Population Research and Policy Review 20: 483–511, 2001. © 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
483
Differences in registering and voting between native-born and naturalized Americans LORETTA E. BASS University of Oklahoma
LYNNE M. CASPER National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Abstract. Relatively little is known about the differences in voting behavior between immigrants and native-born Americans, primarily due to a lack of good quality data on the national level. Using data from the Voting and Registration Supplement to the November 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS), we examine whether variables known to affect electoral participation among the citizen population are also important among naturalized citizens. We find that naturalized citizens are less likely to register and to vote than native-born citizens, net of other factors. Citizens born abroad in Europe, Latin America, and Asia are less likely to register and those born abroad in Europe and Asia are less likely to vote than those born in the U.S. Among naturalized citizens, region of origin does not remain a major explanatory variable once time in the U.S. is considered. Keywords: citizens, electoral, immigrant, naturalized, voting
Introduction Immigrants to the U.S. who become naturalized citizens gain an important right – the right to vote. The political influence of immigrants often seizes the public’s attention and inflames debates about immigrant settlement because naturalized immigrants can establish voting blocks and change American political and social life. Of the estimated 193.7 million people of voting age in November 1996, 21.9 million or 11 percent were foreign-born. Of those, 8.2 million (38 percent) had become naturalized citizens and were eligible to register and vote in the November 1996 election (see Table 1). Despite the sheer number of immigrants, little research has been published on the differences in registration and voting behavior between naturalized and native-born citizens. While the assimilation process of U.S. immigrants has generated much scholarly and popular discussion (for an overview, see Alba & Nee 1997; Smith & Edmonston 1997), the consequent implications for recent immigrants as voters and for politics as a whole have just begun to be analyzed. The
484
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
electoral participation of immigrants has become increasingly topical because the number of foreign-born residents naturalizing has increased since 1994, infusing new voters of immigrant status into the electorate.1 Further, recent research by Schmidley and Gibson (1999) shows that the racial-ethnic composition of the foreign-born population has changed over time from mostly white in 1960 to mostly nonwhite in the 1990s.2 This change in composition may have implications for politics as a whole. Therefore, it is the sheer number of immigrants coupled with the composition of the immigrant population over time which makes the subject of immigrant electoral participation an important topic. Immigrants are changing the political and social face of the U.S. in the 21st century. The research completed on naturalized citizens’ political participation has been limited by the nature of the samples used in analysis. Most research on Hispanic participation draws on regional samples, so that results are not representative of the national population of Hispanics. The one national sample available to analyze the political behavior of naturalized citizens, the Latino National Political Survey (LNPS), restricts itself to the three largest Hispanic subgroups – Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban – who account for 85 percent of the U.S. resident Hispanic population (Garcia et al. 1996). Other studies have compared Hispanic and Asian groups based on a state-level sample (Lien 1994; Uhlaner 1991; Cain et al. 1991). Thus, there is a need to analyze the voting behavior of naturalized citizens using a nationally representative data source. Data from the Voting and Registration Supplement to the November 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) provide a nationally representative sample to profile voting behavior by nativity status. Nativity status is defined by whether an individual is a native-born or naturalized citizen. The availability of these data allows us to answer questions such as: Do naturalized immigrants vote and register at the same levels as native-born citizens? What accounts for the variation in electoral participation among naturalized immigrant citizens? To answer these questions, we use logistic regressions to examine which socioeconomic and demographic factors are related to whether a citizen will register to vote and vote, and to investigate whether naturalized citizens are more likely to vote than native-born citizens once other factors have been accounted for. We then examine whether citizens born in the U.S. are more or less likely to register and vote than those born in other regions of the world. Among naturalized citizens, we investigate the extent that region of origin and length of time in the U.S. affect the likelihood of registering and voting when taking into account other factors.
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
485
What determines whether an individual will vote? Registration and voter turnout among all citizens Previous research shows that ‘citizens of higher social and economic status participate more in politics. This generalization . . . holds true whether one uses level of education, income, or occupation as the measure of social status’ (Verba & Nie 1972: 125; Leighley & Nagler 1992). Lewis et al. (1994) hold that those with higher stakes in society are the most likely to go to the polls – older individuals, homeowners, and married couples. Evidence suggests that it is important to examine these relationships in a multivariate framework to assess their relative importance once other factors have been taken into account. Variations in income have little relationship to voting once age and education are taken into account (Wolfinger 1994). Likewise, while married men and women are more likely to vote than others, the effects among both men and women vary considerably with age and education (Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980). Although it is important to control for demographic factors such as race and gender, studies have generally found that education and income are stronger predictors of electoral participation (Leighley & Nagler 1992; Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980). The effect of residential mobility on registration and voting behavior is important to consider because movers are found to resemble stayers on motivational factors related to voting, and this effect remains net of other social, economic, and demographic factors (Squire et al. 1987). Furthermore, the requirement that citizens must register anew after each change in residence may constitute a key stumbling block in the path of a trip to the polls (Casper & Bass 1998). Because 16 percent of Americans move every year (Hansen 1997), length of residence is a particularly important factor to consider. One problem of previous voting studies is that they are not always nationally representative of the eligible citizen voting population (Jennings 1982; 1985; 1989; 1993; Leighley & Nagler 1992; Teixeira 1992; Verba & Nie 1972). Prior to 1994 research using the nationally representative data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) had to separate the citizen population from the total U.S. population using imperfect measures because citizenship status was neither directly asked nor fully edited in CPS surveys (see Squire et al. 1987; Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980). Also problematic, the majority of studies are somewhat outdated; they are based on data collected in the 1980’s. In this study, we improve upon previous research in several ways. First, we use more recent CPS data to examine registering and voting in a presidential election year. Second, because more accurate citizenship data became available in the CPS in recent years, we are able to restrict our analysis to the citizen population. Third, we use multivariate models to control simultan-
486
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
