The New Blue

The New Blue:
Hispanic population growth and the political transformation of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

by Anthony E. DeFiore

FOR A PRINTED COPY EMAIL Anthony DeFiore at JT14@msn.com

In 2006, Hispanic Americans became the largest ethnic minority group in the United States of America with a population of approximately 42,000,000 U.S. Citizens (14 percent of the entire U.S. Population). (Lyman, NYT, 8/15/06) According to the United States Census Bureau, this growth in population is due to the in-migration of Hispanic immigrants to the United States, the continued naturalization of Hispanic immigrants as U.S. Citizens and the natural increase of the Hispanic population residing in the United States. (U.S. Census, May 10, 2006) As a result, this change in U.S. Demographics permanently alters the formula for winning the Electoral College Vote in United States Presidential Elections. In short, demographic change creates political change. To this end, with a populist candidate in 2008, a Democratic Presidential Nominee will closely contest any Republican Nominee throughout the country. Specifically, in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona, Hispanic voters will provide the crucial winning advantage or the “tipping point” margin of victory for the Democratic Presidential Nominee to win the electoral college votes from these states. With these electoral votes plus the electoral votes from states traditionally won by the Democrats, The Democratic Party will gain a new strategic electoral vote hold on the Presidency of the United States. As America’s Demographics continue to change beyond 2008, this electoral advantage will only become more formidable in these aforementioned states and in many other states currently experiencing demographic realignment.

The definition of a “tipping point” is the crucial amount of votes provided by a group, bloc, segment, or aggregation of voters with like interests or with similar associative bonds needed to win a closely contested local, statewide, or national election for a political party or nominee. For this paper, a “tipping point” provides the victory margin needed to win many of the “Battleground” or “Purple States” in a U.S. Presidential Election (“Battleground” and “Purple State” will be defined on page four.) In 2008, with victories in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona, a Democratic Presidential Nominee will gain a firm electoral vote lead nationwide and win the U.S. Presidency. Beyond the 2008 Presidential election, as demographics continue to change and the electoral vote map redraws itself, the Democratic Party will reinforce their strategic advantage on the electoral college map and maintain their hold on The White House for years to come.

Altering the Electoral College map in favor of the Democratic Party will begin with a two step process. First, in-migration will continue to bring large numbers of people to America from our neighbor nations of the western hemisphere. Most specifically, Mexico has and will continue to provide the largest number of both legal and illegal immigrants to the United States. (Jeffery S. Passel) This economic exodus to the United States is comparable in many ways to the great European migrations to American shores. Unfortunately, as it was for the immigrants from Europe, the xenophobia towards these new immigrants will not dissipate. Second, because of this in-migration, the Hispanic voting population will continue to grow exponentially in the United States in future years. Additionally, the naturalization of Hispanic immigrants in the United States will continue to increase their voting population numbers. Coupled with the naturalization of immigrants will be the increase in the number of Hispanic young adults both born in the United States and about to reach voting age. All of these electoral realities will be certain and swift in the years to come.

“The Hispanic population on the whole is younger than the rest of the U.S.
population. Among Latinos, for example, 34% of the population is less than 18 years oldcompared to 23% of the non-Hispanic white population. Moreover, this segment of the Latino population is growing much faster than in the population overall. As a result,young, native-born Latinos are a disproportionately large source of growth in the youth electorate and they are by far the largest source of growth in the Latino electorate.

Every year since the 2000 elections an average of 425,000 native-born Latinos
has turned 18 years old and become eligible to vote. While Latinos make up 8% of
eligible voters, they represent 12% of the electorate that is between 18 and 24 years old. Given their fast rate of growth, Latinos will account for 68% of the increase in this segment of the electorate between the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Similarly, these young voters represent the lion’s share of growth in the Latino
electorate. Nearly eight out of every ten (78%) new Latino eligible voters since the last presidential election is a native-born U.S. citizen who has become old enough to vote as opposed to an immigrant who has become a citizen through naturalization.” (Pew)

As Hispanic immigrants and/or their children become voting citizens, they will represent an important and ever expanding voting segment of the electorate. Currently, Hispanic voters represent very important voting groups in many U.S. states. More specifically, as mentioned, some of these states include (in the geographic west) Colorado and Nevada, and (in the geographic southwest), New Mexico and Arizona. In 2008, the Hispanic voting blocs of these states will provide the “tipping point” for the Democratic Nominee to win their Electoral College votes. Rodolfo de la Garza, PhD, a Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and Vice President for Research for the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, discusses the idea of this “tipping point” in his article, Continuity, Not Change: The Latino Vote in 2004,

“An equally clear second result [of the 2004 Presidential Election] is that the Latino vote is a major component of the Democratic core. This means that if the Democratic Party is to regain electoral supremacy, it will have to build on its Latino foundation. This will be especially significant in states with well established but rapidly increasing Hispanic electorates like Arizona, Nevada and Colorado where mobilized Latino voters can take advantage of a divided Anglo electorate [between Democratic and Republican Voters] to carry the state for the Democrats.” (de la Garza)

Harry P. Pachon, Senior Professor at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development and President of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, refers to the “tipping point” as “the much heralded swing vote” in his paper, The Battle for Latino Voters,

“It's not just that the Latino proportion of the electorate is growing rapidly, increasing by nearly 133 percent in the past 20 years compared with the 19 percent rate for the national electorate. More critically, in selected states the Hispanic electorate has the clear potential of being the much heralded swing vote. Already it takes only 3.6 percent of Latino voters in California, 2.7 percent in Texas, 1.7 percent in New Mexico, and 4.4 percent in Florida to make a 1 percent change in the statewide election. With this potential to put candidates over the top, Latino voters will be defining political reality in more and more states.” (Pachon)

With these additional electoral votes from Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona and the electoral votes from states that are traditionally won by Democrats (since appendix, after bibliography), the Democratic Nominee for President will win the White House in 2008. In future presidential elections, Hispanic voting populations will burgeon in many states nationwide (Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Washington) (NYT, 8/15/2006). Because of this population growth and the voting preferences of Hispanic voters in presidential elections (Edsall & Goldfarb WP 5/21/06), the Democratic Party will retain the U.S. Presidency for years to come. The current, future, and bold impetus for this political change in the United States of America is undoubtedly the population growth of Hispanic immigrants/citizens/voters.

POLITICAL DEFINITIONS

Before analyzing the political impact of these changes, certain political definitions are necessary for this paper. First, a “Red State” is a state that traditionally votes and elects (by significant majorities) Republican candidates for both statewide and national offices. A “Blue State” is a state that is the political opposite. Next, the definition of a “Purple State” is a state that is a combination of both so called “Red and Blue State” voters. A “Red State Voter” is a citizen that votes for candidates espousing traditional Republican Party positions on issues. A “Blue State Voter” is the political opposite. Further, a “Purple” State or “Battleground State” is a state that may elect either a Republican or a Democratic candidate in a presidential or statewide election because voters in that state are closely mixed between Democrat, Republican and in many cases Independent voters.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, the nearly forty percent nationwide registrations of American citizens as Independents is a testament to the American spirit of individualism and political choice at the polls. Nevertheless, it is a voting bloc that can be manipulated into not voting by negative advertising and wedge issues. Finally, one of the key premises of this paper involves the political influence of Hispanic voters. As Hispanic voters continue to register and to vote, their political influence on election day will be profound. Currently, as nearly all political polls indicate, Hispanic voters prefer Democratic candidates to Republican candidates at a rate of 70 percent to 30 percent. (Edsel and Goldfarb) While this is not a permanent choice, it is no less profound.

The great mitigating issue politically regarding Hispanic voting power is that countless Hispanic voters are not registered to vote. Nonetheless, in a closely contested election between a Democrat and a Republican (or any number of candidates), the current preference for Democratic candidates among Hispanic voters will provide the “tipping point” margin of victory for a Democratic candidate. As defined previously, this “tipping point” in specific states with very large Hispanic populations that have even the smallest of numbers of citizens registered to vote can decide the outcome of national elections. A two percent preference of the entire Hispanic voting community may be instrumental in deciding an entire states’ electoral vote allocation for president. (Pachon) The definition of the term “tipping point” is important in this paper when analyzing the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Finally, while the term Hispanic strives to be inclusive, it misrepresents millions of peoples in the same way that the term “Indians” or the term “Blacks” do. The most respectful method to refer to someone’s ethnic group is to first refer to their ethnic group and then to refer to them as an American. For example, a person in the United States of Mexican descent can be respectfully referred to as a Mexican-American. According to the United States Census Bureau, the term Hispanic refers to persons: “Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire –‘Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano,’ ‘Puerto Rican’, or ‘Cuban’ -as well as those who indicate that they are ‘other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.’ Persons who indicated that they are ‘other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino’ include those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.” The term Latino is used throughout this paper by many highly recognized scholars and journalists when describing many of the peoples of Central America, South America, and the Caribbean Islands. To their defense, the term, while given the highest regard in all of their works, is dated and needs to be replaced. While Hispanic is by no means the best term to be used in this paper, in this author’s viewpoint, it is the best attempt to be inclusive and respectful which is everyone’s goal in the end.

HISPANIC IMMIGRATION & POPULATION GROWTH

In 2006, the mass immigration protests and parades in the United States illustrate one indisputable fact. Immigrants are the driving force that crafts the ethnic quilt of America. In the coming decades, the voting preferences of Hispanic immigrants and their children will lastingly change the U.S. Presidential Electoral College Vote Map. The Hispanic electorates in crucial states will help to create new Democrat Blue States from traditionally Republican Red States. This electoral change will provide Democrats with the necessary electoral vote advantage to consistently win the White House in the future.
Clearly, United States population growth is fast approaching never before reached numbers. These record statistics are greatly influenced by Hispanic individuals and families immigrating to the United States. Currently, a November 2004 Congressional Budget Office Report noted that Hispanic Americans numbered 12 percent of the entire population of the United States. According to the U.S. Census July 1, 2005 Report, the Hispanic population percentage is 14 percent of the nation’s entire population. (Cohn Washington Post 5/10/06)

“The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby - or immigrant - will be Hispanic. No one will know for sure because the date and time will be just an estimate. But Latinos - immigrants and those born in this country - are driving the population growth, accounting for almost half the increase last year, more than any other ethnic or racial group. White non-Hispanics, who make up about two-thirds of the population, accounted for less than one-fifth of the increase. When the population reached 200 million in 1967, there was no accurate tally of U.S. Hispanics. The first effort to count Hispanics came in the 1970 census, and the results were dubious. The Census Bureau counted about 9.6 million Latinos (the term to identify Hispanic Americans today), a little less than 5 percent of the population, but the bureau acknowledged that figure was inflated. In 1967, there were fewer than 10 million people in the U.S. who were born in other countries; that was not even one in 20. Today, there are 36 million immigrants, about one in eight. "We were much more of an insular society back then," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. As of early Sunday, there were 299,058,932 people in the United States, according to the Census Bureau's population clock. The estimate is based on annual numbers for births, deaths, and immigration, averaged throughout the year. The 300 millionth person in the U.S. will likely be born - or cross the border - in October, though bureau officials are wary of committing to a particular month because of the subjective nature of the clock.” Stephen Ohlemacher AP 6/26/06

NOTE: WASHINGTON – “The nation's population officially hit 300 million at 7:46 a.m. EDT Tuesday, when the Census Bureau's population clock rolled over to the big number… This year, there's a good chance the 300 millionth American has already walked across the border from Mexico.” Ohlemacher WP 10/17/06

[After the bibliography and appendix of this paper is a map created by The Queens College Department of Sociology from data tabulated from the United States Census. The map represents geographically where Hispanic immigrants have migrated to live in the United States.]

