important role in challenging this exclusion (Rosales 1999, pp. 34–35).[16] It called for recognition of Mexican Americans as full citizens, as well as the promotion of bilingual education, an end to police brutality, and more representation in politics (Rosales 1999, p. 80). Despite the gains made by the Chicano Movement, however, Mexican Americans still often face discrimination and political exclusion today (Guillermo 2017). This history matters in the context of Latino politics because it highlights the long-standing exclusion of Latino Americans from the United States' political system, stemming from Mexican-American relations, and the struggle for representation and inclusion, which continues to this day.
Southwest machine politics provided some representation for Mexican Americans in office (Montejano, 1987). However, there was a false assumption that black/Latino needs were similar in 1975, ignoring the disproportionate violence faced by African Americans rather than Latinos—a rarely discussed reality (Guillermo 2017). Similarly, Puerto Ricans faced periods of political exclusion and neglect due to New York City machine politics' decline since the mid-20th century resulting in limited representation at different levels of government.[17] The government's pursuit for economic gain has driven it to marginalize access points for certain groups seeking those same economic gains (Chavez 2011). Systemic discrimination can be seen through voting patterns between Latino/black populations which still existed as late as 2020, highlighting an issue which must be addressed if the United States aims to decrease voter suppression tactics targeting minority groups.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Latino civic networks were poorer than Black communities' civic networks because only some Latino elites had access to electoral or partisan opportunities—mainly those who held offices in Texas and New Mexico—while Black individuals weren't allowed to participate electorally. Therefore, when third parties started gaining momentum among Hispanics, Hispanics/ Latinos couldn't capitalize on it due to their lack of resources.[18] These long lasting results are reflected in Latino politics today; Latino intersectionality varies greatly particularly economically as many immigrants are unable to access public funds such as welfare, TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, etc. without proper documentation. Thus, it is essential to understand the barriers related to Latino civic engagement including: English proficiency, wage oppression, educational disparities, etc.[19] Acknowledging the poor civic networks among Hispanics in the history of Latino and Hispanic politics is crucial to extend equitable opportunities, reduce poverty rates, and increase the number of electorates across all communities regardless of immigration status, income, wage gaps, race, educational attainment, etc.
Before Latinos were allowed to vote, they faced a lot of voting discriminatory practices, especially in the Southwest region of the United States.[20] After the Civil War, many Southern states adopted discriminatory voting practices against African Americans, but also for anyone that was non-white. According to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Texas laws prohibited Tejanos (Texas residents that descended from Mexico), from speaking Spanish, organizing political demonstrations/protests or even from serving as election judges as early as 1845. By the 1900s poll taxes, and white primaries (only white people were allowed to participate in primaries), prohibited Mexican Americans from voting. It took several laws and court cases to remove voting barriers like this that prohibited Latinos from participating in U.S. politics.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law by the 36th U. S. President, Lyndon B.Johnson. The act made it illegal for states, mostly Southern states, to keep discriminatory voting practices in place. This included literacy tests and polling taxes.[21] The law primarily impacted African Americans as they were visibly disenfranchised from voting, but the act also helped remove barriers for Latino voters.
By 1966, after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, voting discriminatory practices were eliminated under the law. However, the Latino community still faced language barriers to vote. As a result, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project was started in 1974, becoming the first and largest non-partisan organization in the U.S. Founder William C. Velasquez, created the organization after realizing that language barriers remained for Latinos even after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Many Latino voters, including Puerto Ricans, were unable to cast their vote between the time the VRA of 1965 was passed and its revision in 1975.[22]
In 1975, 38th U.S. president, Gerald Ford, extended the VRA Act of 1965, to protect language minorities. Specifically, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act was added to the act, which required certain states (those that have had discriminatory voting practices) to provide language assistance and translated voting materials (e.g., registration forms, ballots, instructions) to language minority groups, during elections. The language minority groups that were included under the provision were those that spoke Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Spanish.[23] Additionally, these states would need the federal governments permission to change their voting laws.
States need to provide language assistance if more than 5% of the voting age is not proficient in English or more than 10,000 voting-age citizens are not proficient in English and the citizens that are limited English proficient have less than a 5th-grade education.