eously for many factors such as education, income, and occupation that are known to be related to registering and voting. We expect that women, older individuals, married individuals, non-Hispanic whites, those with higher levels of education and income, those who are employed, homeowners, and those residing in their homes for longer periods of time will be more likely to register and vote, all else being equal. Registration and voter turnout among naturalized citizens Naturalized citizens may exhibit political behavior that is different from the native-born, but researchers are yet to realize fully the implications of these more recent immigrants as voters. Our understanding of voting behavior among the citizen population in general points to the need to consider factors like age, gender, marital status, race and ethnic status, educational achievement, income, and occupational status. However, once we control for these established baseline demographic, social, and economic factors that are known to influence registering and voting behavior, are there factors unique to the immigrant population that better explain naturalized citizens’ political behavior? Research on the naturalized population suggests that nativity status, region of origin, and time in the U.S. are factors to consider. Nativity status Naturalization is an important variable of focus. Among Hispanics, DeSipio (1996) tested the idea that naturalized citizens develop through the naturalization process a greater propensity to behave as good citizens. He hypothesized that these ‘good citizens’ would be more likely to vote and participate in civic activities than would native-born citizens of the same social status. However, he found that naturalized Hispanics are actually less likely than similarly situated native-born Hispanics to participate in electoral politics and civic activities. Again supporting the idea that there is something about the immigration process that may separate Mexican-American immigrants’ political participation from that of Mexicans and that of Anglos, De la Garza & DeSipio (1998) found that Mexican-American immigrants have developed public policy issues that are different from Mexicans and different from Anglos. This may be related to the naturalization experience of Mexican-Americans which both Mexicans and Anglos have not experienced. Considering nativity status is a first step in examining electoral differences between naturalized and native-born groups. In this research, we examine whether naturalized citizens are less likely to register and vote than nativeborn citizens while controlling for other variables that may be related to electoral participation (e.g., education, income, occupation, and race). Based
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
487
on the findings in the Hispanic population, we expect naturalized citizens to be less likely to participate than native-born citizens. Region of origin Region of origin is important to consider because this variable demarcates ethnic boundaries among those from Asian and Latin American countries3 vis-à-vis the Anglo population in the U.S. We define ethnicity as a sense of belonging to ‘an involuntary group of people who share the same culture’ or are perceived by others as sharing the same culture (Isajiw 1974: 122). Those from Asian and Latin American countries experience American social and political life as individuals sharing an Asian or Latin American culture, respectively, upon their arrival in the U.S.4 Lien (1994) suggests that pan-ethnicity exists among Asians and Latinos because these two groups are ethnic minorities in the U.S. with a shared sense of being racially alienated and systematically deprived. Lien shows that even when there is a socioeconomic gap between Asian-Americans and Mexican-Americans, they have similar ethnicity and political participation structures wherein their acculturation increases participation and their attachment to homeland culture does not necessarily discourage participation. In addition, there is evidence that shared political attitudes exist among the three largest U.S. Hispanic groups – Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans (De la Garza et al. 1992). Those from the same region may have more shared interests and behavior because the native-born population categorizes and treats them as a group or because they may bring with them, or develop upon arrival, similar levels of attachment to U.S. social and political life. Indeed, both of these processes might be operating simultaneously. Bivariate results from the 1996 presidential election show that voting and registration is patterned by region among naturalized citizens. Naturalized citizens from Europe and other North American countries, principally Canada, were found to be more likely to register and to vote than naturalized citizens from Latin America and Asia, and naturalized citizens from Asia were found to be the least likely to register and to vote (Casper & Bass 1998). Because naturalization is a first requirement in the trip to the polls among immigrants, a parallel between naturalization rates and electoral participation is important to consider. The proportion of naturalized citizens in the foreign-born population also varies by region of birth; those from Europe have the highest rate of naturalization, 53 percent, compared with 44 percent and 24 percent among those from Asia and Latin America, respectively (Schmidley & Gibson 1999). We expect registering and voting participation among the naturalized population to be patterned in much the same way as the naturalization behavior among the foreign-born population.5
488
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
We consider how region of origin is related to registering and voting, and we expect that naturalized citizens may be more likely to register and vote than native-born individuals because of their assimilation process along ethnic lines, which has boundaries largely drawn by region of origin. We expect that those of European origin are more likely to register and vote than those from Latin America and Asia, all else being equal. Time in the U.S. Length of time in the U.S. is an important factor to consider when analyzing registering and voting participation among naturalized citizens because it is associated with the degree to which an immigrant may be assimilated. However, we found no published study on voting participation that included length of time in the U.S. as a variable of interest. Clearly, assimilation is a gradual process which takes place over a number of years that may also parallel the development of increased political involvement. Those naturalized citizens who have lived in the U.S. longer have had more time to become integrated into local customs, social networks and institutions, and political structures. We investigate whether time in the U.S. is associated with the likelihood of registering and voting among naturalized citizens. Recently naturalized citizens have had the opportunity to register at their swearing-in ceremony and therefore might be more likely to be registered and therefore qualified to vote than citizens who naturalized earlier who had to register as a separate process. Also, naturalized citizens in the late 1980’s and the 1990’s became citizens at a time when the climate of opinion toward immigration was more critical, and at a time when the naturalized population as a whole was becoming more politically mobilized in order to protect access to services. In contrast, naturalized citizens who have lived in the U.S. longer may have had more time to assimilate into their communities, to become familiar with the issues and candidates, and to develop their own set of special interests. We believe that longevity in the U.S. influences electoral participation and that taking into account these two contradictory forces, those who have been in the U.S. for longer periods of time will still be more likely to register and vote. Gender Among naturalized citizens, research on naturalization rates and on participation in civic activities suggests that women may be more likely to register and vote than men. First, data collected on the naturalization immigrants in the New York found that women naturalize at higher rates than men (see Salvo & Ortiz 1992: 47). Women are therefore more likely to be qualified to register and vote. Also, Jones-Correa (1998) maintains that among Latin American immigrants, women draw on and become more invested in U.S.