The United States Census reported that the projected Hispanic Population Growth in the United States from 1995 until 2025 would be:

The Hispanic population in the United States will increase rapidly over the 1995 to 2025 projection period according to the U.S. Census. The Hispanic population growth will account for 44 percent of the growth in the Nation's population (32 million Hispanics out of a total of 72 million persons added to the Nation's population). U.S. Census

In 1995, 74 percent of the Nation's Hispanics resided in five States. California with 9 million had the largest share of the Nation's Hispanic population followed by Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. California's Hispanic Population will more than double over the projection period (21 million and represents 36 percent of the total Hispanic population in 2025). U.S. Census

In addition to the United States Census Population Projections, the fertility rates of American women illustrates that Hispanic woman have the highest fertility rates of any group of women since the last years of the 1960s Baby Boom.

In 2001 there were about 4 million births in the United States and a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.1 births per woman. Minorities contributed 42 percent of all births, although they made up only 31 percent of the population. One reason minorities accounted for a disproportionate share of births is that a larger proportion of minority women are in their childbearing ages, but minority women also have more children than non-Hispanic white women on average. In 2001, non-Hispanic whites had an average of 1.9 births per woman, compared with 2.0 births among Asian Americans, 2.1 births among American Indians, 2.2 births among non-Hispanic blacks, and 3.2 births among Hispanics. With an average of more than three births per woman, the 2001 total fertility rate among Hispanics rivaled that of the U.S. population in the early 1960s during the tail end of the baby boom. (Population Reference Bureau, AmeriStat, January, 2003)

Further, to support these statistics, The U.S. Census released data summaries regarding population growth and birth rates of Hispanic citizens. These statistical summaries represent a tremendously youthful and growing population.

• Hispanics accounted for almost half (1.3 million, or 49 percent) of the national population growth of 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005.

• Of the increase of 1.3 million, 800,000 were because of natural increase (births minus deaths) and 500,000 was because of immigration.

• The Hispanic population in 2005 was much younger with a median age of 27.2 years compared to the population as a whole at 36.2 years. About a third of the Hispanic population was under 18, compared with one-fourth of the total population. (U.S. Census, Press Release, May 10, 2006)

Due to the outstanding Hispanic population growth in the United States, the Electoral College Map will be unquestionably altered by 2020 to 2025. The key element in this process will be immigration. The time period for this electoral change may be shorter in length depending on national legislation and immigration reforms. Governmental actions may increase immigrant citizenship in the United States by the millions with a general amnesty or worker program. Conversely, a mass extradition of illegal immigrants may dramatically end any electoral changes based strictly on current population voting patterns. Nonetheless, in terms of U.S. Presidential Elections, the granting of citizenship to new immigrants and their children in any form will mean that Red States will turn into Blue States. This shift will be most evident in the southwestern and western states of the United States (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona). These states were the so called “Purple States” or more significantly the “battleground states” of the 2004 Presidential Election.

ECONOMIC IMMIGRATION

Before analyzing the future voting changes in the aforementioned states, the question before us is why do so many immigrants in the western hemisphere come to the United States? The answer is simple. The United States affords to these immigrants the opportunity to work better paying jobs than in their own nations. The U.S. Census Bureau refers to all peoples immigrating to the United States from within the western hemisphere (excluding Canada) as Hispanic. On occasion, a large international event may cause mass economic in migration.

“Several researchers believe the 1996 Olympics are the reason Georgia has more illegal immigrants than any Southern state except Florida -- 350,000 to 450,000 in 2005, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Atlanta's former Mexican consul general, Teodoro Maus, said thousands of illegal workers from Mexico suddenly appeared on construction crews when preparations for the Olympics fell behind schedule, and federal immigration officials assured him they would not interfere -- and they didn't.” Dale Russakoff, Washington Post, July 17, 2006

The people coming to the U.S. from throughout the Caribbean, Central and South America are drawn to economic prosperity through strong employment opportunities. As Carl Hulse and Jim Rutenberg described in their recent New York Times article, Divide Remains as Bush Pushes Immigration Plan, May 17, 2006,

“…..And current trends make it clear that we need them (immigrants) because the native-born population is not producing enough workers to fill jobs, particularly jobs at the bottom rung of the wage ladder. Partly this has to do with a better-educated native-born workforce that has the luxury of passing up entry-level positions that typically go to individuals without a high school diploma.”

Hulse and Rutenberg describe in their detailed statistical analysis that the need for specific workers in the United States will grow acute by 2012.

“…labor-intensive, low waged jobs are increasingly attracting foreign workers, mostly from Mexico and Latin America. And because protectionist-minded lawmakers have so severely limited the legal ways for these willing workers to enter the U.S. and return home, many migrants in search of work have come illegally and stayed, and employers in industries facing labor shortages have hired them.

According to Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal immigrants represent less than 5 percent of the U.S. workforce, yet they make up 24 percent of those working in farming occupations, 17 percent in cleaning services, 14 percent of construction laborers and 12 percent of those in the food preparation industries. Many of these occupations are among those expected to grow the fastest in coming decades. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that between 2002 and 2012 the U.S. will need 631,000 new home health aide workers, 414,000 new janitors and 367,000 new waiters and waitresses.

The restaurant industry is the country's largest private sector employer with 12.5 million people," says John Gay of the National Restaurant Association. "We project we're going to add 15 percent to that number of job slots in the next 10 years. But the 16-24 age group that makes up half of our industry's workforce isn't growing at all over 10 years. If we don't find a way for our industry to get more workers -- and we're not the only ones in this boat -- we're going to be in a world of hurt…."

The darkest blue and red colors on the map above indicate the states with the highest unauthorized populations of foreign born immigrants (illegal immigrants). These immigrants are primarily from Central America. The population numbers range from 200,000 to 2,300,000 in the red and blue color regions. Regardless of their immigration status, the goal of these immigrants is to work in America at jobs and wages that American Citizens have refused. (Passel, Unauthorized)

The citizenship status of immigrants in the United States is a political football in 2006. It may remain that way for many years to come. Currently, if U.S. Senate Bill 2611 The Immigration Reform Bill (passed in May 2006) becomes law, tens of millions of new citizens will immigrate to the U.S. by 2026. (This bill is in the House and Senate Conference Committee as of this writing, and there is no legislative action scheduled this term ending in December, 2006.) www.thomas.gov

“The nation's population of legal immigrants would increase by nearly 20 million over the next decade if the recently passed Senate immigration bill becomes law, and taxpayers would spend more than $50 billion to operate a new guest-worker program and pay for extra welfare, Social Security and public health-care costs, according to a Congressional Budget Office report.

But the cost of absorbing the newcomers would be offset by a boost of $66 billion in federal revenue from income taxes and payroll taxes generated by the temporary guest-worker program, along with fees that immigrants must pay to participate, the report said.

By 2016, about 8 million immigrants would enter the United States as temporary guest workers, and 11 million immigrants who now live in the country illegally would become permanent legal residents under provisions of the bill. (The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal Hispanic immigrants in the USA are between 11 to 12 million)

The report, the first definitive look at the impact of the Senate bill, was commissioned by the Senate Finance Committee and was submitted on May 16, nine days before the measure was passed. The study has been embraced by the Bush administration and the bill's supporters, but opponents said crucial omissions greatly lowered its population and cost estimates.

Critics said the report does not take into account the 950,000 newcomers who enter the country legally under current immigration law, bringing the 10-year total of new immigrants to about 30 million. Some say that number will double by 2026.” (Darryl Fears, Washington Post, 6/2/06)

IMMIGRATION POLITICS & VOTING

Further, before analyzing the voting patterns of Hispanic Voters, the question remains whether immigration will be a potential wedge issue used by Republicans or Democrats to divide the U.S. Electorate to maintain political power nationally. As previously mentioned, the immigration issue is the 2006 political football. A political solution bearing a strong resemblance to the Berlin Wall ended the Republican led U.S. Congress before the mid term elections of 2006. Rather unfortunately, The U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, contrary to Majority Leader Bill Frist’s own pledge not to take up immigrantion reform, both passed legislation to begin building a 700 mile fortified fence / wall between the United States and Mexico. Initially, the Republicans seem to be using immigration as a wedge issue.

“The Senate gave final approval last night to legislation authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border, shelving President Bush's vision of a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in favor of a vast barrier.
The measure was pushed hard by House Republican leaders, who badly wanted to pass a piece of legislation that would make good on their promises to get tough on illegal immigrants, despite warnings from critics that a multibillion-dollar fence would do little to address the underlying economic, social and law enforcement problems, or to prevent others from slipping across the border. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) surprised many advocates of a more comprehensive approach to immigration problems when he took up the House bill last week.”
(Weisman, WP, 9/30/06)

Currently, there are 11 (to 12) million estimated illegal immigrants in the United States. In recent polls, 61 percent of Americans state that any illegal immigrant that has worked, obeyed the law, and lived in the United States for at least two years should be put on to the road to citizenship. In the same poll, 35 percent said that all illegal immigrants should be deported. (Washington Post, Charles Babington 7/15/06)

Senators say most polls support their position. A New York Times/CBS poll in May found that 61 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status; 35 percent agreed with the House's position that they should be deported. (Washington Post, Charles Babington 7/15/06)

The Republican Party has used wedge issues effectively in the 1988, 2000, and 2004 U.S. Presidential Elections. As the American Electorate evolves, will voters use these issues to decide national elections? According to current research, they may not. With crime rates declining since the 1990’s and with the eventuality of the abortion issue being settled in law by the Supreme Court, the wedge issues of crime (1988) and abortion (1988, 2000, 2004) will be potentially moot. The only remaining wedge issues will be flag burning and gay marriage. (Used in 1988 and 2004 respectively) It is not to say that these issues will not be resuscitated.
“Just in time for the election season (Midterm elections, Fall 2006), the Senate is plunging into a volatile (and some say cynical) issue for the first time in six years: whether to amend the Constitution so that Congress can ban desecration of the American flag.

Even though many voters may be hard-pressed to remember the last time they saw Old Glory being torched, the Senate will devote a good chunk of the week to the proposed amendment, which appears to be within a vote or two of passage. Adoption will require a two-thirds majority or 67 votes if all 100 senators are present. In 2000, the amendment fell four votes short.” Babington and Weisman WP 6/27/06
Additionally, the future importance of wedge issues in the minds of voters is declining. According to John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal, in an interview on Meet the Press, June 3, 2006, voters under the age of thirty-five years old do not significantly use these wedge issues to make their voting decisions. According to the Wall Street Journal Poll, the wedge issues are important voting criteria primarily for voters over the age of sixty years old. (Over sixty year old voters are the most consistent voting bloc in the U.S.) It remains to be seen if the new wedge issue in U.S. Presidential Elections will be immigration.
A view of both a population bar chart and map graphic on both legal and illegal immigration created by The U.S. Census and published in The New York Times illustrates the growing influence of immigrants in the southwest and western United States politics.

Regardless of one’s political views on immigration, it is strikingly clear from these graphics that the burgeoning Hispanic electorates in many of these states will dominate future election outcomes. Also, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) indicates that the count of illegal immigrants from Central America, South America, and the Caribbean is not perfect. It may be annually undercounted by as much as 10 percent. This undercount annually may account for an additional 500,000 people by some estimates. (CBO Report, November, 2004)

“Ken Strasma, a Democratic strategist who specializes in using demographic data to target potential voters, and the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University conducted a study concluding that, if past voting patterns hold, the growing Hispanic population means that Democrats will increase their 2004 vote totals by nearly half a million votes in 2008.

