Latina/o Literature and
Literature of the Americas at the
University of Northern Colorado

RAZA FREE THINKER is a new and FREE on-line 'zine dedicatd to Chicano/Latino Political Theory, Policy and Practice presented in down-to-earth language.

Weekly emails are sent out and a webpage will be operative in September 1999. 

To subscribe, comment, or question, send to Sokib@yahoo.com

Included is an editorial commentary on Latino Political Representation in CAlifornia. 

Enjoy, Ignacio Hernandez, Editor

*******************************************************

This Raza Free Thinker commentary is sponsored by :

TRIO ZARAGOZA, featuring Kristi and Jose Zaragoza Jr.

         If you are looking for a trio to sing at your 16th of September celebration, or a cultural/political event, TRIO ZARAGOZA may be your answer. TZ features the silky sounds of KRISTI, a young energetic singer who just performed at the Mariachi Festival in San Jose and is preparing to record her first CD.  In addition, 25-year old Jose Zaragoza Jr. has been winning over audiences with his romantic renditions of our favorite songs off of his just recorded first CD. Kristi and Jose Jr. were featured performers this past Sunday (8/29) at the Gilroy Hispanic Cultural Festival in Northern California.

Help promote our young up-and-coming artists.  For booking information, contact Sokib@yahoo.com

*******************************************************

Editor's Commentary:

THE QUEST FOR LATIN@ POLITICAL REPRESENTATION IN CALIFORNIA: Empowerment or False Victory?

Part 1

By Ignacio Hernandez

Raza Free Thinker, 1999 ã

I.  Introduction:

From the moment the first flake of celebratory confetti found its way to the ground, the cliché laden victory speeches of the November 3rd 1998 election reverberated throughout California.   And a recurrent theme was woven into these diatribes: Latin@s made history.  In California's third largest city, Ron Gonzalez became the first Latin@ Mayor of San Jose. Largely on the backs of Latin@ voters, the State Assembly and State Senate welcomed six new Latinos to lawmaking positions.  Latin@s now constitute roughly 20% the state legislature.   The 12% Latin@ state-wide electorate promoted Cruz Bustamante to Lt. Governor of California making him the first Latino to be elected to statewide office since the 1870's.    These election victories were indeed "historic" in the most conventional sense.   Since then, Latin@s throughout California and the Southwest have trumpeted this political shift with a renewed belief in community empowerment.  However, is the boasting justified? Do these campaign victories signal the dawn of a new era of influence for Latin@s in California?  The answer, unfortunately, is probably not. 

This commentary argues that the recent election of Latin@s to the State Legislature is a false victory for the Latin@ community in California.   This article is not exhaustive, and leaves open many issues to be discussed.  However, it does proclaim, a very focused conclusion: the current election of Latin@s to the State Legislature will rarely result in laws that benefit the Latin@ community; laws that would not have been passed but for the election of these representatives.

This commentary is not an attack on any individual legislator.  Instead, it seeks to unearth the political forces that prevent Latin@s from being a persuasive force in the legislature despite the historic gains of the most recent elections. 

This discussion revolves around two key questions: Whether Latin@-oriented legislation is introduced and if introduced, whether these bills become laws.

As a refresher, here is a summary of the   Legislative Process in California:

1) A bill is introduced by a State Assemblymember or a State Senator.

2) The bill is sent to a policy committee of the Assembly/Senate where a consultant writes an analysis and a recommendation is made on the bill.  Lobbyists contact the consultant during this process to influence the recommendation and clarify the intricacies of the bill.  Often, a bill is amended in committee.

3) The elected representatives sitting on the policy committee vote on the bill at a public hearing.

4) If the bill is passed out of the policy committee, the bill is sent to the floor of the Assembly/Senate where all Assemblymembers/Senators vote on the bill.

Otherwise, the bill is "dead".

5) If the bill is passed, it is sent the policy committee of the other house - Assembly or Senate.

6) If the bill is passed, it is sent to the floor of the Assembly/Senate for a full vote. 

7) If the bill is passed off of the floor, it is sent to the Governor where it is either signed into law or vetoed.

8) A 2/3 vote of the Assembly and Senate is required to overturn a veto. 

II. INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

The introduction of legislation is the first step in the lawmaking process.  We hold an instinctive belief that newly elected Latin@ legislators will introduce progressive Latin@ legislation.  It is the foundation for our celebration of their campaign victories. And the record of the current Legislative session that ends on September 10th partially supports this premise.