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
489
political and governmental systems, while men remain less integrated and continue to rely on their old networks for many years after entering the U.S. He therefore suggests that Latin American immigrant women learn to use U.S. institutions and become politically integrated more quickly than men. Jones-Correa draws on qualitative data from New York City, so this research may not be representative of the total U.S. Latin American immigrant population. In this research, we include a variable, female, in the naturalized citizen models of registering and voting behavior. Importance of controlling for other socio-economic and demographic factors It is important to control for socio-economic status because it has been established that those of higher socio-economic status – income, education, occupation, employment status – are more likely to register and vote. It also has been established that male immigrants earned substantially less than native-born Americans at time of entry and even after 40 years in the U.S. (Borjas 1990; 1989). If these immigrants do not achieve economic parity of the native-born during their lifetimes, there are real implications for their assimilation into social and political life. In addition to considering the socioeconomic variable, education, DeSipio (1996) points to the need to consider the demographic variable, age, among the naturalized population. He found that although naturalization is a negative influence on electoral participation, increasing levels of education and of age are more powerful positive influences on electoral participation. Theoretically, it is not clear from previous research whether to control for region of residence in the U.S. among the naturalized citizen population, so the Goodness of Fit (G2 statistic) test will be used to find the best-fitted model. The difference in electoral participation between the South and other regions is attributed to the effect of election laws passed in the South in the late 19th century, which effectively reduced the voting of blacks and of poor whites (Rusk & Stucker 1978; Chen 1992). This historical political disenfranchisement should not be felt at the same magnitude by more recent immigrants, so we estimate models both with and without these variables. In this study, we improve upon previous research by considering differences in registering and voting between naturalized and native-born citizens and among naturalized citizens in a multivariate framework. We expect the same factors considered for the overall citizen population to predict the propensity to register and vote among naturalized citizens – age, gender, marital status, race, and Hispanic origin, education, income, occupation, employment status, home ownership, and length of time at current residence. Additionally, among the naturalized population, we expect region of origin
490
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
and time in the U.S. to be associated with the likelihood of registering and voting.
Data and analytical samples The analysis in this paper is based on data from the November 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The CPS is a nationally representative household survey of the civilian noninstitutionalized population of the United States. In 1996, approximately 48,000 households were sampled in 754 primary sampling units (PSUs). The interviewed households contain about 95,000 people 15 years old and over. The Voting and Registration Supplement of the CPS is administered in November in congressional and presidential election years, and collects information on registering and voting behavior for all civilian household members who are citizens of voting age. In November 1996, respondents were asked if they voted in the election held on November 5, 1996. If they responded yes, they were considered to have been registered; if not, they were asked an additional question about whether or not they were registered. The November 1996 CPS represents the first time in a presidential election that the survey collected detailed information on citizenship status. Beginning in 1994, the CPS began asking direct questions on citizenship status and editing and allocating the responses for consistency and completeness.6 These additional questions allow us to examine electoral behavior with CPS data among the citizen population, between native-born and naturalized citizens, and among naturalized citizens. Estimates from the November 1996 CPS indicate that there were 179.9 million citizens 18 years and over who were eligible to register and vote, of which 171.7 million were native-born and 8.2 million were naturalized.7 Our sample consists of all eligible citizens for whom we have valid registering and voting data resulting in 78,195 unweighted cases for the registering models and 78,309 unweighted cases for the voting models. Our analytic sample for the naturalized citizen models includes all eligible naturalized citizens with valid registering and voting data, resulting in 3,078 unweighted cases for the registering model and 3,100 unweighted cases for the voting model.8 For the logistic regressions shown in this paper, the observations were first weighted, then divided by the average weight of the sample to approximate the actual number of cases in the regression.9
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
491