The impact is even stronger farther out in the future, as Hispanic vote growth would move two Southwestern battleground states -- Nevada and New Mexico -- into the Democratic column by 2016, and add Iowa and Ohio by 2020," the study said. If the 2004 election had been held in an electorate based on the one forecast for 2020, with all other factors held constant, the higher Hispanic vote would have given Democrat John F. Kerry a slight victory in both the Electoral College and the popular vote, the study added.” Edsall & Goldfarb, WP, May 21, 2006

As the U.S. Hispanic population continues to grow in many states, the political voting preference of Hispanic voters is decidedly one sided. Currently, U.S. Citizens indicating that they share a cultural association with immigrants from the Americas (excluding Canada) are primarily Democrat voters in U.S. Presidential elections. In most U.S. Presidential elections since 1980, excluding George W. Bush’s nearly 40 percent Hispanic Vote Count in the 2004 election, Hispanic Voters in the United States traditionally vote for a Democratic Nominee for President nationwide by a percentage advantage to the Democrat 65 percent to 35 percent. Edsall & Goldfarb WP 5/21/06

“The poll (May 11-15, 800 surveyed, Latino Coalition) findings indicate that Republicans are likely to have a hard time replicating Bush's 2004 performance among Latino voters. According to 2004 exit polls, Bush received the backing of 40 percent of Hispanic Voters, up from 34 percent in 2000. Other studies have put the 2004 figure somewhat lower, although there is general agreement that Bush made statistically significant gains from 2000 to 2004…For decades, Hispanic Voters, with the exception of Cubans in Florida, have favored Democrats to Republicans, by as much as 70 percent to 30 percent. President Bush, a former governor of Texas who speaks Spanish, decided in the 2004 campaign to aggressively pursue the Hispanic vote. Edsall & Goldfarb WP 5/21/06
President Bush increased his percentage of Hispanic voters nationwide by strongly pursuing the votes of all Hispanics. He is to be commended. In such a close race, it may have made the difference. He increased his percentage amount of the Hispanic vote by five percentage points nationwide.

More to the point, while President Bush won a percentage increase in Hispanic votes nationwide and perhaps a percentage and numerical increase in the states of New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada due to his hard fought campaigning, the question remains will future Republican nominees be able to offset the tremendously growing numbers of Hispanic voters in these states and others? The usual percentage breakdown of Hispanic voter preference for president favors Democratic Nominees. It is important to note that in the 1992 and 1996 U.S. Presidential Elections of Bill Clinton, Hispanic voters made a change in their voting preference for president. For the first time, they chose a Democrat from traditionally Republican Red States of the west and southwest United States.

“…most remarkably, he (Clinton) won a series of states across the southern rim of the United States—Florida, Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico, and California—that were supposed to be anchors of the new Republican majority. What makes these results especially significant is that, except in Louisiana, Clinton and other Democrats received critical support from two groups whose numbers will increase dramatically in coming years—Hispanics and the elderly. Continued Democratic support from these groups certainly isn't guaranteed, but their growing numbers provide a historic opportunity for a flip of the lower, "Latinized" Sunbelt back to the Democrats.
Although 1996 was not generally a realigning election, it may have had something of that character for Hispanic voters. Realigning elections characteristically see both an increase in turnout and a swing in party support, and among Hispanics both took place in 1996. Nationally, the Hispanic vote rose an estimated 22 percent over 1992, and Hispanics cast 72 percent of their votes for Clinton, up from 55 percent four years earlier. (These and all other exit poll data for 1996 that I cite come from the Voter News Service exit poll; some of the figures were generated from the data on the CNN/All Politics site on the World Wide Web.) In what may be a signal of future bloc voting, 78 percent of Hispanics under age 30 voted for Clinton. In Arizona, which no Democrat had won since 1948, Hispanics put Clinton over the top with 81 percent of their votes, as they did in New Mexico, where Clinton "merely" won 66 percent of Hispanics. Perhaps the single most electrifying results were in California, where Loretta Sanchez upset Robert Dornan in a congressional race in what used to be the conservative bastion of Orange County, and where the Democrats retook control of the state assembly and chose a Hispanic, Cruz Bustamente, as the new Speaker. Clinton won 75 percent of the California Hispanic vote; he even won half of the Hispanic vote in Florida despite long-time Republican strength among Cubans.
According to Census Bureau projections, Hispanics will represent an astounding 44 percent of net population growth in the United States through 2025. The source of this growth is not only continuing immigration, but also Hispanics' relative youth and high fertility rate. The median age of Hispanics is 26, compared to 35 for the overall U.S. population; thus even if Hispanic women had children at the same rate as non-Hispanics, the Hispanic population would grow more rapidly. Census projections for 2025 show Hispanics growing to 18 percent of the population in the United States as a whole, but to 32 percent in Arizona, 38 percent in Texas, and at least 43 percent in California.
Moreover, among Hispanics, the slowest growing group is the most Republican, the Cubans, with a median age of 41, while the most rapidly growing groups are those from Mexico and Central America, who tend to be more Democratic. Thus the internal dynamics of the Hispanic population augur stronger Democratic leanings.
To be sure, several things could upset these projections. The Hispanic population will be smaller if immigration is sharply reduced or if Hispanic fertility rates converge more rapidly with the general population than the Census assumes. Some critics, such as the columnist and population watcher Ben Wattenberg, argue that Census forecasts of fertility are generally too high. But even if Wattenberg is right, non-Hispanic fertility rates might fall in parallel with the Hispanic fertility rate, leaving as large a differential. And tighter immigration laws might not halt the growth of the Hispanic population if, as Douglas Massey, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues, greater economic integration between the United States and Mexico (and other Latin American countries) increases the flow of people along with goods regardless of immigration laws.
Hispanics also might not vote in numbers that reflect their share of the population. Today Hispanics represent a much smaller percentage of the electorate than of total population because of their low median age, the high proportion of non-citizens, and low voter turnout. Nationally, Hispanics made up 10.5 percent of the population in 1996 but only 4 percent of the electorate; as they rise to 18 percent of the population, they have the potential to double or triple their share of the vote. Whether they will close the gap in turnout with other groups is impossible to say; the spurt in 1996 could turn out to be a special case. But as their median age increases and a larger proportion become citizens because they have naturalized or were born here, the Hispanics' share of the electorate should grow faster than their share of the population.
The Hispanic turn toward the Democrats in 1996 could also prove ephemeral. Republicans might increasingly appeal to Hispanics on the basis of conservative cultural values or by running more Hispanic candidates and Hispanics themselves might become more conservative as they advance socio-economically. The history of other immigrant groups suggests, however, that early political identifications tend to be highly persistent; Irish Americans, for example, have maintained their identification with the Democratic Party long after its original basis disappeared. Some writers have properly cautioned that Hispanics are not as reliably Democratic or liberal as African Americans. But African-American voting patterns (roughly 90 percent Democratic) aren't a reasonable standard. Not even Christian fundamentalists vote Republican at that rate.
Of course, the Hispanic preference for Democrats in 1996 was well above prior levels because of the alarm created among Hispanics by Proposition 187 in California, the congressional cutoff of welfare benefits and other services to legal immigrants, and Republican support for making English the exclusive language of public business. Yet even if Republicans soften their stands, there is no mistaking which party (The Democrats) will remain the home of both nativist sentiment and opposition to social programs that benefit groups with large numbers of poor working families. Family incomes among Hispanics, again except for the Cubans, continue to lag far behind those of non-Hispanic whites. Given recent trends toward growing income inequality and relatively slim gains among low-wage workers, Hispanics seem likely to remain predominantly working-class in orientation and more favorable to the party that supports increases in the minimum wage and earned income tax credit and is more closely identified with unions, expanded educational opportunities, and broader access to health care.” (Starr)
Further, polling analysis reveals that Hispanic voter preference for Democratic Presidential Nominees may be on the rise after President Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004.
“(Clinton’s victory in) 1996 remains the high point (in Hispanic voting preference for a Democratic Nominee), but the fall-off to 2000-04 is less severe. Indeed, the Hispanic presidential vote, defined in this way, has averaged 64-35 Democratic in these two elections, actually more strongly Democratic than in the two Reagan elections of 1980-84, when the Hispanic presidential vote averaged 61-35 Democratic.
And in the next election following Reagan’s relatively good performances among Hispanics–1988–the Hispanic presidential vote moved sharply Democratic to 69-30. Don’t be surprised if we see the same kind of trend in 2008.” (Teixeira)
The key to future Hispanic Voting strength in many states will be the unrelenting revitalization and growth that will occur both inside of cities and in their surrounding metropolitan areas throughout the United States. These urbanization areas will be in both the traditional urban centers that we have come to recognize, and they will also be in the new urban areas that are becoming the fast growing metro centers of the future. In this paper, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona illustrate this type of urban growth and political change.
John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira wrote their compelling book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, with the aforementioned rapidly increasing urban areas in mind. Their premise concerns developing urban areas (they define them as “ideopolis”: urban areas that will grow as technology, information, and service industries conglomerate and grow rapidly causing employment booms and in migration to metropolitan areas). As metropolitan (urban and suburban) areas grow, both low wage and labor intensive jobs grow and attract many new workers. Many of the 500,000 illegal immigrants that come to the United States each year are coming to fill these jobs. They are attracted to these metropolitan areas due to low housing costs, established ethnic communities, and public transportation. (Fed, 2005) With an ample supply of labor, firms are not adopting new technologies, and unfortunately, unemployed American citizens in our urban. (NYT, 5/31/06) To make up for these shortfalls in labor, both legal and illegal immigrants are flocking to urban areas to better their economic fortunes. Eventually, this type of in migration to cities will increase Democratic voting advantages as all current voting trends and polling indicates. (Holes & Rotenberg, NYT, 5/17/06) For Democrats, Hispanic voters are strategically immigrating to certain urban areas and counties that are providing the “tipping points” in some western and southwestern states that is decisively changing the electoral vote allocations of those states.
“The Latino population is on the move and spreading out as it grows. Most of the Hispanic population will remain concentrated in a handful of big metropolitan areas. And yet, much of the growth will take place elsewhere. On the periphery of big cities and in the suburbs of the nation’s newest booming metros, the first wave of Latinos has already set up house and more are likely to come…Whenever and wherever conditions lend themselves to overall population growth and robust economic development, Latinos will be a big part of the mix. (Suro)
Regardless, whether a current citizen or immigrant to the United States, Hispanics will come to these areas to find economic opportunities. Judis and Teixeira, In The Emerging Democratic Majority demonstrate that the growing strength of Hispanic Voters will be in the urban areas of many “Purple” States”. Even in light of the criticism of their most ardent detractors, the analysis by Judis and Teixeira still rings solid and true.
“Teixeira and Judis try to account for these factors (presidential victory by a Democrat) to some degree, but their analysis of this is brief, overly optimistic, and unconvincing. Also, they and others point to the increasing migration of Latinos to the heartland, as well as states like California, Florida, and Texas, as a trend that will overturn the Republican applecart. Certainly, the latinoization of the US is one of the "hopeful" scenarios, but the horizon for that is more like 20 years, not ten. --Steven Hill is a senior analyst at the Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org) and author of "Fixing Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics." Rob Richie is executive director of the Center”
Hill’s article was written in 2003. He claims that the “hopeful” scenarios of election “latinoization” favoring Democrats is in the distant future. Regardless of Hill’s very poor choice of words (“latinoization”), it becomes evident that the influence of Hispanic Voters in California (due to the political backlash to Proposition 187), Nevada (Clark County population growth), Arizona (Yuma and Maricopa County population growth), New Mexico (the election and reelection of Governor Bill Richardson), and Texas (the population boom of southern most border counties with Mexico) is much closer to realization than Hill recognizes.

