20130411_Public Comment (2)Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Anaheim
Anaheim's racial and ethnic demographics have changed dramatically in the
last thirty years.
Asian /Pacific Other Asian /Pacific
Islander o Black/African Islander Other
1.2 /0
4.1% Hispanic/ American 9.5% 0.6%
Latino 2.4%
Black/African 17.1% Hispanic/
American Latino
1.2% 31.0%
White White
76.4% 56.6%
1980 1990
Total Population: 219,311 Total Population: 266,406
Asian /Pacific Other Other
Islander 2.7% Asian /Pacific o
12.3% Islander 2.3 /o
15.1%
Black/African Black/African
American Hispanic/ American Hispanic/
2.4% Latino 2.4%
White 46.8% White Latino
35.9% 7.5% 52.8%
2000 2010
Total Population: 328,014 Total Population: 336,265
Sources: US Census: 1980 (Table 59), 1990 (Table 7),
2000 (Table QT -PL), 2010 (DP -3), Anaheim.
Contac
range ounty+ omm unities Organized
for Responsible Development
info @occord.org — (714) 621 -0919
Geography and Diversity in Anaheim
Anaheim stretches across more than 50 square miles. The city as a whole is
ethnically diverse, but some areas are more diverse while some are more
representative of individual groups.
For example, these five Census tracts highlighted below are all part ofAnaheim,
yet each one represents a very different makeup in terms of ethnicity, income,
and age.
Census Tract 869.02
34% White
31% Latino
28% Asian
6% Black
11% Other
Median age: 37.3
Median income: $56,959
Census Tract 865.02
96% Latino
2 %White
'"1 1 % Asian
Median age: 26.5
Median income:
$45,357
1 dot =10 people
White
Black/African American
Hispanic /Latino
Asian /Pacific Islander
All Other
Census Tract 875.05
67% Latino
21 % White
11 %Asian
1% Black
Median age: 30.7
Median income: $39,712
Census Tract 219.19
78 %White
10% Latino
10% Asian
I% Black
1 % Other
Median age: 50.2
Median income:
$80,169
LIM
Census Tract 219.21
60 %White
X 25% Asian
11 % Latino
;W2% Black
2% Other
Median age: 41.3
Median income:
$134,050
Source: US Census 2009 -2011 3 year Contact
estimates, Anaheim via Social Explorer. )range County, ommunities Urganized for esponsible evelopment
Tiger Shapefile. info @occord.org — ( 714) 621 -0919
How does Anaheim compare to similar cities?
Anaheim is the largest California city to elect its representatives at large. All
larger California cities use district elections, as do many smaller cities.
20 Largest California Cities
Source: U.S. Census, 2012; City websites.
MAJOR CITIES: All use
district elections.
Because of their large
populations, ratios of
residents to council
members are high.
LARGE CITIES: Most use
district elections,
although some elect
at -large or by numbered
seats. Ratios of residents
per council member
tend to range from
30,000 to 50,000.
MEDIUM CITIES: Use a
mix of at -large and
district elections. Ratios
of residents per council
member are lower.
Anaheim's ratio of residents per representative is unusually high for a city of
its size.
80,000
70,000
60,000
CL 50,000
40,000
d
CL 30,000
O
20,000
CL
10,000
0.
0
e ° moo ea Ba �
o��� Oa t ��e�5 Pcar yac� �\,ec �`o` r ° \b
v 0 C.
The average ratio for the
four next - largest and
next - smallest cities is 44,467
residents per
representative.
If Anaheim had seven repre-
sentatives, the City's ratio
would be 48,038. With nine,
the ratio would be 37,363.