Multivariate methods Overall, we specify eight logistic regression models to examine registering and voting: two models for all citizens, four models demarcating differences between naturalized and native-born citizens, and two models for all naturalized citizens. Models 1 through 4 examine registering, and models 5 through 8 examine voting. Dependent variables Registration and voting We use dichotomous variables to indicate whether or not an individual reported registering or voting in the 1996 election. We include all valid responses to this question whether the response was self-reported or reported by a proxy. Independent variables Nativity status Based on previous research and our earlier discussion, we believe that nativity status matters in predicting the likelihood that an individual will register and vote. Our measure of nativity status is dichotomous indicating whether a citizen is naturalized or native-born; native-born is the omitted category. Region of origin The propensity to register and vote is likely to be related to an individual’s region of origin. We created a set of dummy variables to represent four different regions of the world: Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Other North American countries.10 The omitted category is the U.S. and its territories when considering the citizen population overall and Europe when considering the naturalized population. Time in the U.S. We use a set of dummy variables to ascertain whether time in the U.S. is related to the likelihood that a naturalized citizen will vote. The categories are: arrived from 1986 to 1996, arrived from 1965 to 1985, arrived from 1950 to 1964, and arrived before 1950.11 The omitted category is arrived from 1986 to 1996 (within the last ten years). Other factors To assess accurately whether naturalized citizens are more likely to report that they register and vote than native-born citizens, and whether region of origin, and time in the U.S. make a difference in registering and voting among
127,661 59,672 67,989 12,018 10,457 12,321 28,828 23,559 15,930 14,218 8,369 1,960 104,101 13,991 6,435 3,135 79,349 949 9,419 11,576 2,657 23,712
Total
179,936 85,753 94,183 22,474 17,050 18,801 39,935 30,828 19,959 17,559 10,533 2,797 142,597 21,040 10,906 5,393 103,466 1,456 12,814 17,647 4,357 40,195
Characteristics
Total, 18 years and over Gender Male Female Age 18 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 to 84 years 85 years and over Race White Black Hispanic Other, not Hispanic Marital status Married – spouse present Married – spouse absent Widowed Divorced Separated Never married 76.7 65.2 73.5 65.6 61.0 59.0
73.0 66.5 59.0 58.1
53.5 61.3 65.5 72.2 76.4 79.8 81.0 79.5 70.1
69.6 72.2
70.9
All citizens Reported registered Number Percent
68,136 732 7,727 8,861 1,926 17,635
86,604 11,156 4,834 2,423
7,996 7,653 9,613 23,785 20,360 14,255 12,748 7,147 1,461
48,909 56,108
105,017
65.9 50.3 60.3 50.2 44.2 43.9
60.7 53.0 44.3 44.9
35.6 44.9 51.1 59.6 66.0 71.4 72.6 67.9 52.2
57.0 59.6
58.4
Reported voted Number Percent
98,055 1,326 12,070 17,057 4,196 39,009
139,370 20,531 8,683 3,129
22,029 16,465 18,111 38,018 29,306 18,744 16,518 10,015 2,507
81,896 89,818
171,713
77.4 66.1 73.9 65.7 61.1 59.2
73.1 66.6 58.6 58.9
53.6 62.0 66.0 72.8 77.2 80.4 81.5 79.5 70.1
70.0 72.6
71.3
Citizen population Native-born Total Percent registered
66.5 51.1 60.5 50.2 43.8 43.9
60.8 53.0 42.2 45.0
35.6 45.3 51.4 60.1 66.8 72.0 73.2 68.0 51.9
57.3 59.9
58.6
Percent voted
Table 1. Reported voting and registration among citizens, by Nativity Status: November 1996 (Numbers in thousands)
5,411 130 744 590 162 1,186
3,226 509 2,223 2,264
445 585 690 1,917 1,522 1,216 1,041 518 289
3,857 4,365
8,223
64.8 55.5 67.9 62.9 51.8 53.1
68.5 63.6 60.7 57.1
46.7 44.1 54.5 60.4 62.2 71.6 72.2 78.6 69.9
61.7 64.0
63.0
Naturalized Total Percent registered
54.3 42.5 57.7 51.0 53.8 44.3
57.9 55.8 52.5 44.9
37.3 34.3 43.8 49.5 51.3 63.3 63.9 65.7 55.6
52.5 52.9
52.7
Percent voted
492 LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
Educational attainment Less than high school High school grad. or GED Some college or Assoc. degree Bachelor’s degree Advanced degree Employment status Employed Unemployed Not in the labor force Occupation Managerial and professional Technical, sales, and admin. Service occupations Farming, forestry, and fishing Prec. prod., craft, and repair Operators and laborers
Characteristics
Table 1. Continued
15,756 40,542 37,160 22,752 11,451 84,166 3,365 40,129 29,889 26,068 9,083 1,893 7,811 9,423
29,078 61,931 48,838 27,339 12,750 117,048 5,743 57,146 35,975 35,366 14,336 2,713 12,598 16,060
Total
83.1 73.7 63.4 69.8 62.0 58.7
71.9 58.6 70.2
54.2 65.5 76.1 83.2 89.8
All citizens Reported registered Number Percent
26,309 21,530 6,992 1,557 5,988 6,923
69,300 2,383 33,335
11,287 32,019 30,835 20,256 10,621
73.1 60.9 48.8 57.4 47.5 43.1
59.2 41.5 58.3
38.8 51.7 63.1 74.1 83.3
Reported voted Number Percent
34,341 33,931 13,673 2,619 11,993 15,419
111,976 5,498 54,239
27,181 59,819 46,988 25,754 11,971
83.6 74.1 63.9 70.9 62.5 59.0
72.4 58.3 70.5
54.2 65.7 76.4 84.3 90.5
Citizen population Native-born Total Percent registered
73.6 61.3 49.2 58.2 47.9 43.1
59.6 40.8 58.5
38.5 51.9 63.3 75.2 84.2
Percent voted
1,634 1,435 663 94 605 641
5,072 244 2,907
1,897 2,112 1,850 1,585 779
71.3 63.4 53.4 39.1 52.9 50.7
61.3 64.6 65.7
53.6 57.6 68.8 66.3 79.6
Naturalized Total Percent registered
62.7 51.4 41.0 34.8 41.0 43.7
51.1 56.3 55.2
43.8 46.4 58.5 56.5 69.9
Percent voted
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
493
9,717 8,922 15,569 16,728 20,999 23,407 20,509 11,812 98,562 27,450 1,649 15,747 17,319 16,855 77,216 525 24,772 32,364 44,891 25,634
16,666 13,791 23,329 23,898 28,245 29,435 24,127 20,444 129,906 47,458 2,572 26,822 25,523 22,921 94,456 10,215 35,147 43,861 64,726 36,202
Total
70.5 73.8 69.4 70.8
58.7 67.9 73.5 81.8 5.1
75.9 57.8 64.1
58.3 64.7 66.7 70.0 74.4 79.5 85.0 57.8
All citizens Reported registered Number Percent
20,852 26,798 35,550 21,816
11,218 13,671 13,965 65,759 40
83,579 20,107 1,332
6,864 6,739 12,252 13,413 17,454 20,186 18,243 9,866
59.3 61.1 54.9 60.3
41.8 53.6 60.9 69.6 4.0
64.3 42.4 51.8
41.2 48.9 52.5 56.1 61.8 68.6 75.6 48.3
Reported voted Number Percent
32,711 42,893 62,644 33,465
25,794 24,429 21,826 90,104 9,561
124,146 45,064 2,503
15,946 13,211 22,301 22,882 26,950 28,134 22,839 19,451
71.0 74.0 69.6 71.5
59.0 68.2 74.0 82.1 5.1
76.3 58.0 64.8
58.3 64.8 67.1 70.4 74.8 80.0 85.4 58.6
Citizen population Native-born Total Percent registered
60.8 61.3 55.1 60.8
41.9 53.8 61.3 69.9 3.9
64.7 42.2 52.2
40.9 48.7 52.7 56.4 62.1 69.1 76.0 49.0
Percent voted
2,437 967 2,082 2,737
1,027 1,094 1,095 4,351 654
1,027 4,384 455
720 580 1,029 1,017 1,295 1,301 1,288 993
63.9 65.6 61.1 62.6
51.2 59.4 64.4 74.8 6.4