To conclude this overview of the Hispanic population and immigration to the United States, a state by state review of the presidential and statewide voting of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona shows a strong advantage for the Democratic Party for winning the U.S. Presidential Electoral College Vote in upcoming elections. When reviewing the critical “Purple” or battleground states in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, future Hispanic Population Growth in these states will produce a considerable voting advantage for Democrats. In 2004, by including the potential 29 electoral votes from Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona with the electoral votes won by Democratic Candidate John Kerry in 2004, Kerry would be the President of the United States today. The electoral votes won by John Kerry in 2004 came from states that Democrats can traditionally call “Blue States” (including New Hampshire, See Appendix). In 2008, these additional 29 electoral votes in addition to the “Blue States” would give any Democratic Presidential Nominee a 10 vote plus electoral vote victory or 280 electoral votes. With any new additions or subtractions of electoral votes due to U.S. Census tabulations in 2010, this numerical advantage for the Democratic Nominee will remain the same. Additionally, in 2008, as this paper will examine, a state by state population and voting review analysis of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona illustrates that in closely contested statewide U.S. Presidential Elections, Hispanic Voters will provide the necessary “tipping point” advantage in all four states previously mentioned to elect a Democratic Presidential Nominee to be President of the United States.
[After the bibliography and appendix is a map created by The Queens College Department of Sociology from data tabulated from the United States Census. The map represents geographically where Hispanic immigrants have migrated to live in the United States. It may serve helpful as this paper begins to look at population growth state by state.]

COLORADO

Hispanic population growth is a major catalyst for political change in Colorado. As of 2006, the population of Colorado is approximately 4,667,000 people. Of this population, 891,000 people are of Hispanic descent (19.1 percent). (US Census, March 28, 2006). In 1995, the projected number of Hispanic individuals in Colorado was to be 682,000 (a projection undercount of 209,000 citizens not including illegal immigrants).
(U.S. Census, Colorado). In 2006, approximately 200,000 to 250,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants live in Colorado. (U.S. Census, May 10, 2006) More than 277,000 Hispanics in Colorado are currently registered to vote, or 10 percent of all registered voters in Colorado. (naleo) Only 31 percent of all Hispanic citizens in Colorado are registered to vote. Nevertheless, in the presidential elections in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004, registered Hispanic voters turned out to vote in percentages of 95.2 percent, 79.1 percent, 79.4 percent and 83.9 percent respectively. (Velazquez Institute) In 2008, Colorado’s Hispanic voters represent the crucial “tipping point” margin of victory in a closely contested election for The Democratic Party to win Colorado’s electoral votes.
A county by county review of presidential voting in Colorado from 1964 to 2004 illustrates a developing geographic political formation in the State of Colorado. Similar to the great geographic expanses of southern, midwestern, western, and southwestern U.S. States always donning a red color to signify a victory for Republican Presidential Candidates on election eve, certain Colorado counties that are voting for Democratic Presidential Candidates are beginning to resemble a geographic formation of a “fish hook” or a letter “C” in the State of Colorado. These counties begin in the southern and eastern portions of the state (see Map 1 directly below) and create this formation as it extends to the middle of the state northward and then eastward into the counties surrounding and including the City of Denver. The map of Colorado in the 1996 Presidential Election of President Bill Clinton (Map 1) best illustrates this configuration. In 1992, in his first election bid, President Clinton became the most successful Democratic Candidate since Lyndon Johnson to win Colorado (Map 2). Lyndon Johnson won Colorado in 1964. When reviewing the maps below, the red (or red to “Purple”) colored counties represent the “fish hook” or “C” pattern of voting. As mentioned, the fish hook is most pronounced in Map 1. (Election Atlas)
Map 1
Map 2


As Clinton’s Democratic victory in 1992 illustrates, Colorado is a traditional Republican Red State in Electoral College voting. Nonetheless, there are developing population trends that will change Colorado to a Blue State in the very near future. These new demographic changes include in-migration from numerous other states in America especially California, a burgeoning metropolitan area surrounding Denver, Colorado, enormous population growth along the geographic expanse known as the “frontal range” (the lands immediately located in front of the Rocky Mountain Range that run north to south dividing Colorado almost in half), and as this paper illustrates, a tremendous growth in Colorado’s Hispanic Population.
When analyzing the causes for the geographic formation of a “C” or “fish hook” in voting, the reasons may be 1) in-migration along transportation corridors, 2) population growth along economic corridors, 2) housing patterns, 3) community growth patterns, 4) urban/suburban voting patterns or 5) classic gerrymandering. Being able to prove which of these research classifications is the true cause of this physical configuration is daunting if not impossible. Neither the physical size of the counties involved nor the population of these counties reveal any correlative reasons for the “C” or “fish hook”. Much like the great red colored areas of the U.S. Map on election eve, a closer look at the voting and socio-economic data reveals that one cannot paint over real U.S. Voting Trends and political Realities with a broad paint brush without truly analyzing the political dynamics that are in great flux just below the surface. In short, inner cities, metropolitan areas, and rural areas vote differently due to preferences in the type of government that the people in those areas want and the cultural issues they desire to pursue. In Colorado and the states reviewed in this paper, demographics are in a state of fluctuation due to population changes governed by economic growth. In turn, our political brush today is turning more purple on its way to blue.

By comparing the population density map above with John Judis’ and Ruy Teixeira’s theory on urbanization and the “ideopolis”, one can identify a correlation between growing metropolitan areas and the counties that the Democrats carried in Colorado in 2004. For example, in Colorado, Candidate Kerry carried four of the five largest urban areas: Denver County/ this includes: City of Denver, City of Aurora, City of Lakewood and Pueblo County / the City of Pueblo. The fifth of these largest urban areas (second overall) is Colorado Springs, Colorado. Colorado Springs is the home of the Air Force Academy, NORAD, Fort Carson, other small military operations and military industries (Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing), numerous evangelical organizations, and the international evangelical group: Focus on The Family. Colorado Springs is a strong Republican voting area. It is both a military and religious based population area perhaps better termed as a: “DOCTRINOPOLIS”. The term “doctrinopolis” is the combination of two words. The first word is “doctrine” from the Latin – doctrina: "a code of beliefs", "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system., and the second word is “opolis” from the Greek –polis: A 'polis' (πολις) — plural: poleis (πολεις) — is a city, or a city-state. (wikipedia, polis) A “doctrinopolis” is an artificially created and growing urban area with all the elements of an “ideopolis”. It is, however, very different than an “ideopolis” because it is grows fundamentally by artificially induced capitalistic, economic stimulants provided by the military /government sector and the religious / non-profit sector of the United States.
In the case of this “doctrinopolis”, the reasons for strong metropolitan / urban economic growth are 1) to supply, to aid research & develop and to maintain the structure of the U.S. Military as stipulated by the doctrine of the U.S. Department of Defense that is formulated by the U.S. Government and 2) to advance the economic viability of Evangelical Christian Organizations to communicate their doctrine both nationally and worldwide. Due to the presence of these military and religiously related economic stimulants and the ancillary economic multipliers that they create in this area, the Republican Party Presidential Platform appeals to the both the voters and workforce employed in Colorado Springs. The largest population group in Colorado Springs is Caucasian at 80 percent of its residents. The next largest and fastest growing population group is Hispanic at 12 percent of its people. (Wikipedia, Colorado Springs)
It is very difficult in a paper devoted to Hispanic voting trends to cover the intricate and data rich, urban planning issues associated with the aforementioned “doctrinopolis”. A well researched study is certainly of interest. For this paper, a brief explanation attempts only to contrasts voting preferences between Democrats and Republicans in Colorado’s five largest urban areas.
As we discerned earlier from the geographic formation of the “fish hook” or “C”, it is not always possible to prove strong Democratic voting by physical forms. Neither is it reasonable to say that there are only strong Republican voting areas throughout the entire south, midwest, west or southwestern United States due to large geographic expanses colored in red on presidential election eves. In Colorado, we notice that Republican voting is strong in urban areas like Colorado Springs, Colorado. Nonetheless, in Colorado’s other large urban areas; we see very strong indications of Democratic voting strength. Regardless, a basic urban planning fact is that all metropolitan areas are employment magnets for both legal and illegal immigrants searching for economic gain. In the future, it is certain that whether a metropolitan area is an “ideopolis” or a “doctrinopolis”, it will continue to grow, and Hispanic immigrants will gravitate to these areas to better their economic conditions. As they do, Hispanic people will also bring with them their current overwhelming preference for Democratic Presidential Candidates to their new homes. (Hulse & Rutenberg, NYT, 5/17/06)
Integrated data from both the Colorado Population Density Map data on page twenty-six of this paper and the County Growth map on page sixty of this paper strongly bolsters the “ideopolis” theory. The integrated data illustrates that 1) the Hispanic population of Colorado is growing tremendously along the Route 70 economic corridor that traverses the entire northern section of Colorado and 2) the fastest growing and four of the most densely populated counties of Colorado are located in the eastern half of the Route 70 economic corridor namely in Denver, Adams, Jefferson (eastern portion), Arapahoe (western portion). This economic corridor/magnet of the “ideopolis” will create numerous labor intensive jobs that will attract immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America. While the “ideopolis” creates highly skilled professional opportunities for many individuals, it also creates many more jobs for many Hispanic immigrants in Colorado’s tremendously growing metropolitan and rural areas surrounding Denver, Colorado. (Martin, Summit County)
Consequentially, the surrounding counties of these major urban centers in Colorado will continue to grow. In comparison, a similar urban growth phenomenon occurred in the outer counties of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from the late 1980’s to the early 1990’s. Most notably, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania transformed from a strong Republican voting base to a Democratic voting county as urbanization / the “ideopolis” extended Democratic voters outside of the city limits of Philadelphia and into the southern portions of Montgomery County. (Deiform, A Coming New Deal) The counties surrounding these four large metro areas in Colorado will undoubtedly do the same.
It is important to note that both Weld and Douglas County are two of the fastest growing counties in the United States. Additionally, Adams and Broomfield are also experiencing tremendous growth. These burgeoning areas attract professionals from all over the country to move to Colorado. (Bunch Denver Post)
Joe Crain, county planning director in Durango, said local residents blame Californians - "by far'' - for their growth pangs…Typically, he said, newcomers to a metro area choose a central location where jobs are numerous, then move farther out as their work security and income grows…Where are they all coming from?...
Many patrons of the Freshwater Saloon in Guffey, Colorado save their derision for the newcomers from Texas and California. "Some of the locals call them Californicators.''- says Bruce Buffington the owner of the saloon. People moving into Colorado accounted for two-thirds of its population growth, births for one-third. Of the 39 states contributing to Colorado's growth, just four contributed more than half of all newcomers: California, Texas, New York, and Illinois. The state gaining the most residents from Colorado: Oregon…- Pitkin and San Miguel counties, home of the exclusive Aspen and Telluride resort areas, lost two Colorado residents for every one who moved in, even as they gained people from other states.
- People from different parts of the United States appear to prefer different parts of Colorado, a factor that may have widened the political gulf between Denver (Democrat/Ideopolis) and Colorado Springs (Republican/Doctrinopolis).
El Paso County/Colorado Springs, known for its military-based economy and conservative Christian groups, gained more new residents from California than from all other states combined. Much of this migration came from conservative suburban counties in Southern California.
Denver gained the most new residents from Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., all solidly Democratic cities. Newcomers from the Republican suburbs of Chicago in DuPage County, on the other hand, were twice as likely to choose Colorado Springs.
Boulder County, meanwhile, apparently deserves its reputation as a refuge for Easterners. Sixth in population among Colorado counties, Boulder ranked first in net population gain from 12 Eastern states: New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
(Olinger, Denver Post)
Olinger’s article in 1999 continues to describe Colorado today. As in-migration of professionals and international immigrants remains unabated in Colorado, political changes will occur. Political Elections will be hotly contested between Democrats, Republicans, and Independent voters. When elections remain tight, the growth of the Hispanic electorate will become the crucial edge in deciding the eventual winners. That advantage is currently with the Democratic Party.
The greatest political change in Colorado is both the real and perceived change in Hispanic voting. While Hispanic voting bloc is not the largest in Colorado, it is the fastest growing and is providing the deciding majority or “tipping point” margin of victory in statewide elections.
Perhaps the greatest indicator of growing Hispanic electoral power in Colorado is the victory of United States Senator Ken Salazar over Peter Coors in 2004. With a weak Democratic Presidential Candidate for Coloradans to vote for like John Kerry and with an affable and Spanish Speaking Republican Candidate like President George W. Bush heading the Republican ticket for Peter Coors, the Salazar victory reveals that the voters in Colorado may have already reached a “tipping point” in terms of Democratic voting strength in Colorado.
“Election numbers junkies will not want to miss today's story about the Census Department's breakdown of the demographics of Coloradans who went to the polls last November. The turnout breakdown by race/ethnicity is really striking: 71 percent of white adults voted, compared to 46 percent of Black adults and a pathetic 29 percent of Latino adults. So much for the Salazar effect, you say? Well, perhaps not. Only 63 percent of "Hispanic" adults in Colorado are citizens who can vote in the first place, so the percentage of eligible Latino voters who actually voted is in the forty percent range. And of registered Latinos, 81 percent voted, which suggests both that there was a Salazar effect and that the strong efforts to get eligible Latinos registered that were made last year needs to continue. The other really interesting number was the hugely increased youth vote -- the percentage of 18 to 24 year olds who voted jumped from 21 percent to 44 percent.