Contact: range ` ounty ommunities Organized for esponsible evelopment
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
Type of Council
City
Population per
City
Population
Election
Representatives
Representative
Los Angeles
3,792,621
Districts
15
252,841
San Diego
1,307,402
Districts
9
145,267
San Jose
945,942
Districts
11
85,995
San Francisco
805,235
Districts
it
73,203
Fresno
494,665
Districts
7
70,666
Sacramento
466,488
Districts
15
31,099
Long Beach
462,257
Districts
9
51,362
Oakland
390,724
Districts
9
43,414
Bakersfield
347,483
Districts
7
49,640
Anaheim
336,265
At -Large
5
67,253
Santa Ana
324,528
Numbered seats
7
46,361
Riverside
303,871
Districts
7
43,410
Stockton
291,707
Numbered seats
7
41,672
Chula Vista
243,916
At -Large
5
48,783
Fremont
214,089
At -Large
5
42,818
Irvine
212,375
At -Large
5
42,475
San Bernardino
209,924
Districts
7
29,989
Modesto
201,165
Districts
7
28,738
Oxnard
197,899
At -Large
5
39,580
Fontana
196,069
At -Large
5
39,214
Source: U.S. Census, 2012; City websites.
MAJOR CITIES: All use
district elections.
Because of their large
populations, ratios of
residents to council
members are high.
LARGE CITIES: Most use
district elections,
although some elect
at -large or by numbered
seats. Ratios of residents
per council member
tend to range from
30,000 to 50,000.
MEDIUM CITIES: Use a
mix of at -large and
district elections. Ratios
of residents per council
member are lower.
Anaheim's ratio of residents per representative is unusually high for a city of
its size.
80,000
70,000
60,000
CL 50,000
40,000
d
CL 30,000
O
20,000
CL
10,000
0.
0
e ° moo ea Ba �
o��� Oa t ��e�5 Pcar yac� �\,ec �`o` r ° \b
v 0 C.
The average ratio for the
four next - largest and
next - smallest cities is 44,467
residents per
representative.
If Anaheim had seven repre-
sentatives, the City's ratio
would be 48,038. With nine,
the ratio would be 37,363.
Contact: range ` ounty ommunities Organized for esponsible evelopment
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
Anaheim's Voter Turnout:
Socioeconomics and Voter Participation
Income in Anaheim
Ethnicity in Anaheim
Household Median Income
$100,001 and over $55,001 to $70,000
$85,001 to $100,000 $40,001 to $55,000
$70,001 to $85,000 Less than $40,000
® No Data
Percent of Population Identifying as Hispanic /Latino
More than 80 percent 21 to 40 percent
61 to 80 percent Less than 20 percent
41 to 60 percent
® No Data
Voter Turnout by Precinct (total ballots cast / voter registration)
Less than 40 percent
41 to 65 percent
66 to 75 percent
76 to 85 percent
86 to 100 percent
Sources: 2012 Statement of Vote, 2012 Orange (
County Precincts Shapefile. OC Registrar of Voters. range ounty ommunities rganized
US Census 2009 -2011 3 year estimates, Anaheim via for esponsible .)evelopment
Social Explorer. Tiger Shapefile. info @occord.org — (714) 621 -0919
2012 Voter Participation in Anaheim
Anaheim's Voter Turnout:
Socioeconomics, District Elections, and Voter Participation
Voter Turnout
- Poverty correlates with low voter participation across the United States and California.
Researchers have found different explanations as to why this is, but nearly all research
on the topic concludes that people with low or extremely low incomes are less likely to
vote than middle class and affluent people.
Latino voters are less likely to vote. This tendency is almost entirely explained by
socioeconomic factors.
Residents of larger cities are less likely to vote and less likely to be mobilized by local
campaigns.
District Elections and Voter Turnout
The sample size is too small to compare California cities' turnout levels before and after
they adopt district elections from an at -large system, particularly given the need to
control for other factors like election timing, systems, demographics, etc. which tend to
have a greater impact on voter participation.
As an example, Modesto's voter turnout increased very, very slightly (less than
one percent) between their last year of at -large elections and their first year of
district elections, but experienced much greater fluctuations (ten to twenty
percent) between elections in the preceding ten years when other factors, like
changing election times, were at play.