66.3 55.7 38.7
55.1 62.2 57.9 61.2 65.4 68.8 78.7 42.1
Naturalized Total Percent registered
1/ Income for individuals living in family households is family income, while income for unrelated individuals is personal income. Source: Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
Income 1/ Under $10.000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 and over Income not reported Tenure Owned Renter-occupied units Occupied without payment Length of time at residence Under 1 year 1 to 2 years 3 to 4 years 5 years or longer Not reported Region of residence Northeast Midwest South West
Characteristics
Table 1. Continued
53.5 53.5 49.7 54.0
38.7 48.3 54.5 63.9 4.7
55.9 45.6 35.2
46.8 52.4 48.4 50.2 55.1 57.6 69.4 33.2
Percent voted
494 LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
495
naturalized citizens, it is vital to control for other factors already known to be related to registering and voting. We include in all models several categorical variables known to be related to registering and voting: gender, race and Hispanic origin,12 marital status, educational attainment, occupation, employment status, home ownership, and length of time at residence. We also include two variables for age and income.13
Results Registering and voting for all citizens The baseline analysis shown in Models 1 and 5 (Tables 2 and 3, respectively) indicate that previously found relationships continue to be important for all citizens in predicting electoral behavior using the CPS data from the 1996 election. With increasing age, it is evident that individuals are more likely to register and vote, net of other factors. The odds of registering and voting for women are about 20 percent greater than for men. By controlling for other factors, we see that the odds of voting and registering are about 50 percent higher for Blacks than for Whites. While Hispanics were less likely than Whites to have registered, they were almost twice as likely to have voted, again, net of other factors. People of other races were less likely to register and vote than Whites.14 Married individuals are more likely, while divorced, separated, and widowed individuals are less likely to register and vote than the never married. In general, registering and voting go hand in hand along all variables in the baseline model among all citizens. Consistent with earlier findings by Kelley et al. (1967), citizens with more education, higher income levels, and professional jobs are more likely to register and vote than citizens with less education, lower income levels, and non-professional occupations. Those who are employed and homeowners are more likely to register and vote. Agreeing with earlier research about length of time at current residence (Squire et al. 1987), we found that those who have been at their current address for five years or more have odds of registering and voting that are almost twice as high as those at their current residence for less than one year. Across regions, the South remains the region where individuals are least likely to vote. Registering and voting among naturalized and native-born citizens Overall, we found that naturalized citizens are less likely to register and to vote (Models 2 and 6) once other factors are controlled for. The odds of registering are 36 percent less, and the odds of voting are 26 percent less for naturalized than for native-born citizens. When nativity status is included
Nativity status Native born (R) Naturalized Time in the U.S. Entered in 1986 or later (R) Entered between 1965 and 1985 Entered between 1950 and 1964 Entered before 1950 Region of origin U.S. and territories Europe Asia Latin America Other North America Sex Female Age, 18 to 99 years
Characteristics
1.22∗ 1.03∗
(0.022) (0.001)
1.22∗ 1.03∗
(R) 0.64∗
(0.023) (0.001)
(0.055)
Odds of reported registration All citizens Model 1 Model 2 Odds Odds ratio SE ratio SE
1.22∗ 1.03∗
(R) 0.75∗ 0.57∗ 0.74∗ 0.80
(0.023) (0.001)
(0.088) (0.099) (0.087) (0.246)
Model 4 Odds ratio SE
Table 2. Odds of reported registration among all citizens and naturalized citizens: November 1996
1.07 1.03∗
(R) 1.11 0.97 1.43
(R) 1.68∗ 2.74∗ 3.40∗
(0.119) (0.005)
(0.357) (0.249) (0.321)
(0.166) (0.230) (0.320)
Naturalized citizens Model 4 Odds ratio SE
496 LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
Race White, non-Hispanic (R) Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic, regardless of race Other race Marital status Never married (R) Married Widowed, divorced, separated Education High school, GED or less (R) At least some college Employment status Employed Not employed Not in labor force (R) Occupation Professional All other (R)
Characteristics
Table 2. Continued
(0.025)
(R) 2.91∗
1.51∗ (R)
(0.036)
(0.029) (0.059)
(0.031) (0.038)
1.19∗ 0.87∗
1.17∗ 1.11+ (R)
(0.036) (0.044) (0.061)
(R) 1.49∗ 0.91+ 0.54∗
1.51∗ (R)
1.18∗ 1.12∧ (R)
(R) 2.92∗
1.20∗ 0.87∗
(R) 1.50∗ 0.99 0.64∗
Odds of reported registration All citizens Model 1 Model 2 Odds Odds ratio SE ratio
(0.036)
(0.029) (0.059)
(0.025)
(0.031) (0.038)
(0.036) (0.045) (0.065)
SE
1.51∗ (R)
1.20∗ 0.87+ (R)
(R) 2.92∗
1.20∗ 0.87∗
(R) 1.49∗ 0.96 0.68∗
Model 4 Odds ratio
(0.036)
(0.029) (0.059)
(0.025)
(0.031) (0.038)
(0.036) (0.048) (0.074)
SE
1.25∗ (R)
1.06 1.64+ (R)
(R) 2.24∗
0.85 0.71+
(R) 1.35 0.87 0.83
(0.170)
(0.152) (0.343)
(0.133)
(0.182) (0.233)
(0.384) (0.318) (0.232)
Naturalized citizens Model 4 Odds ratio SE
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
497
(0.032) (0.034)
(0.028)
0.98 (0.031) (0.030) 1.20∗ (R) (0.032) 1.08∗ n = 78195
(R) 1.27∗ 1.93∗
1.31∗ (R)
(0.032) (0.034)
(0.028)
1.00 (0.032) 1.20∗ (0.030) (R) 1.09∗ (0.032) n = 78195
(R) 1.27∗ 1.93∗
1.31∗ (R)
(0.008) (0.040)
1.08∗
R = omitted category. Source: Current Population Survey (CPS) data.
(0.032) (0.034)
(0.028)
(0.008) (0.040)
SE
0.99 1.20∗ (0.030) (R) (0.032) n = 78195
(R) 1.27∗ 1.93∗
1.31∗ (R)
1.12∗ 0.88∗
1.12∗ 0.89∗
1.12∗ 0.89∗ 0(.008) (0.040)
Model 4 Odds ratio
Odds of reported registration All citizens Model 1 Model 2 Odds Odds ratio SE ratio SE
∗ Significant at 0.01 level. + Significant at 0.05 level. ∧ Significant at 0.10 level.