But according to the CNN Colorado presidential exit poll, Kerry won young voters (18-29 in their survey) but not by much -- only 51-47, not enough to overcome Bush's leads among the other age groups (Bush won 30-44 year olds in Colorado 51-48). Kerry won Colorado Latinos 68-30 and African-Americans 87-13. Somewhat surprisingly, a lot of the Bush-Salazar ticket splitters were those young voters -- Salazar beat Coors 53-45 among the 18-29 set. But really, when you compare the CNN exit polls for the Senate race with those for the presidential race, you will see that Salazar did better than Kerry with almost every group in the state (white men being the possible exception). I think there are two lessons here for the Democrats: Work harder on Latino voter registration…” Colorado Demographics, Colorado Luis Blog by Diana DeGettes
In a state where the conservative voting tendencies and influences of the Coors Family (synonymous with Golden, Colorado, and Colorado’s Conservative Politics as well) and Focus on the Family of James Dobson / Colorado Springs / Fort Carson / Air Force Academy, Republicans have dominated statewide elections. It is truly remarkable for a Democratic and Hispanic U.S. Senate Candidate like Salazar to defeat an entrenched, state patriarch/family like Peter Coors. In this U.S. Senate Election, where the Democratic presidential candidate was defeated by about 100,000 votes of 2,000,000 cast, Salazar, the Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate, defeated Coors, The Republican, by 100,000 votes. That is a 200,000 vote or 10% of the total votes cast turn around.
A review of the largest counties in Colorado illustrates the strength of Salazar as a statewide candidate as compared to Kerry in 2004. In the largest counties surrounding and including the county of Denver, Salazar reversed Bush victories in Arapahoe County to a victory by 14,304 from a loss (9,200), Jefferson County 10,500 from (14,100), Larimar County 5,700 from (7,600), and Broomfield County 1,400 from (1,100). Salazar increased Kerry victory numbers in Denver County 109, 200 from 95,200, Boulder County 59,700 from 54,000, Adams County 20,700 from 3,200, and Pueblo County 13,500 from 4,200, and Salazar narrowed Bush victory totals in El Paso County/ Colorado Springs 70,000 from 83,700, Douglas County 27,500 from 41,000, Weld County 10,600 from 23,700, and Mesa County 15,300 from 22,000. In all, Salazar was a much more competitive candidate than John Kerry in many of the large population county in Colorado in 2004. Salazar appealed to Democrats, Independents, and nearly all registered Hispanic Voters. (Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections)
While Hispanic voting may have certainly played a role in Salazar’s victory, it can not be attributed as the sole reason for the 200,000 vote reversal between the presidential and senatorial elections. Nonetheless, it was very significant. As election day came near, John Kerry abandoned Colorado to focus on Florida and Ohio, Senator Salazar did not. The Hispanic vote in Colorado gave him a significant boost in his victory margin as previously noted. If nothing else, Hispanic voters may have provided a very influential perception of electoral power for Salazar. That influence can not be disputed.
The perception in 1992 was that Bill Clinton was more likable to Colorado and the nation on the whole, and President George H.W. Bush was perceived as stiff, aloof, out of touch on the economy and perhaps too New England or too urbane. He was much like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush by almost 70,000 votes in Colorado. It is much like Senator Ken Salazar’s victory. It was also as James Carville stated, “it’s the economy, stupid!” It may one day be said, “It is the Hispanic Voter we need, stupid!” The ideal candidate can win for the Democrats in Colorado. That candidate is obviously one that voters will identify with personally, believe that that candidate understands their needs, and most importantly, is perceived as one of them. Bill Clinton identified with voters in that manner. A comparable Presidential candidate will do the same. Perhaps the reason for Clinton’s success among Hispanic voters is similar to Salazar’s success in much the same way. U.S. Presidential Election Atlas

NEVADA

The population of Nevada is approximately 2,400,000 citizens. In 2006, 1,886,512 Nevadans live in Clark County, Nevada. Currently, 23 percent or 552,000 Nevada citizens are of Hispanic descent. (U.S. Census, Nevada) Additionally, there are between 100,000 to 150,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants living in Nevada. (NYT Graphic)

Politically, 382,000 Nevada citizens are registered as Democrats and 392,000 citizens are registered as Republicans. Nearly 140,000 people are registered as Non partisan/Independent. (Nevada SOS) While Hispanic citizens represent 23 percent of Nevada’s population (552,000), approximately only 10 to 15 percent are registered to vote (55,200-82,800). Needless to say, even the slightest increase in Hispanic voter registration or election day turnout would provide the necessary “tipping point” advantage for a Democratic Presidential Nominee to win a closely contested race.

“In Nevada, Latinos make up 13 percent of the voting-age population. Since the last presidential election (2004), the number of eligible Latinos in Nevada has increased by about 50 percent, and Latinos account for about half of all the increase in the Nevada electorate. About two-thirds of the Latino eligible voters in Nevada are native-born. There are an estimated 126,600 unregistered Latino voters.” (The Democratic Strategist)

In any statewide Nevada election, where Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are evenly divided, the “tipping point” in the election will be the Hispanic voting bloc. With an increase in voter registration and/or election day voter participation by approximately 10 percent each or 25,000 people total (or any combination of the two) and a voting preference of 70 percent to 30 percent (page sixteen of this paper), Hispanic voters will give a voting advantage of nearly 10,000 votes plus to any Democratic presidential candidate. Even an increase of 20 percent in voter registration / election day participation is an attainable goal among Hispanic voters. A voting increase of this kind wipes out any current voter registration advantages that Republicans have over Democrats in this battleground state. As Hispanic immigrants continue to move to Nevada for employment opportunities, as young Hispanic adults reach voting age and as Hispanics continue to register to vote comparable in percentage terms with other voting groups in Nevada, Democrats will continue to augment their electoral advantage among Hispanic voters in Nevada.

Today, Nevada is a very competitive state in U.S. Presidential Elections. Specifically, in 1992 and 1996, Nevada supported President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush won the state by 21,000 and 22,000 votes respectively in 2000 and 2004. Before these elections, from 1972 to 1992, with little exception, Nevada was a strong Republican state in presidential elections. With the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976 (who lost to President Ford by less than 9,000 votes in Nevada), Republican Presidential Candidate victory margins from 1972 to 1992 ranged from 50,000 to 90,000 votes out of total votes cast between 180,000 to 340,000. (U.S. Presidential Election Atlas)

In 1992 these Republican victory margins changed, and so did the voting characteristics of Clark County. With Las Vegas as its largest city, Clark County turned decidedly Democratic in 1992. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won Nevada by more than 23,000 votes and 4,000 votes respectively. Clinton carried Clark County by 27,000 (’92) and 24,000 (’96). In 1992 Clinton won no other county in Nevada but Clark County, and he won only one other county in addition to Clark County in 1996 (Mineral County 1068 to 814 (254 votes). Clark County made the significant difference for Clinton during both elections in winning Nevada.

An argument can be made that since 1992, the Republicans have righted their political ship in Nevada. In presidential elections, they have won with 20,000 vote margin victories in 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately for Republicans, both population growth in Nevada and current presidential preferences will eradicate those victory numbers. (U.S. Presidential Election Atlas)

The population growth of Clark County is unprecedented in Nevada history. In 1990, Clark County had a population of 770,280. In 2005, the population was approximately 1.8 million. It was an increase of 1,029,072 people. It was the greatest 15 year growth increase in Nevada history eclipsing the approximate 800,000 increase from 1985 to 2000.

The incredible rise in population in Clark County is undoubtedly due to the growth of the Las Vegas Valley.
“Southern Nevada's Hispanic community grew even faster than the region's skyrocketing overall population, more than tripling the number of Latinos in the Las Vegas Valley over the past 10 years, the first detailed results from Census 2000 show.
The past decade further increased the widening population imbalance between Northern and Southern Nevada, the data released Tuesday also revealed. Nearly 70 percent of Nevada residents now call Clark County home, up from slightly more than 61 percent 10 years ago.
The census figures, used to redraw federal, state, and local political district lines, set up a battle between local legislators and northern lawmakers worried about losing seats to new southern districts…
The proportion of Hispanic residents of the city of Las Vegas increased from 12 percent to almost one in four. The Latino share of North Las Vegas' population soared from 22 percent to more than 37 percent. More than one in five Clark County residents described themselves as Hispanic in 2000, compared with slightly more than one in 10 in 1990.
‘They come for the American Dream, to have success for their family, buy a house, (and) bring their families because it's easier to survive here than in some Latin American countries,’ said Raul Aguirre, a 25-year-old painter who moved from Mexico City to Los Angeles before following his brother to Las Vegas.
‘This country gives us a lot. We work hard for this country, but this country in turn gives us enough to survive and send to our families in Mexico,’ said Aguirre, who is studying English at the Community College of Southern Nevada.
Hispanic leaders greeted the census figures with a mixture of elation and dismay. For some, the news of 302,143 Hispanic residents in Clark County set the lack of Latinos in local government in sharp relief. Others saw the 264 percent leap in the Hispanic population as the foundation for a surge in Latino political power.
Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera, 27, is considered the Democratic front-runner to represent the third congressional district that Nevada won in December, when the first Census 2000 report showed the state's 66 percent population growth was the fastest in the nation. But there are no Hispanics on any of the valley's city councils.
‘We really need that shot in the arm as far as political empowerment,’ said Fernando Romero, president of Hispanics in Politics, a nonprofit group seeking to increase Latino representation in government.
Eddie Escobedo founded the El Mundo Spanish-language newspaper more than two decades ago when he was a bartender at the Sahara. The paper's circulation has increased from 5,000 to 30,000 today, and Escobedo is wielding increasing influence in elections.
Using his own database of registered voters with Hispanic surnames, he has rallied the Latino vote in a number of tight political races, and his organization, Amigos for Democracy, credits the most recent victories of County Commissioner Mary Kincaid, Las Vegas City Councilman Gary Reese, and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid to his efforts.
‘Clark County will be on top of the counties across the country in the next 10 years in terms of economic growth, in terms of new Hispanic business and in terms of political power,’ Escobedo said Tuesday. ‘This is going to be the decade of the Hispanics."
…Comparisons of the two decades were made more difficult, however, by changes in the census form that allowed people for the first time to identify themselves as multiracial by checking off as many as six different races on their census forms.
Nevada was more multiracial than the nation as a whole, with 76,428 residents, or 3.8 percent of the population, checking two or more races, compared with 2.4 percent of people nationwide. Most of the multiracial people, 57,765 of them, lived in Clark County. The largest subgroup of multiracial of people, 26,202 people, or 1.3 percent of the state's total population, described themselves as being a combination of white and some other, unspecified race.
While no county matched Clark's sizzling population growth, rural White Pine, Lander, Mineral and Esmeralda counties lost residents. Mineral County lost nearly a quarter of its population in the wake of cutbacks at the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant.” Las Vegas Review-Journal, MICHAEL WEISSENSTEIN Michael Squires March 14, 2001.
Additionally, although many counties have had greater percentage growth than Clark County, no other county or area in Nevada has had a greater increase in true population numbers.