Literature on district elections and participation has suggested that at -large districts
may decrease potential participation by creating distance between leaders and their
constituencies. There have also been studies that suggest that geographically clustered
minorities are hurt when at -large elections allow a white voting plurality to overwhelm
their interests.
- There is some evidence that district elections decrease voter turnout. Researchers from
the Public Policy Institute of California found that this was more of a "statistical artifact"
because the large California cities with district elections also have substantially lower
rates of voter registration, which served as a confounding variable. When they
controlled for the cities' registration rates, their study showed no significant relation
between district elections and the turnout of voters.
Sources and General Literature
Bullock, C. (1990). "Turnout in Municipal Elections." Policy Studies Review 9(3): 539 -549.
Bullock, C., and S. MacManus. (1990). "Structural Features of Municipalities and the Incidence
of Hispanic Councilmembers." Social Science Quarterly 71(4): 665 -681.
Engstrom, R. and M. McDonald. (1982). "The Underrepresentation of Blacks on city Councils:
Comparing the Structural and Socioeconomic Explanations for South /Non -South Differences."
Journal of Politics 44: 1088 -1099.
Guinier, L. (1994). The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative
Democracy. Free Press, NY.
Hajnal, Z. and M. Baldassare. (2001). Finding Common Ground: Racial and Ethnic Attitudes in
California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California.
Hajnal, Z., Lewis, P., and H. Louch. (2002). Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing,
and Competition. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California.
Oliver, J. Eric. (2000). "City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America," American
Political Science Review 94(2): 361 -372.
Rosenstone, S. (1982). "Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout." American Journal of Political
Science 26: 25 -46.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K., and H. Brady. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American
Politics. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wolfinger, R., and S. Rosenstone. (1980). Who Votes? Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Welch, S. (1990). "The Impact of At -Large Elections on the Representation of Blacks and
Hispanics." Journal of Politics 52: 1050 -1076.
Welch, S. and T. Bledsoe. (1988). Urban Reform and Its Consequences: A Study in
Representation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
What is polarized voting?
POLARIZED VOTING occurs when a distinct minority group of voters consistently
vote for different candidates than the majority of voters. In an at -large electoral
system, this can result in a lack of representation for the minority group.
The California Voting Rights Act addresses racially polarized voting, but voting can
also be polarized by neighborhoods or other geography.
EXAMPLE
Cityville has 100,000 voting citizens and 5 city council seats elected at
large.
Populat._..
30,000 voters consistently vote
for B candidates.
70,000 voters consistently
vote for A candidates.
In elections, 70,000 votes
(70 %) go to A candidates.
30,000 votes (30 %) go to
B candidates. {
Five Council Seats
The Result: all 5 seats are won by A candidates.
The City Council ONLY represents A voters, not B voters, even though B
voters make up almost a third of the electorate.
Contact: Orange County ommunities rganized for esponsible Development
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
Is there geographically polarized voting in Anaheim?
West Anaheim
Central Anaheim
Anaheim Hills
Votes for winning candidates came from both the flatlands of West and Central Anaheim, and from Anaheim
Hills, but a much greater proportion of the Hills precincts' votes went to the winners.
45 percent of Anaheim Hills precincts' votes went to the winning candidates. 32 percent of West and Central
Anaheim's votes went to the winning candidates.
Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters 2010 Statement of Vote, 2010 Anaheim Precincts ShapeFile. U.S. Census Tiger ShapeFiles, Anaheim.
Contact: range ounty ommunities rganized for esponsible evelopment
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
Is there geographically polarized voting in Anaheim?
West Anaheim
Central Anaheim
In nearly all West and Central Anaheim precincts,
the two winning Council candidates won by smaller
margins or did not win the precinct at all.
Anaheim Hills
The two winning Council candidates won all the
Anaheim Hills precincts, and most were won by
comfortable margins.