Income Dummy for income Tenure Owns Rents (R) Length of time at address Less than 1 year (R) 1 to 4 years 5 or more years Region of residence Northeast Midwest South (R) West
Characteristics
Table 2. Continued
(0.032)
n = 3078
(R) 1.28+ 1.50∗
1.08 (R)
1.11∗ 0.50∗
(0.172) (0.175)
(0.139)
(0.038) (0.192)
Naturalized citizens Model 4 Odds ratio SE
498 LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
1.20∗ 1.03∗
Characteristics
Nativity status Native-born (R) Naturalized Time in the U.S. Entered in 1986 or later (R) Entered between 1965 and 1985 Entered between 1950 and 1964 Entered before 1950 Region of origin U.S. and territories Europe Asia Latin America Other North America Sex Female Age, 18 to 99 years (0.020) (0.001)
Odds of reported voting All citizens Model 5 Odds ratio SE
1.21∗ 1.03∗
(R) 0.74∗
(0.020) (0.001)
(0.051)
Model 6 Odds ratio SE
Table 3. Odds of reported voting among all citizens and naturalized citizens: November 1996
1.21∗ 1.03∗
(R) 0.74∗ 0.62∗ 1.05 0.87
(0.020) (0.001)
(0.078) (0.093) (0.082) (0.214)
Model 7 Odds ratio SE
0.99 1.02∗
(R) 1.11 0.91+ 1.68
(R) 1.33∗ 2.02∗ 2.14∗
(0.110) (0.005)
(0.227) (0.296) (0.301)
(0.221) (0.238) 0.282)
Naturalized citizens Model 8 Odds ratio SE
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
499
Race White, non-Hispanic (R) Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic, regardless of race Other race Marital status Never married (R) Married Widowed, divorced, separated Education High school, GED or less (R) At least some college Employment status Employed Not employed Not in labor force (R) Occupation Professional All other (R)
Characteristics
Table 3. Continued
(0.022)
(R) 2.72∗
1.44∗ (R)
(0.030)
(0.026) (0.058)
(0.028) (0.035)
(R) 1.20∗ 0.76∗
1.16∗ 1.01 (R)
(0.033) (0.042) (0.059)
(R) 1.55∗ 1.88∗ 0.54∗
Odds of reported voting All citizens Model 5 Odds ratio SE
1.44∗ (R)
1.16∗ 1.02 (R)
(R) 2.73∗
(R) 1.21∗ 0.76∗
(R) 1.54∗ 0.93+ 0.61∗
Model 6 Odds ratio
(0.030)
(0.026) (0.058)
(0.022)
(0.028) (0.035)
(0.033) (0.043) (.062)
SE
1.43∗ (R)
1.16∗ 1.01 (R)
(R) 2.73∗
(R) 1.20∗ 0.76∗
(R) 1.53∗ 0.86∗ 0.65∗
Model 7 Odds ratio
(0.030)
(0.026) (0.058)
(0.022)
(0.028) (0.035)
(0.033) (0.046) (0.070)
SE
1.35∗ (R)
0.96 1.66+ (R)
(R) 2.12∗
(R) 0.80∧ 0.76∧
(R) 1.23 0.85 0.86
(0.153)
(0.143) (0.321)
(0.122)
(0.172) (0.217)
(0.349) (0.294) 0(.214)
Naturalized citizens Model 8 Odds ratio SE
500 LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
n = 78309
1.13∗ 1.89∗ (R) 1.31∗
(R) 1.40∗ 1.89∗
1.34∗ (R)
(0.029)
(0.028) (0.026)
(0.030) (0.031)
(0.026)
n = 78309
1.15∗ 1.26∗ (R) 1.32∗
(R) 1.40∗ 1.89∗
1.34∗ (R)
1.14∗ 0.88∗
1.14∗ 0.88∗ (0.007) 0.035)
Model 6 Odds ratio
Odds of reported voting All citizens Model 5 Odds ratio SE
(0.029)
(0.028) (0.026)
(0.030) (0.031)
(0.026)
(0.007) (0.035)
SE
R = omitted category. Source: Current Population Survey (CPS).
∗ Significant at 0.01 level. + Significant at 0.05 level. ∧ Significant at 0.10 level.
