Loading...
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