[EL] equal numbers of VOTERS, rather than residents

David A. Holtzman David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Thu May 19 01:07:40 PDT 2011


Hello Doug Hess,

Your analysis is very astute.Citizenship, age and socioeconomic status 
(SES) are what I'm told produce the disparity in number of registered 
voters.And on top of that, Districts 11 and 5 (L.A.'s Westside) are 
known for their high rates of political participation, which is most 
often explained by reference to their high SES -- which I imagine indeed 
correlates with citizenship.

To address the disparity in number of registered voters among city 
council districts, and to bring politics closer to the people, so to 
speak, we could allow noncitizen residents to register and vote in city 
elections.

I heard that idea some time ago from a City Councilmember-turned-City 
Council staffer, Mike Hernandez.I looked up his Wikipedia entry tonight 
and read, "in his 1st District, [] a majority of residents are routinely 
excluded from having a say on matters of common concern because they are 
noncitizens who cannot vote and are on the lower rung of an electoral 
caste system that leaves a minority in charge."Um, wow.

The City of L.A. has its own elections department, with its own 
ballot-tabulating hardware, but uses registration rosters maintained by 
the county.In these tough budgetary times, supplementing the rosters 
with noncitizen registrations might be dismissed simply as too costly.

Anyway, for your future analyses, or for whatever it's worth, I've 
replaced the ballots cast column with some basic demographic info 
(color/ethnicity, party preference, sex) on the City Council incumbents.

I find it discomforting that there are so few women on the Council.One 
of the two is Janice Hahn, who (as discussed elsewhere on [EL]) may soon 
be going to Congress.

COUNCIL DISTRICT  1       63,127      LAT-D-M     10.99
COUNCIL DISTRICT  2      129,783      WHT-D-M     14.09
COUNCIL DISTRICT  3      131,215      WHT-R-M     14.88
COUNCIL DISTRICT  4      126,281      WHT-D-M     16.25
COUNCIL DISTRICT  5      168,634      WHT-D-M     13.83
COUNCIL DISTRICT  6       77,476      LAT-D-M     11.54
COUNCIL DISTRICT  7       78,720      LAT-D-M     10.06
COUNCIL DISTRICT  8      117,346      BLK-D-M     16.44
COUNCIL DISTRICT  9       74,153      BLK-D-F      8.10
COUNCIL DISTRICT 10       99,207      BLK-D-M     14.32
COUNCIL DISTRICT 11      160,170      WHT-D-M     14.30
COUNCIL DISTRICT 12      138,033      WHT-R-M     18.49
COUNCIL DISTRICT 13       83,507      WHT-D-M     11.53
COUNCIL DISTRICT 14       93,107      LAT-D-M     20.00
COUNCIL DISTRICT 15      103,513      WHT-D-F     10.27


- dah




On 5/18/2011 6:28 AM, Doug Hess wrote:
> What really stood out in this table (and a quick analysis seems to
> show this, too), is that the larger the district the higher the
> turnout as a percentage of registrations. I.e., if I did the
> regression correct (percentage turnout in points regressed on an
> indicator that the district is an even district and on the number of
> registrations in 10,000s), the percent turnout of those registered
> increased by roughly 4 points if the district was even (had a council
> race) and it increased by roughly half a point for very 10,000
> registrations.
>
> I wasn't sure why that would be, but if the number of registrations is
> an indicator for number of citizens in a district, then I guess
> registration size is (potentially) a proxy in the model for the
> characteristics of the population in the district (e.g., younger,
> poorer, etc.). Or a lot of things could be happening (ecological
> issues here), but it did stand out.
>
> Number of obs	=      15
> F(  2,    12)	=   10.36
> Prob>  F	=  0.0024
> R-squared	=  0.6333
> Adj R-squared	=  0.5722
> 			
> 	Coef.	Std. Err.      t	P>t					
> even	3.95	1.11            3.54	0.004	
> reg10k	.473	.178            2.65	0.021	
> constant	6.63	2.07            3.20	0.008				
> Dependent variable is percentage turnout: [(ballots/registrations) x100]		
>
> -Doug
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:24 PM, David A. Holtzman
> <David at holtzmanlaw.com>  wrote:
>> The City of L.A. may be an unusual case where the voters versus population
>> distinction makes a big difference.
>>
>> L.A.'s districts are drawn by population.
>>
>> The following is a table of voter registration, ballots cast, and percent
>> turnout for L.A.'s City Council Districts in the March 8, 2011, election.
>>
>> With regard to turnout, bear in mind that only the even numbered seats were
>> up for election, and that only some Council Districts, in whole or in part,
>> were also voting in school board elections (the school board is elected by a
>> different set of districts, and covers more than the City of L.A.)
>>
>> With regard to registration, please note that I live in CD 11, and my vote
>> appears to be much less potent than that of a voter in CD 1.
>>
>>    - dah
>>
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  1       63,127             6,936        10.99
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  2      129,783            18,284        14.09
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  3      131,215            19,523        14.88
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  4      126,281            20,521        16.25
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  5      168,634            23,318        13.83
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  6       77,476             8,944        11.54
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  7       78,720             7,923        10.06
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  8      117,346            19,288        16.44
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT  9       74,153             6,004         8.10
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT 10       99,207            14,210        14.32
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT 11      160,170            22,908        14.30
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT 12      138,033            25,523        18.49
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT 13       83,507             9,626        11.53
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT 14       93,107            18,621        20.00
>> COUNCIL DISTRICT 15      103,513            10,634        10.27
>>
>>
>>
>> p.s. Note also that this is about city council seats, not any of the
>> positions enumerated in the apportionment clause of the 14th amendment,
>> which does include some state positions ("the executive and judicial
>> officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof").  In
>> general, city council elections are not subject to as many federal
>> requirements as federal elections are.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/2011 6:20 AM, Jon Roland wrote:
>>
>> The 14th Amendment actually dictates that representation be based not on the
>> number of residents, or citizens, but on the number of persons qualified to
>> vote (electors), and "number of voters" could be a short way to refer to
>> that: number of those qualified to vote, not who actually vote. So drawing
>> districts equipopulous for residents rather than for those qualified to vote
>> is actually unconstitutional. We have been drawing districts
>> unconstitutionally for a long time, albeit the differences are probably
>> small in most cases.
>>
>> -- Jon
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
>> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
>> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>> --
>> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
>> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>>
>> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
>> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
>> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
>> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
>> and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
>> email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
>> please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>

-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to 
an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in 
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying 
of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email 
in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110519/7ab0b4ab/attachment.html>


View list directory