With the growth of Hispanic voters in Clark County, the future of Nevada Presidential Politics will be permanently changed. This fact does not take into account the number of immigrants in Nevada without citizenship nor does it take into account potential changes in immigration laws. As previously noted, changes in the law may create a tremendous amount of new voters especially in Nevada.
“’The new Census study says Nevada's non-Hispanic white population, which accounted for three of four residents (or 75 percent) in 1995, will, by 2025, decrease to six of every 10 people (or 60 percent). During that same period, the Hispanic population is expected to rise from 12.6 percent to 25.2 percent of the state's population’, the study says. (Nevada will have an estimated 4.3 million people by 2030)… others say they believe the increase in the Hispanic population will be even larger than the Census projects.
Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at UNLV, says the projected doubling of Nevada's population comes as no surprise to him. But he believes the Census Bureau is under projecting the increase in the Hispanic population percentage.
[As we saw with the 1995 undercount in the projected Hispanic population in Colorado, undercounts can be as high as 30 percent of the U.S. Census projection. Page 24 of this paper]
‘Clark County now has about 20 percent Hispanic residents so I think the Census' projection there is low,’ he said. ‘I believe the percentage of Hispanics in Nevada will be at least 30 percent by 2030.’
(Nevada State Demographer) Jeff Hardcastle agrees, having previously projected that by 2024, 31 percent of the state's residents will be Hispanic.
The Census Bureau says the latest state projections represent ‘only an interim update to incorporate the results of Census 2000’ and that the agency plans to develop modifications this year to projections by race and Hispanic origin.” Ed Koch Las Vegas Sun, 4/2005
The voting power of Clark County, The Las Vegas Valley, Southern Nevada and especially Hispanic Voters in Nevada is not only strong today but will serve as an indomitable force in future elections. Democratic Candidates for President have an extremely strong opportunity to win the electoral votes in Nevada for a long time to come.
Additionally, the economic growth of the Las Vegas metropolitan area is another example of an “ideopolis” that is about to give rise. The anchor of the Las Vegas area is undoubtedly the entertainment industry which welcomes 35,000,000 tourists a year. Nevertheless, the technological industry and the local educational institutions are growing and providing economic resources to the entire area of Southern Nevada. Most recently, in 2003, CDW, IBM, and Qualcomm began to call the Las Vegas Valley home. In education, while the University of Nevada is only 48 years old and the University of Southern Nevada is a brand new, half decade old, graduate university for pharmacy and business, the commitment by the Las Vegas area and the State of Nevada to a growing “ideopolis” is quite evident beyond the entertainment industry alone. In turn, the Las Vegas Valley creates economic opportunities for people with numerous types of employment skills. Workers are drawn to this area for employment creating an even greater economic multiplier effect. This classic form of urbanization creates burgeoning cities that create Democratic voting strongholds.
Similar to the big, one county, political powerhouses in individual states like Hennepin County in Minnesota and Maricopa County in Arizona, Clark County and its surrounding metropolitan area will be the political power county in Nevada presidential politics. The future appears to be a Clark County populated with a continuing growing number of Hispanic voters. As Hispanic voters gain political influence in Clark County, they will first provide the “tipping point” that will be transforming a Red State to Blue one. Eventually, Nevada will become a traditional Blue State as Hispanic Democratic voters provide the way.

NEW MEXICO

In New Mexico, the electoral strength of Hispanic voters is both formidable and ever increasing. The Hispanic population in New Mexico in 2004 was 43.3 percent. The Non Hispanic population was 43.5 percent. Native Americans represented 10.1 percent and African Americans represented 2.4 percent. By 2025, as population growth rates continue, Hispanic will become the single most dominant voting bloc in the state comprising nearly 47.5 percent of all New Mexican citizens. (Population Reference Bureau and U.S. Census Population projection 1995 to 2025)
The power of the Hispanic vote is already strongly evident in New Mexico politics. For example, in 2002, this political power matched two Hispanic candidates (Democrat and Republican) for governor in New Mexico. The winner was Bill Richardson (He has since been reelected). (www.richardsonforgovernor.com 11/10/02 Library of Congress) It is important to note that as the New Mexican population grows in upcoming decades that the increases will be found in its Hispanic population. The State of New Mexico will add nearly 1.1 million in population by 2025. (1990: 1.5 million to 2025: 2.6 million in total population / 661,000 of which will be Hispanic Americans) Hispanic will be representative of well over 47 percent of New Mexicans by 2025. With the current favorability of Democratic candidates statewide in New Mexico, Hispanic voters will be instrumental in Democratic victories. In 2000 and 2004, the presidential vote was determined by 360 votes for Gore in 2000 and 6,000 votes for Bush in 2004 out of nearly 800,000 votes cast in both elections. As the Hispanic vote in New Mexico increases in 2008 and in 2012, it will first provide the “tipping point” for a Democratic victory in the Electoral College. By 2025, New Mexico will be a traditional Blue State.
“Hispanics make up almost 13 percent of the U.S. population, but they represent 42 percent of all New Mexicans, according to the latest census reports. Hispanics are almost 39 percent of the New Mexicans of voting age, the highest percentage of any state in the nation.
But Hispanics still have obstacles in reaching political power commensurate with their numbers. Much of New Mexico's Hispanic population is either too young to vote or has not registered. Although New Mexico's 42 percent is the largest percentage of Hispanics of any state, only 30 percent of the state's registered voters are Hispanic. Three of four are registered Democrats.
Unlike burgeoning immigrant populations in California, Florida and other states, New Mexico's Hispanic population is well established. Many claim bloodlines to Spanish conquistadors or to Mexican ancestors who settled in the area long before it became part of the United States. A majority was born in the United States and feels far more comfortable speaking English than Spanish.” Puerto Rico Herald, July 2002.
In New Mexico, it is an advantage to any political party to address the issues that most concern Hispanic voters. Nevertheless, the current advantage rests with the Democrats.
“F. Chris Garcia, interim president at the University of New Mexico and an expert on Hispanic politics said Hispanics are like most voters and want to know a politician's position on issues they deem important. ‘I think it is still going to take a long time, maybe even generations, for Hispanics to change their voting patterns from Democratic to Republican,’ he said.” Puerto Rico Herald, July, 2002.
Additionally, the advantage for Democrats rang true in the congressional elections of 1998 and 2000.
There is much bluster, notably by the … Wall Street Journal editorial page, to the effect that the GOP can win more Hispanic votes. But at the very best this will be an uphill struggle. Hispanics do indeed move rightward the longer they remain in America. But this effect is cancelled out by newly arrived immigrants who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Hence, directly because of immigration the GOP has never approached a majority of the Hispanic vote. And this shows no sign of changing any time soon.
The latest alleged portent: the laudable victory of Rev. Bill Redmond in the recent New Mexico special election for the House seat vacated by UN Ambassador Bill Richardson. A more careful reading of this result, however, leads (not for the first time) to the conclusion that immigration enthusiasts can't count. The Republican vote, 42 percent, was barely above its previous peak and well short of a majority. What happened was that the Democratic vote was split, by a former Democrat running as the candidate of New Mexico's Green Party, who got 17 per cent of the vote. This, and not a mass conversion of Hispanics, won the seat. Rep. Redmond will do well to hold it in 1998. [Note: Redmond did not retain his seat] Electing New People by Peter Brimelow & Edwin S. Rubenstein
Past presidential elections in New Mexico illustrate that there is no longer a clear cut Republican advantage. Since Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush, New Mexico has become a true battleground state. Before Clinton’s victory in 1992, a Democrat had not won New Mexico since Lyndon Johnson accomplished the feat in 1964. Since 1992, however, the state could just as likely vote Republican as it could vote Democrat in a presidential race. In 1992, however, President Clinton won New Mexico decisively (nearly 49,000 votes). U.S. Presidential Elections Atlas
A brief study of recent presidential votes proves one point conclusively. Since 1984, the traditional winning majorities for Republicans in presidential elections are decreasing.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan (R) defeated President Jimmy Carter 307,101 to 201,769 (105,332 votes).
In 1988, Vice Pres. Bush (R) defeated Governor Dukakis 270,341 to 244,497 (25,844 votes).
In 1992, Governor Clinton (D) defeated President Bush 261,617 to 212,824 (48,793 votes).
In 1996, President Clinton (D) defeated Senator Dole 273, 495 to 232,751 (40,744 votes).
In 2000, Vice President Gore (D) defeated Governor Bush 286,783 to 286,417 (366 votes).
In 2004, President Bush (R) defeated Senator Kerry 376,930 to 370, 942 (5,988 votes). U.S. Presidential Election Atlas
(It is important to note that President Bush’s victory in New Mexico in 2004 is attributable to: Kerry’s pull out from New Mexico in the late stages of the campaign to focus on Ohio and Florida hurt voter turnout on election day)
The traditional winning majorities for Republicans in presidential elections are decreasing in New Mexico. The large Reagan victory in 1984 gave way to the stunning reversal of Clinton’s large victory in 1992. Since 1992, the margins of victory are very close. In the future, any voting bloc in New Mexico that increases its numbers and/or voting strength will decide the outcome of future presidential elections. With its growing population, with an estimated 85,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants within its borders (a large majority of which are from Mexico) and with polls giving Democrats a better than 2 to 1 preference advantage over Republicans amongst Hispanic voters in the state, Hispanic New Mexicans will be this group. As Hispanic voters in New Mexico continue to augment their political power, New Mexico will soon become a traditional Blue State. (Puerto Rico Herald, July 2002)


ARIZONA

In Arizona, the voting advantage in statewide races is currently with the Republicans. Nevertheless, this voting advantage is not absolute and is nearing its end. As of 2006, both United States Senators (John McCain and Jon Kyl) and recent U.S. Presidential Election Victories (Governor Bush in 2000, 104,000 vote victory, and President Bush with a 201,000 vote victory in 2004) belong to the Republicans. In 1996, however, President Bill Clinton defeated Senator Dole in Arizona by 31,000 votes, and in 2002, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, became the current governor of Arizona. The historic political control of Arizona by the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater is not automatic anymore. In the history of Arizona’s presidential voting, Republicans are the usually victors. However, Bill Clinton’s victory in Arizona in 1996 changed everything. Before Clinton’s victory, Democrats had not won Arizona since Harry Truman in 1948. U.S. Presidential Election Atlas

“Republicans still predominate in voter registration, but the margin is shrinking and the state has long moved past the era of the legendary conservative Barry Goldwater, one of Mr. Kyl's political heroes. (In Arizona) About 40 percent are Republicans, 34 percent Democrats and 26 percent Independents or other parties. Mr. Jim Pederson (Kyl’s Democrat opponent U.S. Senate race 2006) may already be riding the coattails of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a popular Democrat who is seeking a second term this year. He helped get her elected by managing the state Democratic Party at her behest in her 2002 race.” Archibald NYT 6/4/06

