This paper explores the extent to which Latinxs were substantively represented in the 112th U.S. House of Representatives (2011–2013). We make use of a large national sample of Americans to tap into the congruence of the attitudes of constituents with actual roll call votes taken by their legislators in office. In doing so, we are able to make comparisons between constituent attitudes and legislative behavior for Latinx versus non-Latinx constituents. Using a more refined measure than previous studies of constituent-legislator dyads across congressional districts, we find that Latinx respondents face a representational deficit relative to non-Latinx whites and explore the various factors, individual- and contextual-level, that explain variation in that relationship. One such factor is the size of the Latinx population in a district. We find that larger Latinx populations are associated with decreased representation for Latinx respondents and, further, that this deficit is largely rooted in anti-Latinx attitudes and behavior on the part of non-Latinx whites in those districts. On the whole, the findings here are consistent with the backlash hypothesis.
BarretoM. A.MurguiaJ.MonterrosoB.SaenzR.UrbinaM.CarilloM. (2018, November7). 2018 American election eve poll. Latino Decisions. Retrieved February 21, 2019, from http://www.Latinodecisions.com/2018-election-eve-poll/
7.
BarretoM. A.SeguraG. M.WoodsN. D. (2004). The mobilizing effect of majority-minority districts on Latino turnout. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 65–75.
8.
BarretoM. A.SeguraG. M. (2014). Latino America: How America’s most dynamic population is poised to transform the politics of the Nation. Public Affairs.
9.
BartelsL. M. (1991). Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense buildup. American Political Science Review, 85(2), 457–473.
10.
BartelsL. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.
11.
BergJ. A. (2015). Explaining attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy: A review of the theoretical literature. Sociology Compass, 9(1), 23–34.
12.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. John Wiley and Sons.
13.
BrattonK. A. (2006). The behavior and success of Latino legislators: Evidence from the states. Social Science Quarterly, 87(5), 1136–1157.
14.
BrattonK. A.HaynieK. L. (1999). Agenda setting and legislative success in state legislatures: The effects of gender and race. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 658–679.
15.
BroockmanD. E. (2014). Distorted communication, unequal representation: Constituents communicate less to representatives not of their race. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 307–321.
16.
ButlerD. M.BroockmanD. E. (2011). Do politicians racially discriminate against constituents? A field experiment on state legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 463–477.
17.
CameronC.EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in Congress?American Political Science Review, 90(4), 794–812.
18.
CanonD. T. (1999). Race, redistricting, and representation: The unintended consequences of Black majority districts. Chicago University Press.
19.
CasellasJ. P. (2007). Latino representation in the U.S. Congress: To what extent are Latinos substantively represented? In EspinoR.LealD. L.MeierK. J. (Eds.), Latinx politics: Identity, mobilization, and representation (pp. 219–231). University of Virginia Press.
20.
CasellasJ. P. (2010). Latino representation in state houses and Congress. Cambridge University Press.
21.
CliffordS. (2012). Reassessing the unequal representation of Latinos and African Americans. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 903–916.
22.
ClintonJ. D. (2006). Representation in Congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th house. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 397–409.
23.
De La GarzaR. O. (2004). Latino politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 91–123.
24.
De La GarzaR. O.JangS.-J. (2011). Latino public opinion. In ShapiroR. Y.JacobsL. R. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media (pp. 505–518). Oxford University Press.
25.
DodsonD. L. (2006). The impact of women in Congress. Oxford University Press.
26.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2009). Symbolic ideology in the American electorate. Electoral Studies, 28(3), 388–402.
27.
EllisC. (2013). Social context and economic bias in representation. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 773–786.
28.
EriksonR. S. (1978). Constituency opinion and congressional behavior: A reexamination of the Miller-Stokes representation data. American Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 511–535.
29.
FennoR. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Pearson.
30.
GambleK. L. (2007). Black political representation: An examination of legislative activity within U.S. House committees. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(3), 421–447.
31.
GilensM. (2009). Preference gaps and inequality in representation. Political Science & Politics, 42(2), 335–341.
32.
GilensM. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton University Press.
33.
GriffinJ. D. (2014). When and why minority legislators matter. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 327–336.
34.
GriffinJ. D.NewmanB. (2005). Are voters better represented?The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1206–1227.
35.
GriffinJ. D.NewmanB. (2007).The unequal representation of Latinos and Whites. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1032–1046.
36.
GriffinJ. D.NewmanB. (2008). Minority report: Evaluating political equality in America. University of Chicago Press.
37.
GroseC. R. (2005). Disentangling constituency and legislator effects in legislative representation: Black legislators or Black districts?Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 427–443.
38.
GroseC. R. (2011). Congress in Black and White: Race and representation in Washington and at home. Cambridge University Press.
39.
GutierrezA.OcampoA. X.BarretoM. A.SeguraG. (2019). Somos Más: How racial threat and anger mobilized Latino voters in the trump eraPolitical Research Quarterly, 72, 960–75.
40.