Assemblymembers Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), Marco Firebaugh (D-E. Los Angeles) and Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), for example, have all authored bills directly aimed at uplifting the Latin@ community in California.  One of the most controversial was Cedillo's AB 1463.  This bill would reverse a policy instituted during the Wilson administration requiring a social security number to receive a driver's license.  Cedillo believed that Wilson erroneously linked citizenship and driver certification.  {This bill did not make it to the Governor.  This bill and the obstacles to pro-Latin@ legislation will be discussed in next week's Raza Free Thinker} However, many Latin@ legislators do not proffer as progressive of a legislative package.  Our knee-jerk reaction may be to tattoo these legislators with being unconcerned with Latin@ issues.  Some of us may even whisper the derogatory "sell-out" that is often used in emotional debates.  However, such a characterization is unfair, and fails to understand the rugged political landscape that Latin@s find themselves trying to navigate. The most common distinction between those Latin@s that do introduce Latin@-oriented legislation and those who do not, is the "marginality" of the representative.

A.  Marginality and Swing-Vote Electorate

Marginal members of the legislature represent districts with Latin@ populations that are large enough only to serve as the "swing vote" in the final tally.  The Latin@ electorate in these jurisdictions cannot elect a representative without sizable support from non-Latin@ voters; and usually, moderate lever-pullers are necessary to win the election. Assemblymember Cedillo, for example, represents a district that is largely Latin@. .Firebaugh was elected by a district that is almost exclusively Democratic, and overwhelming Latin@.  He garnered over 80% of the vote in November. These members are politically stable because of Latin@ voters.  As a result, they are able to pursue legislation that is in harmony with their Latin@-oriented priorities. Others legislators are not as fortunate. 

And the dangers of marginality are exacerbated for Assemblymembers whose terms are for only 2 years. Consequently, these members must begin campaigning for reelection almost immediately after being sworn into the legislature.  Thus, if one of these legislators introduces a pro-Latin@ bill that can be labeled radical, it will likely become the subject of a campaign "hit piece" in the next election.   Imagine a glossy color political mailer sent to every conservative non-Latin@ voter that reads, "LEGISLATOR WANTS TO REWARD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH A DRIVER'S LICENSE."

Marginality exists when the elected representative wins by less than 15% of the vote against challenger from the other major party, which is usually Republican.  The fear of losing one's elected position frequently paralyzes Latin@ legislators. Sally Havice, Assemblywoman from Southern California, edged out her Republican challenger by only 9% of the votes.  In a heart-wrenching example, Assemblymember Nell Soto (D-Los Angeles) was recently required to vote on a controversial measure that would have increased the ability of gay/lesbian individuals to sue for discrimination.  Soto's son is gay.  However, Assembly member Soto earned only a 12% victory over her Republican challenger.   The consensus among political spin-doctors was that if she was to vote for the measure, Soto would surely lose the support of the more conservative electorate in her district; votes that were necessary to retain her position.  Soto beat out her Republican challenger by a mere 12% of the vote. When similar legislation was introduced in previous sessions, several Latin@ legislators were the targets of newspaper advertisements by conservative interest groups. Soto could not risk unrelenting attacks.  After speaking on the floor of the Assembly, Soto registered a "No" vote.  The bill failed passage by one vote.  Most political insiders agree that is was her marginality that determined her vote.

    Marginality, and a swing-vote Latin@ electorate, has therefore resulted in the emergence of the moderate Latin@ legislator.  Unable, or unwilling to introduce progressive Latin@ legislation and reluctant to support "liberal" bills.  Instead, business friendly laws become the moderate Latin@'s best friend. There are several Latin@ legislators who wear moderate label with pride. 

There is nothing inherently evil for a Latin@ to push pro-business legislation, while tempering her support of pro-Latin@ legislation.  However, it is troubling for at least two reasons.  First, the public has been celebrating the election of a record number of Latin@s because it believes a new generation of legislation will result.  However, as this article indicates, this is unlikely.  There has never been a vacuum for pro-business legislation.  There has, however, been a large void of pro-Latin@ bills.  Secondly, the push for increased Latin@ representatives has been the battle cry of liberal, and even radical, Latin@s for decades; many of who shed blood calling for change. And though strides have been made, the types of bills that these activists envisioned are inexpedient for our Latin@ representatives.

Therefore, the Latin@ population in California and elsewhere must be on notice. Hence, although there have been newspaper and magazine articles ad nausem trumpeting the growing number of Latin@ voters, these numbers are dispersed throughout the state and can only sustain a handful of Latin@-dominated voting districts.  Consequently, the increased number of Latin@ voters does not translate into Latin@ legislators who are free to introduce progressive pro-Latin@ legislation.  While the "sleeping giant" has indeed awaken, its roar may be loader than its actual size and strength.  Latin@s, for the most part, remain a swing-vote electorate; and many of our representatives are marginal which allows them to be enveloped by cautious politics.  So what have Latin@s really gained from the 1998 elections?

What do you think?  What can be done?  Sokib@yahoo.com

Look for Part II next week!!!!