Additionally, Hispanic Voters are increasing in number in Arizona (In Arizona, there has been an 88 percent population increase among Hispanics citizens from 1990 to 2000. Hispanics, who comprised 16 percent of Arizona's population in the 1970s, now number 1,295,617 or 25 percent (the figure has been adjusted to 28 percent of the state population with the adjusted U.S. Census 2005 estimate). Also, while the Hispanic population is 25 percent of Arizona’s population today it will comprise 50 percent of the population in 2023. (Arizona Board of Regents Meeting, September 30 2004, to October 1, 2004)

Arizona Estimated Population 2005: (US Census) 5,939,000
Arizona Estimated Hispanic Population 2005: (28% of state pop.) (US Census) 1,663,000
Arizona All Voters Registered as of March 2006 2,625,000
Arizona Est. Eligible Hispanic Voters 04/05: (LULAC/US Census) 1,165,000
Arizona Estimated Hispanic Registered Voters 2006: (Pew) 420,000
Arizona Estimated Hispanic Unregistered Voters 2006: ?
SOURCES: Arizona Secretary of State, U.S. Census, William C. Velasquez Institute, LULAC, Pew Hispanic Research Center/The Kaiser Family Research Foundation, USA Today,

In Arizona, over 1.5 million votes were cast in the last presidential election (2004). Some 16% of all eligible and registered voters in Arizona are Hispanic citizens, and 80% of these Hispanic voters are native born United States Citizens. (Pew Hispanic Research Center, The Hispanic Electorate 2004)

Geographically, the four counties in the far southwest corner of Arizona (Maricopa, Yuma, Pinal, and Pima) have the largest Hispanic populations in the state. (U.S. Presidential Election Atlas) In Arizona, Maricopa is by far the largest county in population with 3.6 million people. It is the home for the City of Phoenix. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Maps, each of the aforementioned counties have significant Hispanic populations. In fact, as of March, 2006, 565,000 people moved into Maricopa County since 2000. 23.5 percent of these new arrivals to Maricopa County were Hispanic voters. Kamman, 3/15/06, AZ Republic

Maricopa County is the big one county voting powerhouse of Arizona. All other counties together can never over come the majorities polled from Maricopa County in an election. As Maricopa County grows, its influence in controlling Arizona’s presidential vote will increase tremendously. The dynamics of Judis’ and Tiexiera’s “ideopolis” will undoubted come into play here.

Presidential elections results
Year Republican
Democratic

2004
57.0percent 679,455 42.3percent 504,849
2000
53.2percent 479,967 42.9percent 386,683
1996
47.2percent 386,015 44.5percent 363,015
1992
41.4percent 360,049 32.6percent 285,457
1988
64.9percent 442,337 33.9percent 230,952
1984
72.0percent 411,902 27.1percent 154,833
In 2004, the Republicans in Maricopa County added 268,000 votes to their totals since 1984.
The Democrats increased their voting totals by 350,000. Since 1992, the Presidential elections in
Maricopa County became much closer in their outcomes. (Presidential Atlas)
As of 2005, Maricopa County had a population of 3,650,000 people. This includes the cities of Phoenix (1,462,000), Tucson (522,000), Mesa (452,000), Scottsdale (226,000), Glendale (241,000), Chandler (224,000), and Tempe (167,000). (CNNMoney.com) The Hispanic population of Maricopa County is 29 percent or 1,060,000. In the City of Phoenix, the Hispanic population is 42 percent or approximately 614,000 people. The undocumented illegal immigrant population in Arizona is estimated to be 500,000 people. These current statistics represent a tremendous population growth from the 1990s. (U.S. Census)

“[According to 2001 data] Maricopa County — which includes the City of Phoenix — accounted for 65 percent of the state's (entire population) growth, said Robert Lang, an urban expert for the Fannie Mae Foundation who analyzed Census data for USA TODAY. Maricopa added 950,048 people in the 1990s for a total population (at that time) of 3,072,149 — 60 percent of Arizona…”
“About 70 percent of Arizona's population growth in the 1990s came from migration — from foreign countries and elsewhere in the USA, said demographer Tom Rex, research director of the Center for Business Research at Arizona State University.”
“Hispanic immigrants, mainly crossing the border from Mexico, were attracted by low-end jobs created by Arizona's strong economy." They came in and found jobs in construction, retail, other service areas — lower-end jobs at low pay and suitable for people of low education," Rex said. These Hispanic newcomers are mostly young adults, he said.” (USA TODAY March 27, 2001)
The economic growth of metropolitan areas creates many different types of jobs. These jobs attract people with many various and much needed skills. The metropolitan areas of Maricopa County creates “white collar” professional jobs which in turn creates many more “blue collar, labor intensive and low wage” jobs which attracts many immigrants from Mexico. The following page supports the dynamics of the “ideopolis” in its growing stages.
“Phoenix and Denver are "new-West cities" where economic change and new industries had created jobs. Harry Garewal, president of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said part of the explanation for the growth in the Hispanic population is the area's ‘very robust economy’. Speaking from his Phoenix office, he said growth has created a greater demand for labor, particularly in construction. He said Arizona has 35,000 Hispanic-owned businesses, adding that the ‘Hispanic population in the state of Arizona has $26 billion in buying power.’ The local white population, he said, has benefited from a Hispanic-driven boost to the economy.’ (Seattle Times)
As the ever expanding “ideopolis” of Maricopa County and the City of Phoenix attracts more people as its economy grows, the area will also experience a political change. As the “ideopolis” theory evolves into its mature growth stages, Maricopa County and the City of Phoenix will begin to mirror the political change that has occurred in Denver County and the City of Denver (Colorado), Montgomery County and the City of Norristown (Philadelphia, PA), and Hennepin County and (Minneapolis/St.Paul).
In terms of voting trends, growing urban areas (the “ideopolis” in these cases) begin to see a strong preference for Democratic candidates as their populations expand and their citizens are employed in primarily blue collar, low wage, and labor intensive jobs. These jobs will be filled primarily by Hispanic immigrants in the Maricopa County metropolitan statistical areas.
As Hispanic voters increase in numbers in a very short amount of time, they will initiate the crucial “tipping point” in statewide elections. This type of rapid population growth will change Arizona from a Red State to a Blue State. With this extraordinary growth in population in Arizona, voting preferences will change. Legal immigration, illegal immigration and the undercount of current immigrants will greatly enhance the number of voters if any change in immigration law grants citizenship to these immigrants. As mentioned before, even with a small increase in voter registration, if current voting preferences remain the same, Hispanic voters will have a tremendous impact on elections statewide.
“Arizona Estimated Population in 2025 will be 6,400,000…Persons of Hispanic origin… projected to increase from 20.6 percent of the 1995 state population to 32.2 percent of the 2025 state population: (2,048,000 Hispanic Arizonans). Between 1995 and 2025, the number of non-Hispanic Whites residing in Arizona is projected to increase by 750 thousand, compared to a gain of 83 thousand for non-Hispanic African Americans, a gain of 76 thousand for non-Hispanic American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleut, a gain of 88 thousand for the non-Hispanic Asians and Pacific Islanders, and a gain of 1.2 million for persons of Hispanic origin.” U.S. Census Population Estimate for Arizona to 2025

Arizona’s true Hispanic population may be much larger with the addition of illegal immigrants.

“Here in this border state, where the Minutemen civilian patrol group is busy building a fence on the border, where more people cross illegally than anywhere else in the country, it is not surprising that the issue (illegal immigration) is Topic A in the campaign (Kyl v. Pederson Senate Race 2006).” Archibald NYT 6/4/06

“Federal border officials arrested nearly 500,000 people trying to enter the state between last October and July. In April, the “Minuteman Project,” a self-appointed militia, began patrolling the Arizona-Mexico border. And in mid-August, Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) took the unusual step of declaring a state of emergency. The move frees up government money to boost law enforcement along the border.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, which like Stateline.org is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona has more than quadrupled since 1996 -- from 115,000 then to about 500,000 now. By comparison, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States roughly doubled, jumping from about 5 million in 1996 to about 11 million today.” Stateline.org, Mark Matthews, August 31, 2005.


The above chart illustrates that illegal immigration is acute throughout the southwestern United States. The border arrests in Arizona show either excellent border policing or a problem that has possibly run completely into chaos. In either case, illegal immigration in Arizona may have increased the population of Hispanics in that state to well over 500,000 as the map on page ten of this paper illustrates. The undercount of illegal immigrants and the continued influx of illegal immigrants will increase this number almost daily. In sum, the Hispanic population of Arizona will continue to grow because of illegal immigration.

As Hispanic immigrants increase their population in Arizona and their voting numbers increase, Democratic Candidates will reap a significant political advantage. Similar to Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, the Hispanic voting population of Arizona has shown a strong preference for Democratic Candidates. This voting preference will initially provide the “tipping point” that will make Arizona a Blue State in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. In future presidential elections, Arizona will become a traditional Democratic Blue State.