Since the enactment of the VRA of 1975, the Latino voting block increased by 183%. According to the National Research Council (US) Panel on Hispanics and the United States, Latino officeholders increased in the 6 states (Arizona, California, Florida, New Mexico, New York, and Texas) with the largest Latino population. In 1973, there were only 1,280 Latino officeholders across these 6 states, by 2003, there were 4,130.[24] John A. Garcia, a political science researcher at the University of Michigan, explains that this increase in political representation is due to the fact that the VRA of 1975, helped create an comfortable environment for Hispanics and Latinos to run for office positions in the Southwestern part of the United States.[25]
In an additional study conducted by Political Scientists, Melissa Marschall and Amanda Rutherford, it was found that Section 203 led to increased Latino representation in political offices, and Latino voter participation. However, the authors found that federal oversight alongside Section 203, ensured that adequately trained bilingual poll workers were present and that voting materials were translated. Without federal monitoring, Section 203 is not as effective.[26]
In "Translating into Votes: The Electoral Impacts of Spanish-Language Ballots" by Daniel J. Hopkins, it was found that the VRA of 1975 significantly increased Latino voter participation in California. The provision eased Spanish speakers anxiousness at the polls and helped them vote down the ballot.[27] However other studies, have argued that language assistance is less of an indicator for voter turnout compared to age and education level.[28]
Texas was one of the states that had to abide by Section 203 of the VRA of 1975, due to its history of discriminatory voting practices. According to the Department of Justice, since 1982, Texas has had the highest number of voter change objections. Additionally, there were 54 instances when Texas changed its discriminatory voting law proposals after they knew they would get rejected by the Department of Justice. Section 203, stopped states like Texas from continuing their voter disenfranchisement.[29]
In 1954, Pete Hernandez was charged with the murder of Joe Espinosa in Jackson County, Texas. Hernandez argued that the state had incorrectly indicted him, given that most of the jurors were white when Jackson county had a moderate-sized Hispanic population.[30] The court found in Hernandez v. Texas that 11% of Jackson County's population was over the age of 21 and had Spanish surnames, however in the last 25 years, no person with a Latin American name, had served on a jury. Because no Latino was chosen to serve on a jury among the 6,000 slots available in the last 25 years' worth of cases, the court stated it was a form of discrimination, whether it was or wasn't a conscious decision by Texas. This case has been marked by many legal scholars as the first supreme courts decision to explicitly acknowledge discrimination against Latinos.[31]
According to legal scholars, this court case recognized Latinos as a separate race/ethnicity from the binary races (Anglo and African Americans). The case proved that Latinos are not White nor African American, they are a part of their own distinct group. This played an important role in identity politics for the future. Since the court cases decision, court administrators are required to pull jurors from across a community. As a result, diversity in juries has increased, including Latino jurors.[31]
In 1977, Rodrigo Partida was convicted of burglary and with the intent to rape in Hidalgo County, Texas. After being indicted, Partida argued that he was unfairly convicted because Mexican-Americans were not represented in the jury. At the time, 79.2% of Hidalgos population had Mexican American surnames, but in Partidas' grand jury, only 40% were Mexican American. Texas argued that this was not evidence of discrimination, since Hidalgo county was run by a majority of Mexican Americans, at the time. The court found no evidence of discrimination, but Partida appealed this decision and the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court reversed the original courts' decision. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court was unable to rule out the possibility that Mexican Americans were being discriminated against even if they were the majority in Hidalgo County.
In 2006, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) filed a lawsuit against former Texas governor Rick Perry. LULAC argued that the 2003 redistricting plan, which was controlled by Republicans, diluted Latinos' and African Americans' voting power, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1975. The court's decision favored Perry, which helped the Republican party win five congressional seats in Texas and ultimately gain control of Congress that following midterm election.[32]
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1975, 11 states with voter discrimination history (Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia), were required to seek approval from the Department of Justice (a process called "preclearance") if they wanted to amend a policy.[33] However, in 2013, this "preclearance" requirement was taken away in the Shelby County v. Holder case.[34]
In 2021, 19 states, including Florida, Arizona and Texas enacted 34 restrictive voting laws which negatively impacted Latino voters. For example, Texas State Legislature SB 1, makes it difficult for Spanish speakers to cast their vote, since they wont be able to receive language assistance. Additionally voters will be required to have a monthly citizenship check, 24 hour voting drive thrus are banned. Republicans have argued that this bill is necessary in order to stop voter fraud.[35] [36]
In reaction to the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 (VRAA) was proposed to restore the "preclearance" aspect of the Voting Rights Act of 1975. The Department of Justice would decide whether a voting law violates voters' rights. If so, states will be covered by preclearance for the following 10 years.[34]
States would be covered by preclearance if:
On November 3, 2021, the VRAA failed to pass the Senate.[37] It was proposed a second time on January 19, 2022, but it failed again.[38]
Supermajority support for Democratic presidential candidates is a pattern among Latino voters.[39] In a 2021 Gallup poll, 56% of Latinos identified with the Democratic party, and 26% said they were Republicans.[40] This Democratic support has been consistent throughout presidential elections.