Income Dummy for income Tenure Owns Rents (R) Length of time at address Less than 1 year (R) 1 to 4 years 5 or more years Region of residence Northeast Midwest South (R) West Intercept
Characteristics
Table 3. Continued
n = 78309
1.14∗ 1.26∗ (R) 1.32∗
(R) 1.40∗ 1.88∗
1.33∗ (R)
1.14∗ 0.88∗
Model 7 Odds ratio
(0.029)
(0.028) (0.026)
(0.030) (0.031)
(0.026)
(0.007) (0.035)
SE
n = 3100
(R)
(R) 1.41∗ 1.69∗
1.04 (R)
1.13∗ 0.50∗
(0.167) (0.167)
(0.130)
(0.036) (0.181)
Naturalized citizens Model 8 Odds ratio SE
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
501
502
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
in the registration model, Hispanic is no longer significant which suggests a confounding relationship between nativity status and the Hispanic race category. Once naturalization is accounted for in the voting model, the direction of the Hispanic effect is reversed indicating that Hispanics are actually less likely to vote than Whites. The odds ratio for the Midwest is also reduced substantially in this model. The other parameters remain the same in the models, suggesting that no masked effects of nativity status are manifested through the other variables. Models 3 and 7 show that region of origin is a significant factor among all citizens in predicting the likelihood that an individual will register and vote. Model 3 indicates that those from Europe, Asia and the Pacific Islands, and Latin America are less likely to register than those born in the United States, again controlling for the baseline variables used in this analysis. Model 7 indicates that the odds of voting are 26 percent lower for those of European origin and 38 percent lower for those from Asia compared with those born in the U.S. There is no significant difference in the propensity to vote between native-born U.S. citizens and those from Latin America or other North American countries. In general, the odds ratios and the direction of the effects of the other variables remain the same when region of origin variables are included in the model. Electoral participation is patterned by region of origin lending credence to the idea that pan-ethnicity demarcated by region of origin and reinforced by the Anglo population does, indeed, affect registering and voting behavior. Registering and voting among naturalized citizens To understand the propensity to register and vote among the naturalized citizen population, Models 4 and 8 use the base model and include measures for time in the U.S. and region of origin. As expected, the odds of registering and voting are generally higher for those who have been in the U.S. for longer periods of time. Our findings show that those who entered the U.S. in 1986 or later are less likely to register and to vote than those who entered the U.S. before 1986. Contrary to our expectations, when time in the U.S. is included, region of origin no longer predicts the propensity to vote among naturalized citizens from Asia and Other North America countries. However, Latin American origin remains a significant predictor in the voting model; the odds of voting for those from Latin America are 9 percent lower than those of European Origin, even when time in the U.S. is included in the model. Overall, the prominent predictors of registering and voting among naturalized citizens are time in the U.S., age, educational level, income, occupation, and length of time at current residence. Some of the baseline variables in
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
503
the naturalized voting model behaved much the same as they did in the other models. With increasing age and income, naturalized citizens are more likely to register and vote. Among naturalized citizens, those with professional occupations have higher odds of registering and voting than those with other occupations. Again, among naturalized citizens, education is a strong predictor of both registering and voting; those with at least some college education have odds of registering and voting that are more than twice as high as those with a high school degree or less. The longer a naturalized citizen has resided at her/his current residence, the more likely s/he is to register and vote. Some of the variables in Models 4 and 8 did not have the expected effects. The effects of marital status are not the same for native-born and naturalized citizens. For example, among all citizens married individuals are more likely than the never married to vote while the opposite is true for naturalized citizens. Also in contrast to the citizen population, race and Hispanic origin, gender, employment, and home ownership are not significant predictors of the propensity to register and vote among naturalized citizens. The region of residence in the U.S. measures were dropped from the final model for naturalized citizens due to the better fit of the model without these control variables. Overall, a divergent set of variables is associated with registering and voting for naturalized citizens, compared with all citizens.
Discussion and conclusion Voting research conducted in the 1970’s and 1980’s demonstrated that those who are more established in society are the most likely to register and vote. Our research using November 1996 CPS data shows that this trend continues in the 1990’s and can be extended to the naturalized population, although fewer socio-economic factors are associated with voting behavior among the naturalized population. Even when controlling for other variables in the model, among the citizen population those who are more established in society are the most likely to register and vote – older individuals, homeowners, those with a longer length of time at current residence, married couples, and people with more schooling, higher incomes, and good jobs. Race is also an important factor related to whether a citizen will register and vote. These findings are consistent with previous studies on voting participation, and, further, show the importance of social, economic, and demographic characteristics in predicting voting behavior. In contrast to previous research (Leighley & Nagler 1992) showing that education was much more important than race in affecting voter turnout, we
504
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
find that race and education are both very strong predictors of the propensity to register and to vote – at least among the citizen population. Blacks have odds of registering and voting that are 50 percent higher than for Whites, when nativity status and baseline variables are included in the model. Among naturalized citizens race did not seem to matter, perhaps because race does not have the same social connotations in the countries of origin of naturalized citizens as it does in the U.S., or perhaps because race is more homogeneous within the regions of origin. Overall, we find that the odds of registering among naturalized citizens are 36 percent lower and the odds of voting are 26 percent lower than those of native-born citizens. This may be because naturalized citizens in general have not developed strong ties within their communities or do not relate as well as the native born to the issues or candidates. Further, this is likely related to the assimilation process of immigrants. One might expect that the more time naturalized citizens spend in the U.S. the more assimilated they become, building stronger ties to community and becoming more integrated into U.S. institutions and social customs. The time in the U.S. measure among naturalized citizens does provide evidence of this; with each incremental length of time in the U.S., naturalized citizens are more likely to register and more likely to vote, net of other factors. Lien (1994) has made the case that attachment to home country does not matter in predicting the participation among Asian Americans and Mexican Americans, but attachment and integration in the U.S. do matter. While the CPS data do not allow us to ascertain how attachment to the country of origin affects voting and registration, they do provide evidence suggesting that integration into the U.S. does matter. Thus, the assimilation argument is supported by the data when it comes to electoral participation. The extent that naturalized citizens are more integrated into their communities, are more familiar with the issues and candidates, and find the issues more applicable to themselves is a reasonable explanation for greater participation with a longer length of time in the U.S. Outside of this classical assimilation paradigm, recent public debate over access to public services and citizenship also may have affected the propensity to vote among all naturalized citizens. For example, if the CPS had data on why people voted, we may have found that some naturalized citizens who sympathize with other immigrants are more likely to vote than native-born citizens because they feel they must vote to protect the rights and public resources available to new immigrants who have not yet attained citizenship. We also may have found that the associations between other socioeconomic and demographic factors and electoral participation are significantly diminished or even eliminated if we could consider the reasons people voted. For example, Manza and Brooks
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
505