SUMMARY

To conclude, in the coming decades, as this paper attempts to document, the voting characteristics of the American Electorate will completely alter the Electoral College vote. The overwhelming impetus behind this adjustment will be a remarkable influx of people to the United States. It is and will be an astonishing occurrence not unlike the great in-migrations of past ethnic groups to America.
“Most of all, this is a justice issue.
America was built by successive waves of immigrants, whether they came here voluntarily or involuntarily. The genius of this country has been its repeated ability to rejuvenate and re-energize itself with new immigrants, to fight against nativism and racism, to enable all of them to become Americans and to stand, eventually, alongside earlier arrivals, all woven together into the great tapestry of America.
Memories of who stands up for justice last a long time. Catholics voted overwhelmingly Democratic for generations, stemming from nativist Republican anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic positions in the first part of the twentieth century. African Americans have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for almost fifty years, in spite of the legacy of Lincoln, because of the civil rights movement.
Justice speaks loud. All Americans should follow the welcome leadership of many Catholics on immigration as a human rights issue. The fact that the political future is also at stake should be a bonus.” (The Democratic Strategist)
The primary direction of Hispanic in migration will be northward from the southern nations of the Americas to the United States. The states that will be most affected by this migration will be in the southwest and western regions of the U.S. In terms of changing the Electoral College map, the states of Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona will become Blue States and will put control of the U.S. Presidency in hands of the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately as the 21st Century begins, the bête-noir of foreigners does not dissipate from the American mindset.
“Forget the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Nebraska natives… increasingly oppose the new faces. ‘It isn't so much that people don't like the immigrants or don't think there's a place for them,’ said Gary Pence, a 59-year-old Crete salesman. ‘It's just not that 'Leave it to Beaver' era we grew up in…Immigrants from Mexico and Guatemala have come to America's heartland for jobs at the Farmland Inc., meatpacking plant, working for about $9 an hour slaughtering hogs, boxing frozen hams and pork chops and cleaning up entrails…A recent conversation between Pence and buddies over coffee at a Crete diner exposed raw emotions about how the nation should handle illegal immigration. ‘It's so far into this that it's hard to straighten out,’ said Ken Henning, 78. ‘I honestly think the only hope for Crete is if Farmland closes up,’ said Pence. (Nebraska’s population is 38th in the U.S. 1,739,000 million. Its Hispanic population is 96,000 or 5.5percent. It ranks 34th nationwide in the number of Hispanics. Many Hispanics live in Crete, Omaha, Lexington and other towns and cities with meatpacking plants. Between 2000 and 2004, the increase in the state's Hispanic population accounted for 70 percent of the state's overall growth. The number of Hispanics grew by about 26,000 in those four years while the number of non-Hispanic whites fell by 500.)” Scott Bauer AP 5/31/06
An intolerant point of view toward immigration will ill serve any political party. America has always been a country that has welcomed hard working, law abiding people. If a political party or a faction of a political party dominates the national agenda with anti-immigrant, “Know-Nothing” rhetoric, it could prove disastrous to that party at the polls. As Senator Chuck Hagel (R) of Oklahoma warningly stated,
“(Hagel) He fears that the debate and impasse are driving his party toward serious trouble with Latino and non-Latino voters alike.
“ ‘We (Republicans) are seen by too many as an intolerant party,’ Hagel said. ‘ And the majority of Americans are not going to elect intolerant representatives.’ ” (Charles Babbington, GOP Fears Immigration Split Fallout, Washington Post, 7/16/06)
Nebraska is not the only place where racial disdain and fear of illegal immigrants occurs. It is a nationwide problem. A passage from a recent article in the New York Times illustrates.
“The sudden shift is upending traditional Southern notions of race and class, leaving many whites… (in Atkinson County, Georgia where this article is focused) grappling with unexpected feelings of dislocation, loss and anger as they adjust to their community’s evolving ethnic identity.
Elton Corbitt, a white businessman whose family has lived here since the 1800’s, said immigration threatened everything that matters — the quality of schools, health facilities, neighborhoods, even the serene rhythms of small-town life. And he fears that white Southerners here may ultimately become outnumbered or irrelevant.
‘The way the Mexicans have children, they’re going to have a majority here soon,’ Mr. Corbitt, 76, said.
‘I have children and grandchildren,’ he said. ‘They’re going to become second-class citizens. And we’re going to be a third world country here if we don’t do something about it.’
Many immigrants, meanwhile, wrestle with feelings of both pride and alienation as they deepen their roots in a town that remains ambivalent about their presence.
Olga Contreras-Martinez was 12 when she entered the United States illegally with her family and picked fruits and vegetables in Florida and Georgia until settling here in 1993. Now a college graduate and an American citizen, Ms. Contreras-Martinez feels deeply rooted here.
Yet she says she has never quite fit in, even as she slides seamlessly between English and Spanish, relishes both cheese grits and frijoles and proudly votes in local elections.
She still bursts into tears when she remembers how three white men challenged the citizenship of the county’s Hispanic voters during a race for county commission in 2004, accusing one candidate of registering Mexicans who were ineligible to vote. Mexican-Americans were ultimately allowed to go to the polls, but the humiliation lingers.
‘Because of my color, my last name, people always question me,’ said Ms. Contreras-Martinez, 31, whose parents, uncles and grandfather all moved to Atkinson County from Mexico.
‘I call it home, but I know I’m not welcome in my own home,’ she said. ‘Maybe that feeling of home will be something that will always be missing for me.’” (Swarns, NYT, 8/4/06)
Emma Lazarus wrote these immortal words from The New Colossus.
“…Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Respectfully, perhaps only one verse needs to be added to her poem. This author might humbly add to the final stanza, “And I will make a people of them, Americans.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archibold, Randal C. Democrats See Opportunity in Arizona. June 4, 2006.

Arizona Board of Regents Meeting Minutes Report. September 30 2004, to October 1, 2004.

Asthana, Anushka. Hispanic Influx Reshaping Big Cities. The Seattle Times. August 22, 2006.
Babington, Charles. GOP Fears Immigration Split Fallout. The Washington Post. July 16, 2006.
Babington, Charles and Weisman, Jonathan. In the Senate, Waving the Flag Amendment. The Washington Post. June 27, 2006.

Bahrampour, Tara and Cohn, D’Vera. Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities. The Washington Post. May 10, 2006.
Bauer, Scott. Nebraskans Show Immigration Frustrations. Associated Press. May 31, 2006.

Brewer, Jane. Arizona Secretary of State Press Release Voter Registration Figures. March 2006.

Brimelow, Peter & Rubenstein, Edwin S. Electing a New People. National Review. June 16, 1997.
Bunch, Joey. Burgeoning County Builds Autonomy With Job Surge. Denver Post. March 22, 2006.
Campbell, Paul R. Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL-47. 1996.
Cázares, David. Hispanics Becoming A More Powerful Voting Bloc, NM Elections, Bloomberg Trip Illustration Growing Influence. Puerto Rico Herald. July 25, 2002.
©Copyright 2002 South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
CNNMoney.com. 2006 The Best Places to Live. Money Magazine.
De la Garza, Rodolfo O. Continuity, Not Change: The Latino Vote in 2004. December 1, 2005.
DeFiore, Anthony E., A Coming New Deal, Veritas, www.veritas.blogspot.com
DeGette, Diana. Colorado Demographics. Colorado Luis Blog. http://coloradoluis.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/2004_colorado_v.html
Edsall, Thomas B. and Goldfarb, Zachary A. Bush Is Losing Hispanics' Support, Polls Show. The Washington Post. May 21, 2006.

Ender, Johanna. Immigration in the U.S.: Economic Effects on the Nation and Its Cities. Business Review Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Fourth Quarter, 2005.

Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000. Office of Policy and Planning U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service.

Fears, Darryl. Senate Bill Would Add 20 Million Legal Immigrants, Report Says.
The Washington Post. June 2, 2006.

Harwood, John. Interview with Tim Russert. Meet The Press. NBC. KYW, Philadelphia. June 3, 2006.

Healy, Patrick. In Arizona, Measuring Effect of Hispanic Vote. The Boston Globe. October 12, 2003.
Hill, Steven. Emerging Democratic Majority? Why Judis and Teixeira are Wrong. Center for Voting and Democracy. (www.fairvote.org). 2003.

Hispanic Voters, Graphic: Bar Chart. The New York Times. June 21, 2006 *

Hulse, Carl and Rutenberg, David. Divide Remains as Bush Pushes Immigration Plan. The New York Times. May 17, 2006.

Judis, John B., and Teixeira, Ruy, The Emerging Democratic Majority, Lisa Drew Books, New York, 2002.

Kamman, John. Maricopa soon to be 3rd largest county in U.S.
The Arizona Republic, March 15, 2006.
Kasindorf, Martin, and McMahon, Patrick, Arizona's Hispanic population grew by 88percent, USA TODAY, March 27, 2001.
Kasindorf, Martin. Immigrants Groups’ Aim: To Turn Marchers To Voters. USA Today. July 14, 2006.
Kelley, Katie. A Deal in Colorado on Benefits for Illegal Immigrants. The New York Times. July 12, 2006.

Koch, Edward. U.S. Census expects Nevada's population to double by 2030. The Las Vegas Sun. April 21, 2005.Top of Form
Leip, David. Atlas of United States Presidential Elections. www.uselectionatlas.org.

Library of the Congress. MINERVA Project. www.richardsonforcongress.com,
Lyman, Rick. Census Shows Growth of Immigrants. The New York Times. August 15, 2006.

Matthews, Mark. Stateline.org. August 31, 2005.

McCombs, Brandy. Immigration's cost: Health, crime, and education expenses can be hard to measure. The Tribune. (Northern Colorado). August 16, 2006.

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. 2006 Primary Election Profiles Colorado. August 6, 2006. www.naleo.org.

Nevada Secretary of State. http://www.sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/voter_reg/2006/0706maina.htm

Ohlemacher, Stephen. US Population to hit 300 million in 2006. The Associated Press. June 6, 2006.
Ohlemacher, Stephen. U.S. Population Hits 300 Million Mark. The Washington Post. October 17, 2006.

Olinger, David. We Caused Sprawl Ourselves. Denver Post. February 7, 1999.

Pachon, Harry P. The Battle for Latino Voters. The Democratic Leadership Council. May, 2002. (reprinted from Blueprint Magazine, July, 2002.)

Passel, Jeffery S. Estimates of Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population. The Pew Research Hispanic Center. March 7, 2006.

Passel, Jeffery S. Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics, Background Briefing Prepared for Task Force on Immigration. The Pew Research Hispanic Center. June 14, 2005.

Pew Hispanic Center Fact Sheet. The Hispanic Electorate in 2004. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Population Reference Bureau. The Changing American Pie, 1995 to 2025. AmeriStat. Web address: www.prb.org/AmeristatTemplate.cfm?Section=RaceandEthnicity&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7857

Proximity County Trends. CountyTrends -- software-database tool for analyzing demographic composition and change – Maricopa County, August 23, 2006.

Queens College Sociology Department, United States County Population Map, Increase in Hispanic Population from 1990 to 2005, U.S. Census Data, published by The New York Times, August 4, 2006.

Robison, Jennifer. Las Vegas Seeks High Tech Footing. Review Journal. May 2, 2005.

Russakoff, Dale. U.S. Border Town, 1,200 Miles From The Border. The Washington Post. July 17, 2006.

Martin, Sarah. Summit County, Colorado (Conservation Planning Study by Sarah Martin, Conservation Planner). October 24, 2001.

Suro, Roberto. Latino Growth in Metropolitan America: Changing Patterns and New Locations. Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy and The Pew Hispanic Center. July 2002.

Starr, Paul. An Emerging Democratic Majority. The American Prospect. November-December, 1997.

Swarns, Rachel L. In Georgia, Immigrants Unsettled Old Sense of Place. The New York Times. August 4, 2006.
Talon, Jon. The Elusive Latino Voter. The Arizona Republic. August 13, 2006.

Teixeira, Ruy. Hispanics Poised to Move Democratic. Donkey Rising Blog. June 28, 2005. http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001227.php
The Center for Business and Economic Research. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Economic Overview of Metropolitan Las Vegas. 2006.
U.S. Fertility Rates Higher Among Minorities. Population Reference Bureau. AmeriStat. January, 2003.

United States. Congressional Budget Office Report. A Description of The Immigrant Population. November, 2004.

United States. U.S. Census Population Estimates / Maps. Arizona, 1995 to 2025. 1996.

United States. U.S. Census Population Estimates. Colorado, 1995 to 2025. 1996.

United States. U.S. Census Population Estimates. New Mexico, 1995 to 2025. 1996.

United States. U.S. Census Population Estimates. Nevada, 1995 to 2025. 1996.

United States. U. S. Census Bureau State & County Quick Facts. Arizona released March 28, 2006.

United States. U.S. Census Bureau State & County Quick Facts. Colorado released March 28, 2006.

United States. U.S. Census Bureau State & County Quick Facts. New Mexico released March 28, 2006.

United States. U.S. Census Bureau State & County Quick Facts. Nevada released March 28, 2006.

United States. U.S. Census Bureau. Immediate Release. May 10, 2006.

United States. U.S. Senate Bill 2611. The Immigration Reform. www.thomas.gov .

Weisman, Jonathan. With Senate Vote, Congress Passes Border Fence Bill. The Washington Post. September 30, 2006.

Weissenstein, Michael and Squires, Michael. Racial Picture Changes.
Las Vegas Review-Journal. March 14, 2001.

Wikipedia. Colorado Springs, Colorado. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs,_Colorado

William C. Velazquez Institute. Colorado Latino Voter Statistics. 2004.

* Date may be different due to edition of paper. U.S. Census is primary source.

APPENDIX

Since 1992 to 2004, there have been four presidential elections. The Democratic Nominee has won the popular votes and has been awarded the electoral votes from the following states:
IN THE WEST: Washington, Oregon, California
IN THE MIDWEST: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan
IN THE MID ATLANTIC:
Maryland, District of Columbia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York
IN THE NORTHEAST:
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
The Democratic Nominee has won other states in these elections. However, they have won the listed states in each of the U.S. Presidential Elections listed with only two exceptions. These exceptions were New Hampshire in 2000 (Gore defeated by 1percent of vote) and Iowa in 2004 (Kerry defeated by .6percent of vote) both close losses for the Democratic Nominee.
In short, these states listed above are the traditional Blue States that have voted for a Democratic Nominees for U.S. President in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.