| 1980 [41] | Jimmy Carter, 56% | Ronald Reagan, 35% | |
| 1984 | Walter Mondale, 61% | Ronald Reagan, 37% | |
| 1988 | Michael Dukakis, 69% | George H.W. Bush, 30% | |
| 1992 | Bill Clinton, 61% | George H.W. Bush, 25% | |
| 1996 | Bill Clinton, 72% | Bob Dole, 21% | |
| 2000 | Al Gore, 62% | George W. Bush, 35% | |
| 2004 | John Kerry, 58% | George W. Bush, 40% | |
| 2008 | Barack Obama, 67% | John McCain, 31% | |
| 2012 | Barack Obama, 71% | Mitt Romney, 27% | |
| 2016 [42] | Hillary Clinton, 65% | Donald Trump, 29% | |
| 2020 | Joe Biden, 66% | Donald Trump, 32% |
When Latinos first immigrate to the United States they do not immediately align themselves with a political party or ideology. According to Political Scientists, Lisa Garcia Bedolla and Ramon Michael Alvarez, newly naturalized Latinos are independent, but as they become socialized into American politics, they begin to lean toward a political party.[43] Historically, Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans attach themselves to the Democratic Party where as Cuban and Venezuelan Americans associate themselves with the Republican party. Studies have tried to explain why differences in political ideology exist within the Latino population, as national origin, gender, or even religion can create differences.
Since 1984, the majority of Latinos have supported and identified with the Democratic Party. In every election since 1984, over 57% of Latinos have voted for Democratic presidential candidates. A study conducted by Political Scientists, Leonie Huddy, Lilliana Mason, and S. Nechama Horwitz, explains why Latinos have historically preferred the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. They find that those who identify strongly with their Hispanic identity and believe that their ethnic group is discriminated against, end up strongly supporting the Democratic Party. This was observed heavily in the 2012 election when the Republican Party expressed an anti-Latino and anti-immigration attitude, which in turn motivated Latinos to support the party in opposition: the Democrats.[44] The study also showed that Mexicans, Central Americans and Dominicans are more likely than Cubans to support the Democratic Party. An additional explanation for Latinos' support toward the Democratic Party is provided by Political Scientist, Angel Saavedra Cisneros, who argues that Latinos are Democratic because they are most interested on economic and migration issues, in which the party positively addresses.[45]
See also: Hispanic and Latino conservatism in the United States. In recent years, multiple news outlets have published stories, that Latinos are shifting toward the Republican party given that they have usually outspent Democrats on trying to gain Latino Support.[46] Lionel Sosa, an advertising executive, told Ronald Reagan, "Latinos are Republican, they just dont know it yet". Whereas former Senate Democrat Harry Reid, in 2010 said, "I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage who could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?". Angel Saavedra Cisneros, a Political Scientist, published a book called, "Latino Republicans", to determine whether this is true.[47]
According to the Pew Research Center, 77% of Latinos are Christian.[48] A lot of Republicans, claim that Latinos' religiosity should make them support Republicans' conservative policy stances. Academics have tried to understand whether this is true. In a 2000 study, Political Scientist's, Sean M.Bolks, Diana Evans, J.L. Polinard, and Robert D. Wrinkle, discovered that Latinos are opposed to abortions, like Republicans.[49] Political scientist, Marisa A. Abrajano, found that these conservative positions is what drew Latinos to vote for George W. Bush in the 2004, presidential election. This was the largest percentage of votes (40%) that the Republican party has ever received from Latinos during a presidential election.[50] [51] Other academics have just argued that Latinos liked George W. Bush as a candidate, rather than his party's ideological stances.[52] Some Political scientist, like, Catherine E. Wilson, argue the opposite, that churches push Latinos towards the Democratic party.[53]
See also: Gender gap.