Source: Orange County Registrar of Voters 2010 Statement of Vote. 2010 Anaheim Precincts ShapeFile.
Contact: grange ounty ommunities rganized for esponsible evelopment
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
WHERE HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVES LIVED?
This map shows the residences of Anaheim mayors and City Council members elected in the 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008,
2010, and 2012 elections. The base map shows median income levels for households in Anaheim, and the boundaries of
zip codes.
92805 92807 92808
92801 2010
2004,2008 * � 2010
2012 2002 2004,2008 2002,2006
X 2010 _ - 92806
2012
92802
Council representatives by Zip Code, 2002 - 2012
Zip Code Representatives Zip Code Population
92801
0
61,500
92802
2
42,797
92804
0
85,386
92805
3
70,267
92806
0
35,983
92807
3
35,999
92808
2
20,738
Household Median Income
_ $100,001 and over $55,001 to $70,000
$85,001 to $100,000 $40,001 to $55,000
$70,001 to $85,000 Less than $40,000
Mayor 1! Council member
2002 Year(s) elected
Sources: California FPPC forms 501; OC Registrar of Voters registration
database. US Census: ACS 2007 -2011 5 -year estimates, Anaheim zctas,
table 50101. ACS 2009 -2011 3 -year estimates, Anaheim city, via Social
Explorer. Tiger Shapefile.
Contact
range ounty ommunities 'rganized for esponsible evelopment
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
How much does it cost to run for City Council in Anaheim?
Candidates'Expenditures (Funds Raised for Campaign and/or Personal Wealth)
$350,000
C
•� $300,000 -
C. T A Z -
$250,000
c
$200,000
c
a,
,n $150,000
N •
M $100,000 —
$50,000
$0
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Votes Won
1
• 2006 Candidates
• 2008 Candidates
• 2010 Candidates
* Winning Candidates
This graph plots the amount of
money spent by a candidate on
their campaign for the 2006,
2008, and 2010 Anaheim City
Council elections. As can be
seen here, having the most
money doesn't guarantee that
a candidate will win a seat.
However, a candidate must
meet a spending threshold in
order to make it into the top
three candidates competing
for seats.
See page two for information
about the impact of
independent expenditures.
Contact: range ounty communities rganized for esponsible evelopment
info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919
Candidates' Expenditures and Independent Expenditures (Political Action Committees)
$400,000 -
$350,000
c
Cn
* a
CL
$300,000
E
M
Q $250,000
C
0
Imo $200,000
a�
%A
i $150,000
�v
c $100,000
$50,000 0
$0
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Votes Won
4p 2006 Candidates
• 2008 Candidates
• 2010 Candidates
Winning Candidates
This graph plots the amount of money
spent by a candidate AND money
spent by political action committees
"independent expenditures" on their
campaign for the 2006, 2008, and 2010
Anaheim City Council elections. These
numbers represent the total amount of
money that went into electing (or
opposing) a candidate.
The addition of independent expendi-
tures only serves to widen the distance
between the front - runner candidates
and the rest of the pack. Candidates
lacking personal wealth or fundraising
capability did not attract campaign
funds from independent sources.
METHODOLOGY: These campaign finance totals were compiled using Fair Political Practices Commission forms 460 and 501. Data from 2012 was not compiled for this graph as
some candidates and committees had not filed their final forms (some committees and candidates continue filing forms for the year after a campaign concludes). "Expendi-
tures "were counted, rather than funds received, and in cases in which expenditures from month -to -month forms did not reconcile, the year -to -date expenditures on the filing
through December 31 of that year were considered the most accurate total. Expenditures that were categorized as refunds of campaign money (RFD) to donors, and expendi-
tures that were categorized as civic donations (CVC) that occurred after the election took place, were not counted toward the total. All other expenditures were.
Contact: range ounty ommunities rganized for esponsible evelopment
2 info @occord.org
(714) 621 -0919