HajnalZ. L.AbrajanoM. (2015). White Backlash: Immigration, race, and American politics. Princeton University Press.
41.
HeroR. E.TolbertC. J. (1995). Latinos and substantice representation in the U.S. house of representatives: Direct, indirect, or nonexistent?American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 640–652.
42.
HillK. Q.HurleyP. A. (1999). Dyadic representation reappraised. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 109–137.
43.
HoodM. V.III.MorrisI. L. (1997).¿Amigo o Enemigo?: Context, attitudes, and anglo public opinion toward immigration. Social Science Quarterly, 78(2), 309–323.
44.
Jones-CorreaM.Al-FahamH.CortezD. (2018). Political (mis)behavior: Attention and lacunae in the study of Latino politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 213–235.
45.
KerrB.MillerW. (1997). Latino representation, it’s direct and indirect. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 1066–1071.
46.
KeyV. O.Jr. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. A.A. Knopf.
47.
LealD. L. (2007). “Latino public opinion: Does it exist?” In EspinoR.LealD. L.MeierK. J. (Eds.), Latino politics: Identity, mobilization, and representation (pp. 27–43). University of Virginia Press.
48.
LipmanF. J. (2006). The taxation of undocumented immigrants: Seperate, unequal, and without representation. Harvard Latino Law Review, 9, 1–58.
49.
LublinD. (1997). The elections of African Americans and Latinos to the U.S. house of representatives, 1972–1994. American Politics Quarterly, 25(3), 269–286.
50.
LublinD. (1999). The paradox of representation: Racial gerrymandering and minority interests in Congress. Princeton University Press.
51.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
MendezM. S. (2018). Towards an ethical representation of undocumented Latinos. Political Science & Politics, 51(2), 335–339.
54.
MendezM. S.GroseC. R. (2018). Doubling down: Inequality in responsiveness and the policy preferences of elected officials. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 43(3), 457–491.
55.
MilbrathL. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?Rand McNally & Company.
56.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review, 54(1), 511–535.
57.
MintaM. D. (2011). Oversight: Representing the interests of Blacks and Latinos in congress. Princeton University Press.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
60.
QuillianL. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611.
61.
ReingoldB. (2008). Women as office holders: Linking descriptive and substantive representation. Political Women and American Democracy, 9, 128–147.
62.
RochaR. R.EspinoR. (2009). Racial threat, residential segregation, and the policy attitudes of Anglos. Political Research Quarterly, 62(2), 415–426.
63.
RouseS. M. (2013). Latinos in the legislative process: Interests and influence. Cambridge University Press.
64.
SanchezG. R. (2006). The role of group consciousness in Latinx public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 435–446.
SeguraG. M. (2012). Latino public opinion and realigning the American electorate. Daedalus, 141(4), 98–113.
67.
SchaefferK. (2023). U.S. Congress continues to grow in racial, ethnic diversity. Pew Research Center.
68.
ShawD.De La GarzaR. O.LeeJ. (2000). Examining Latino turnout in 1996: A three-state, validated survey approach. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 338–346.
69.
Sinclair-ChapmanV. (2002). Dissertation. In Symbols and substance: How Black constituents are collectively represented in the United States Congress through roll-call voting and bill sponsorship. The Ohio State University.
70.
SwersM. L. (1998). Are women more likely to vote for Women’s issue bills than their male colleagues?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 435–448.
71.
SwersM. L. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. University of Chicago Press.
72.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In HoggM. A.AbramsD. (Ed.), Key readings in social psychology: Intergroup relations (pp. 24–109). Psychology Press.
73.
TateK. (2003). Black faces in the mirror: African Americans and their representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton University Press.
74.
TaylorM. C. (1998). How White attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 512–535.
75.
TolbertC. J.GrummelJ. A. (2003). Revisiting the racial threat hypothesis: White voter support for California’s Proposition 209. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3(2), 182–202.
76.
VargasA. (2016). Voting, Victories and viewpoints: A look at the top races and issues for Latinxs in election 2016.NALEO Educational Fund.
77.
VegaA.FirestoneJ. M. (1995). The effects of gender on congressional behavior and the substantive representation of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 213–222.
78.
VerbaS.NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. The University of Chicago Press.
79.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
80.
WasniewskiM. A.KowalewskiA.O’HaraL. T.RuckerT. (Eds.) (2013). Hispanic Americans in Congress, 1822–2012. Vol. 108, no. 225. Government Printing Office.
81.
WeissbergR. (1978). Collective vs. Dyadic representation in congress. The American Political Science Review, 72(2), 535–547.
82.
WelchS.HibbingJ. R. (1984). Hispanic representation in the U.S. Congress. Social Science Quarterly, 65(2), 328–335.
83.
WhitbyK. J. (2000). The color of representation: Congressional behavior and Black interests. University of Michigan Press.
84.
WilsonW. C. (2010). Descriptive representation and Latino interest bill sponsorship in congress. Social Science Quarterly, 91(4), 1043–1062.
85.
WlezienC. (2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 1–24.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