Latino men have historically voted more Republican than Latinas since the late 1980s.[54] Christina Bejarano, a Political Scientist at Texas Woman's University, found that Latino men tend to hold on to their conservative values when they migrate, whereas Latinas become ideologically liberal as generations pass.[55] In 1988, researcher, Jones Correa, tried to find explanations for this phenomenon.[56] He found that men experience downward mobility once they migrate to the United States, whereas women have upward mobility. Therefore, men try to hold on to their conservative values, to validate themselves and women try to become more independent. Other studies have tried to explain this political gender gap as a result of moving from a traditional Latin American country to the egalitarian country of the United States.[57]
See also: Cuban Americans. Historically, Cubans are one of the few Latino national origin groups that have consistently been strong supporters of the Republican party.[58] In the 2016 presidential election, over half of the Cuban population, voted for Donald Trump.[59] Sociologist, Alejandro Portes, and politician, Rafael Mozo, have tried to explain why Cubans do not vote for the Democratic Party. They find that Cubans support the Republican Party out of fear that Democrats will turn the United States into a communist country .[60] Other studies have argued that Cubans do not vote for Democrats because they do not experience immigration related issues, since they are able to apply for permanent residency, a year after arriving to the United States, through the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.[61]
Other studies have tried to fully disprove that Latinos are becoming Republican. Eric Gonzalez Juenke, a Political Science researcher at Michigan State University, found that most conservative Latinos are not citizens, therefore they cannot vote and express their support to the Republican party through elections. Therefore, citizenship needs to be considered when interviewing Latinos about their political opinions, as this can be misleading information in upcoming elections.[62]
Hispanics will most likely favor abortion rights in most scenarios. The Pew Research Center survey shares that over half (57%) [63] of the Hispanic and Latino population, to some extent, support the legalization of abortion. A majority of 69%[63] of Hispanic/Latino Democrats and Democratic-leaning individuals support this view, in comparison to Hispanic/Latino Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals who less than half (39%) [63] support abortion policies. To compare these statistics with the U.S. adult population, overall 62% of adults in the United States believe that abortion should be legal or at least some cases. Analyzing these numbers, its imperative to detail that 84%[63] of all U.S. Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are supportive of the legality of abortion, making this number higher than the percentage of Hispanic Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters who are supportive. On the other hand, about 60% [63] of Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals, including Hispanic Republicans, believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
The majority of Hispanics and Latinos (73%) [63] believe that controlling gun ownership should be prioritized over Americans' rights to own guns. This opinion is even more popular among Hispanic Democrats and Democratic-leaning Hispanic voters with 85% prioritizing gun control over the right to bear arms. This can be compared to Hispanic Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, with nearly half (45%)[63] supporting gun control over the right to own guns. In comparison, overall, a little over half the U.S. adult population (52%) [63] believes that controlling gun ownership should be the priority. The number significantly decreases with Republican Adults overall, with only 18% supporting stricter gun laws rather than the right to own guns. However, among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, both the majority of Democratic Hispanics (85%) [63] and Democratic U.S. adults overall (81%)[63] prioritize controlling gun ownership.
Looking at support in the Latino community for LGBTQ rights, the topic of sex-same marriage is often a popular voting issue. according to a study by the Pew Research Center, While Identifying individuals who believing same sex marriage to neither be harmful or beneficial to society, the survey found approximately one-third of Hispanics [63] hold a neutral stance towards the legalization of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, only 37% [63] of Hispanic/Latino respondents expressed support for same-sex marriage, viewing it as a positive force for society. Further analyzing party ideology, Hispanic Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are more supportive of same-sex marriage compared to Latino Republicans and the Republican-leaning voting population, with 46%[63] of Democratic Latinos in support and less than half of Republicans, 21%[63] saying they are supportive of same-sex marriage. Following this ideology, the statistics are flipped when viewing opposition towards same-sex marriage with almost half of Hispanic Republicans (41%)[63] being more likely than Hispanic Democrats (20%)[63] to hold a negative view and be opposed to same-sex marriage. Shifting the focus to the matter of transgender rights and promoting their social acceptance, a similar pattern is displayed.
Latinos' views on socialism and capitalism have become a recently popular issue due to the vast amount of current immigrants from countries with socialist or communist governments either favoring or fearing socialist policies. According to a study by The Pew Research Center, nearly over half 53%[63] of Hispanic/Latino adults have a negative opinion of socialism, while more than less than 41% [63] hold a positive view. When examining feelings towards Capitalism, a majority of Hispanics have a favorable opinion of capitalism, with 54% holding a positive view compared to 41%[63] holding a negative opinion. Intertwining party ideology, Hispanic individuals who identify as Republicans or lean towards the Republican party tend to favor capitalism, with 68% [63] holding positive opinions. This percentage is higher than that among Hispanic Democrats and Democratic-leaning individuals, which stands at 50%.[63]
When looking specifically at Hispanic Democrats and those who lean towards the Democratic party, it is evident that there is a split in opinions regarding socialism. Approximately half, or 50%,[63] hold a favorable view, whereas the other half, or 48%,[63] hold an unfavorable view. However, Hispanic Republicans and Republican supporters tend to view socialism more unfavorably, with 72%[63] having negative perceptions.
The views on socialism among different groups vary. Young Americans, including Latinos aged 18 to 29, have almost an equal split between positive and negative opinions, with 46% holding positive views and 50% holding negative impressions.[63] However, Hispanic Republicans and Republican supporters tend to view socialism more unfavorably, with 72%[63] having negative perceptions. A notable percentage of individuals aged 65% [63] and above, as well as those between the ages of 50% to 64%,[63] hold unfavorable views toward socialism. Likewise, Latinos aged 30% to 49% [63] exhibit comparable tendencies in their perceptions of socialism. The Pew Research Center also discovered that Hispanics who place significant value on their Hispanic identity have varying opinions on socialism, with 47% holding favorable views and 48% expressing negative perspectives. However, those who consider their Hispanic identity less important tend to have a more negative view of socialism, with 62% expressing disapproval.[63]
A study by Professor Maria E. Len-Ríos of the University of Georgia suggests that Latinos’ level of political interest is positively associated with their level of engagement.[64] Len-Ríos collected data from a national survey of 434 Latinos, 26.8% of whom said that they were interested in politics. Additionally, one in five people reported interacting with a campaign on social media; 6% had donated to a campaign before; and one in ten had sent an email to their elected representatives. The percentage of Latinos whom find it important to donate money to campaign issues, work together on community problems, and to attend protests on salient issues, is higher than those for their white counterparts. Social media has also been used prevalently as a political tool for Latinos, especially Latino youth. Over 1/3 of the respondents to the CMPS survey use social media to discuss politics.[5] Between the political interest and political participation variables there was a statistically significant correlation. In other words, individuals who were interested in politics were more involved in politics than people who were less interested.
See also: 2016 United States presidential election and 2020 United States presidential election.
In the 2020 presidential election, Latino turnout surpassed past voting records. The Pew Research Center found that 54% of registered Latino voters were motivated to vote in the election that year.[65] By comparison, 69% of all U.S. registered voters said they were motivated to vote. Half of eligible Latinos (53.7%) ended up voting that year.[66] [67] This increased mobilization in 2016 and 2020 has been explained by various studies as a result of Donald Trumps' xenophobic attitude and targets toward the Latino population.[68] [69] His anti-immigration rhetoric emotionally angered Latinos, which created a pan-ethnic solidarity movement amongst them, driving them to the polls to vote against Trump during both elections.[70] However, expectations about ethnic solidarity notwithstanding, Latino support for Donald Trump in fact grew between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.[71] Latinos showed considerably more variance in voting behavior than what would be expected given accounts focused mainly on their ethnic solidarity. A 2024 study proposes a counterintuitive explanation for this trend: due to the activation of dormant political dispositions, it is the very anti-immigration attitudes characterizing Trump that account for his ascendence among Latino voters. In other words, Latinos voting for Trump did so because of his anti-immigration positions and not despite those positions.[72]
See also: Catholic Church and politics in the United States.
Researchers have tried to determine whether church attendance increases Latinos participation in American Politics. In study conducted by researchers, Sarah Allen Gershon, Adrian D. Pantoja and J.Benjamin Taylor, they found that church attendance does correlate to civic engagement, however other factors such as generational status, economic status and employment can influence this. Given that younger generations of Latinos attend church at a lesser rate than older generations, demographic factors will determine whether they are politically engaged or not.[73]
Given the dearth of Latino legislators, it is imperative to examine the impediments that obstruct the proper representation of Latinos in politics. Numerous of these are structural and demographic hindrances that prevent Latinos from getting equitable representation in government.[74]
The absence of resources available to Latino candidates, compared to their non-Latino competitors, is a significant impediment in filling the gap of Latinos in politics.[19] This shortage affects the potential for Latino hopefuls to run successful campaigns and compete with other contenders. Furthermore, gerrymandering and redistricting often weaken Latino votes—granting them less representation than they are entitled to have.
Latino candidates are often met with hesitation due to their lack of name recognition; without a notable record in public service, it's difficult for Latinos to win the trust and financial support of voters. This obstacle has been further complicated by the Trump Administration's strict immigration policies, discouraging many immigrants from participating in politics.[74]
The paucity of Latinos in the political process is a consequence not only of social barriers, but also of structural impediments that hinder access to education, wealth and resources. Native individuals are traditionally underrepresented in higher learning establishments which results in their inability to be competitive candidates as they lack educational backgrounds.[19] Additionally, continued economic disparities experienced by Latino communities make it difficult for them to fundraise or build assistance necessary for campaigning.
Multiple demographic hurdles, including language obstacles and voter registration impediments, often render Latinos underrepresented in the political process.[75] Moreover, district lines are frequently drawn to favor non-Latino populations which only further curtails Latino engagement with candidates and understanding of critical matters. Consequently, immigration status can be a roadblock for many Latinos who just want to have their voice heard through voting at election time.[74]
Despite these issues, some institutional factors can help increase Latino representation. For example, legislative term limits can give more people a chance to run for office, thereby enhancing diversity in government representation.[74] Furthermore, rising Latino-led interest groups have helped Latinos have a stronger political voice and advocate for their communities' policies.[19] Additionally, there has been an increase in Latino-based organizations that help build the skills necessary to run for office and provide resources to those who do.
Most Latinos obtain their news from Spanish language television networks.[76] Given this, many academics have attempted to analyze the relationship between media and Latino politics.
In a study conducted by Political Scientists, Sergio I. Garcia-Rios and Matt A. Barreto, it was found that Univision and other Spanish language news outlets, created a pan ethnic identity amongst Latinos, which motivated them to vote in a historically large number in the 2012 presidential election.[77] Since immigration was a main debate topic during election season, Latinos were reminded of their immigrant identity even as U.S. citizens. Spanish news media influencers, such as Jorge Ramos, Maria Elena Salinas, and Pilar Marero, made frequent announcements to the Latino community, reporting the immigration issues that were at stake if they didn't vote. In culmination, these factors motivated Latinos to vote.
In another study, Swiss academic, Felix Oberholzer-Gee and American economist, Joel Waldfogel, tried to find whether general Spanish language television networks increase Latino voter turnout. Their results were significant, indicating that the presence of Spanish language television networks like Univision, can increase civic engagement among Latinos.[78]
Univision is the nation's largest Spanish language television network.[79] According to Della de Lafuente, Emmy award-winning journalist and former president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), Univision provides the Latino community resources such as for finding a doctor, a school for their children, or a job.[80] [81] Since 2007, they have also initiated efforts to politically mobilize the Latino community. In 2007, the network made history by hosting and broadcasting the first presidential debates in Spanish. In the 2008 primary elections, Univision released a "Ve y Vota en las Primarias" ("Get Out and Vote in the Primaries) 30-second ad to its viewers. Cesar Conde former chief strategist for Univision, stated that the network is making it a priority to help inform and motivate Latinos about the political process. The television network has continued on these efforts from national to local elections.
During the 2016 presidential election, Univision carried out a voter registration campaign (#VotaConmigo) to increase Latino voter participation.[82] In February 2016, Univision announced its attempts to register over 3 million new Latino voters, based on the number of Latinos that became eligible to vote since the last presidential election in 2012. Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Univision's executive Vice President, stated to the Washington Post, "As a media company, we have the ability to educate and tell people whats happening on air and off air...We have the voice." Following their campaign announcement, the television network broadcast commercials, encouraging people to call the citizenship hotline, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO). In the next month, William Valdes, cohost of Despierta America, a morning segment, hosted a Facebook Live, talking about his U.S. citizenship process. That day, NALEO received 20,000 calls, surpassing the other days' average of 100 calls.[83] Univision ended up registering over 200,000 new Latinos to vote in 2016.[84]
A Washington Post op-ed, by Callum Brochers, argued that Univision's campaigns are designed to help the Democratic party, not to help Latinos become politically involved.[85] As evidence, Callum, revealed that Haim Saban, Univisions' chairman, has consistently donated money to the Democratic party. In the 2016 election, Haim Saban donated $2.5 million to Priorities USA Action, a super Political Action Committee(PAC), that supported Hilary Clintons campaign. Ken Oliver-Mendez, a director of an organization that tracks liberal bias, also shared that Univision broadcasts liberal leaning news as Republicans are not covered fairly within the platform. In the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trumps campaign called Univision, "Leftist propaganda".[86] However, Univision has continuously stated that it is a non-partisan, television network.[87]
Latinos are an increasingly important demographic in American politics, yet they still face significant barriers to engagement and representation. Understanding the complex factors that shape Latino political behavior and mobilization is essential in understanding Latino representation in politics.[74]
Spanish-language media can bolster Latino political engagement and provide a much-needed space to communicate their immigrant identity. It is an effectual tool in influencing, validating, and amplifying the voices of Latinos.[88] It is imperative to amplify the political force of Latino communities by affirming their legitimacy. Spanish-language media stands out as an indispensable tool for Latinos due to disparities in language and access to news sources. Thus, it serves as a powerful means of catalyzing political involvement among the Latino Community. Ethnicity is another factor that shapes Latino political behavior. Co-ethnic voting among Latinos is driven by shared identity, cultural and linguistic connections, and a belief in the candidate's ability to represent the community's needs.[19] At the same time, non-Latino voters may react negatively to Latino candidates due to biases and stereotypes. This underscores the need for candidates to develop campaign strategies and messages that resonate with diverse ethnic and racial groups.
Ultimately, socioeconomic and political environments can impede Latinos from obtaining political representation. Redistricting, the primary system, poverty levels amongst Latino communities, educational qualifications of voters, and voter turnout all contribute to this underrepresentation. Understanding the factors that shape Latino political behavior and mobilization is essential for building a more inclusive and representative democracy.
See also: Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress.
There are 6 Latino Senators in the United States Senate, 4 Latino Democrats and 2 Latino Republicans.
See also: Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress.
There are 41 Latino Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, 31 Latino Democrats and 10 Latino Republicans.
An August 2022 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that slightly more than half of Latino registered voters (53%)[63] said they would vote for or were leaning towards the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in their congressional district. This can be compared to the 28% of Latino/Hispanic voters who said they would vote for the Republican candidate. About one-in-five Latino voters (18%)[63] said they would vote for another candidate or are still determining whom they would vote for.
When looking at religious affiliation, A majority of Hispanic Catholics (59%)[63] and those labeled as religiously unaffiliated (60%)[63] (described themselves as atheists, agnostics, or “nothing in particular”) said they would vote for the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House in their congressional district. In comparison, when looking at Hispanic evangelical Christians, more said they would vote Republican than Democratic (50% vs. 32%)[63]
The Pew Research Center study also found a strong connection between Hispanic identity and how Hispanic registered voters would vote. Most Hispanics who said being Hispanic/Latino was extremely or very important to how they think of themselves (60%)[63] would vote for the Democratic candidate in their local congressional district. Meanwhile, those who said being Hispanic is less important to their identity were more evenly split between voting for the Democratic and Republican candidates in their district's House race (45% vs. 38%).[63]
Analyzing the Pew Research Center data on the midterm elections, slightly less than half of Latino/Hispanic registered voters (45%)[63] said they approved of how Biden has been handling his job as president. However, Biden's approval rating varied somewhat across demographic subgroups of Hispanic/Latino registered voters. When looking at Hispanic/Latino Democrats they hold largely positive views of Biden with nearly two-thirds of Hispanic Democrats and Democratic leaning individuals (65%) approving of Biden's presidency, and substantial minority (34%) disapproving. By contrast, nearly all Hispanic Republicans and Republican leaners (92%) disapprove of Biden. Among Latino registered voters, only 29% of evangelical Christians approve of Biden's job performance, while a greater share of Latino Catholics (53%) and those with no religious affiliation (44%) say the same. A greater share of Hispanic voters who say being Hispanic is important to how they think of themselves approve of Biden's job performance than do Hispanics who say being Hispanic is less critical to their identity (52% vs. 37%)
A great majority of Hispanic/Latino registered voters (73%) said they would not like to see Trump remain a national political figure. Out of these Hispanics/Latinos, Hispanic/Latino Democrats and Democratic-leaning were extremely opposed to Trump's re-election with 94% opposing Trump's participation in politics. In comparison, 63% of Hispanic/Latino Republicans and Republic-leaning individuals said they would want Trump to remain a national political figure, including about four in ten (41%) Hispanic/Latino Republicans who said he should run for president in 2024. Among Latino registered voters, looking at their religious affiliations, Hispanic/Latino evangelicals are more in support of Trump's re election (43%) compared to Hispanic and Latino Catholics that are 22% more likely to say Trump should remain a national political figure. This is a bigger population compared to Hispanic and Latinos with no religious affiliation that are 18% more likely to say Trump should remain a national political figure, and a quarter of Latino/Hispanic evangelical registered voters say Trump should run for president in 2024.
See also: 2022 United States elections. The 2023 class of incoming Congress members is historic for the Latino community. This is the largest cohort of Latinos to be sworn into Congress. According to Vox News, 14 Latino candidates were elected to join the 34 incumbents, indicating that the 118th Congress class will be 11% Latino (34 Democrats, 11 Republicans).[89] [90] Representative Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), commented, "Invest in Latino voters. Talk to Latino voters early and recruit Latinos and Latinas to run and not just in majority Latino districts", after the midterm outcomes.
| Maxwell Frost | Democratic | Florida | 10th | 2023–Present | Maxwell was elected at 25 years old, making him the first member of Gen-Z to be elected into Congress as well as the first Afro-Cuban to be sworn in.[91] | ||
| Robert Garcia | Democratic | California | 42nd | 2023–Present | Garcia is the first openly LGBTQ+ immigrant (from Peru) to be elected into Congress [92] | ||
| Marie Perez | Democratic | Washington | 3rd | 2023–Present | Perez is the first Latina Democrat to be sworn into Congress from Washington state. | ||
| Delia Ramirez | Democratic | Illinois | 3rd | 2023–Present | Ramirez is the first Latina to represent Illinois in Congress.[93] | ||
| Andrea Salinas | Democratic | Oregon | 6th | 2023–Present | Salinas, alongside Deremer is one of the first Latinas to represent Oregon in Congress.[94] | ||
| Yadira Caraveo | Democratic | Colorado | 8th | 2023–Present | Caraveo, is Colorados first Latina representative.[95] | ||
| Greg Casar | Democratic | Texas | 35th | 2023–Present | At age 25, Casar became the youngest Council Member in Austins history, before being elected into Congress.[96] | ||
| Rob Menendez Jr. | Democratic | New Jersey | 8th | 2023–Present | Rob Menendez is the son of New Jersey Senator, Bob Menendez.[97] | ||
| Gabriel Vasquez | Democratic | New Mexico | 2nd | 2023–Present | Vasquez was the first in his family to be born in the United States, which motivated him to pursue politics and advocate for Latinos.[98] | ||
| Lori Chavez DeRemer | Republican | Oregon | 5th | 2023–Present | DeRemer was the first Republican woman to represent Oregon in the House of Representatives.[99] | ||
| Juan Ciscomani | Republican | Arizona | 6th | 2023–Present | Juan Ciscomani was the first in his family to graduate from college, attending Pima Community College and the University of Arizona.[100] | ||
| Monica De La Cruz | Republican | Texas | 15th | 2023–Present | De La Cruz is the first Republican to represent Texas' 15th Congressional district since 1903.[101] | ||
| Anthony D'Esposito | Republican | New York | 4th | 2023–Present | D'Esposito is the first Republican to publicly support George Santos' resignation after he gave out false biographical information.[102] | ||
| Anna Paulina Luna | Republican | Florida | 13th | 2023–Present | Luna is the first Mexican-American woman to be elected to Congress in Florida.[103] | ||
| George Santos | Republican | New York | 3rd | 2023 | The first Brazilian-American elected to Congress, Santos was a part of the first congressional race in which between two LGBTQ+ candidates competed against each other.[104] He was expelled from Congress on December 1, 2023. |