(1998) found from the American National Election Studies data that feminist consciousness is a significant factor shaping women’s voting behavior – not only examining if women would vote but also how they would vote. Additional questions that can be used to consider factors unique to the immigration experience may explain electoral differences among the naturalized population. For example, Lien (1994) controls for levels of acculturation, ethnic ties, group identification, alienation, and deprivation, and DeSipio (1996) controls for language usage among the naturalized population to predict voter participation. Our results also indicate that different factors are important in predicting the registering and voting behavior of naturalized and all citizens. While factors such as age, education, and income are significant predictors of the propensity to register and vote in both groups, other factors like home ownership, and employment are not significant predictors of whether an individual will register and vote among the naturalized citizen population. In other research of the naturalized citizen population (Bass & Casper 2001), we find that country of origin differentiates registering and voting behavior, and being registered is a necessary but not sufficient condition that predicts voting among naturalized citizens from Asia and Latin America. In addition, the effects of marital status and gender are inconsistent across models. Voting studies based on recent data have reported that women are more likely to register and vote than men. When we tested whether this holds among all naturalized women and men, we found that naturalized women are no more likely than naturalized men to vote (Model 8). We also found that while marriage was associated with a higher level of voting among the citizen population, among the naturalized population it was not. These findings suggest there may be conditional effects of gender, marital status, and nativity status. To test for this possibility, we specified models that included a set of dummy variables for the joint classification of the three variables. The results (data not shown here) clearly demonstrate the reasons for the inconsistencies among the models presented in Tables 2 and 3. The effects of marriage across nativity status differ for women and men. Among women, native-born married women were significantly more likely than women in any other group to register and vote. More importantly, these women were substantially more likely to register and vote than their unmarried counterparts, while among naturalized women, the opposite is true. By contrast, married native-born men were much more likely than men in any of the other three categories to register and vote. Voting levels were not significantly different from men in any of the other three marital statusnativity status groups. Thus, naturalized men were no more likely to vote regardless of whether they were married or not. Women were much more
506
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
likely to vote than men in every native-born category, but we did not find this across naturalized citizen categories. These patterns help to explain the differences in the gender and marital status variables across the models. When all citizens are considered, the relationships of the most populous group drive the model. Because women are more likely to vote in most of the categories (except among married naturalized citizens, a relatively small group), the effect is significant in the models containing all citizens. When the model is restricted to naturalized citizens the gender effect disappears and the effect of marital status changes, because married naturalized women are less likely to register and vote than married naturalized men, while among the unmarried naturalized there is no significant difference in their likelihood of registering and voting. Given the differences in men’s and women’s voting by marital status in the naturalized population and given that research has shown higher levels of political involvement for women from some countries than from others, we estimated the baseline models for the naturalized population including the interaction effects of region of origin and sex. This model reveals that Latin American women are much more likely to vote than Latin American men and than men or women from any other region of origin. The findings also revealed that men and women from Europe and other North American countries were about equally as likely to vote, whereas Asian women were less likely to vote than Asian men. This finding further supports Jones-Correa’s (1998) qualitative finding that political socialization is gendered, and that immigrant Latin American women are more integrated in U.S. politics and civics than men. Indeed, not only are naturalized Hispanic women more likely to shift their civic orientation toward the U.S. than men, but Hispanic women are more likely to register and participate in elections. Traditionally, political participation is defined as actions of private citizens who seek to influence the selection of government officials or the action of government officials (Verba & Nie 1972). However, there are other nonelectoral forms of political participation such as providing campaign contributions or attending a demonstration or rally. Several studies maintain that political participation is multidimensional and includes both electoral and nonelectoral activities (Verba & Nie 1972; Milbrath & Goel 1977; Bobo & Gilliam 1990). Naturalized citizens come from various cultures that may define political participation differently, and, therefore, some may participate in political activities that are simply outside the focus of this research and are therefore not analyzed. Those who register and vote experience a different intensity of political involvement than those who join with a group to solve a community problem. Those individuals who are likely to mobilize around an issue, like the Elian case in Miami or a referendum limiting access to services, may be a
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
507
more galvanized voting contingent, or, conversely, may be substituting these other political activities for electoral participation. It is therefore important for future research to consider both the attitude on an issue and the willingness to mobilize others or join an organized group to make political change happen outside the electoral process. Some nationalities may be more issue oriented and less likely to vote in presidential elections when there is not a referendum on the ballot that directly affects them. Future research may find that naturalized citizens have different ways of participating in the political process outside of voting. However, this research provides a baseline for future analysis on the voting behavior of naturalized citizens and the differences in voting behavior between naturalized and native-born citizens. Participation in the electoral process – whether it be registering or voting – has much to be understood. The behavior of the naturalized population is much more complex than has been previously stated. Indeed, the lower rate of registration and voter participation compared with the native-born invites more comprehensive examination as does the complicated relationship between gender, marital status, and region of origin and how these relationships affect the voting and registration behaviors of naturalized citizens.
Acknowledgments A previous version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA), San Francisco, CA, August 1998. We wish to thank Martin O’Connell, the anonymous reviewers, and the editor of Population Research and Policy Review, for their helpful comments. The findings and opinions expressed are attributable to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NICHD.
Notes 1. Despite this increase in naturalization in the mid-1990s, the proportion of naturalized citizens in the foreign-born population is at its lowest point, 35 percent, in the last century. See Schmidley & Gibson (1999) for a more complete discussion of the U.S. foreign-born population. 2. The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 increased the number of immigrants from Asia and Latin America. Prior to the 1965 legislation, most immigrants were white Europeans or those from Northern America (essentially Canada). Census data from 1960 show that 75 percent of immigrants were from Europe and an additional 10 percent were from Northern America. Currently, over 75 percent of the U.S. foreign-born population is either from Latin America or Asia; 51 percent is from Latin America and 27 percent is from Asia.
508
3. 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. 13.
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
Changes in immigration law have, in turn, altered the racial-ethnic composition of the U.S. naturalized population. This study uses the Census Bureau definition of Latin America, which includes Mexico, Central America, South America, and Latino countries of the Caribbean. Different countries and regions of the world have been found to allow and exhibit different levels of political participation (Inglehart 1997). However, the CPS data do not ask why people voted, and, therefore, cannot distinguish whether naturalized citizens have a predisposition to electoral participation or whether immigrants from the same region have similar behavior because they are treated similarly by the native-born population. No single study examines simultaneously all variables that may influence the naturalization process, but higher naturalization rates are associated with such factors as higher educational levels, higher incomes, longer length of residence, area of residence in the U.S., race, and age. In addition to asking each person’s country of birth, new questions included country of birth of both parents, and citizenship and year of entry for those who were foreign-born. Prior to 1994, questions regarding citizenship status were neither edited, nor allocated, nor consistently asked the same way in different survey years. Hansen & Faber (1997) discuss these question changes in more detail in, ‘The foreign-born population: 1996’. These populations constitute our analytical sample for the descriptive results presented in Table 1 and are represented by 80,943 and 3,591 unweighted cases of native-born and naturalized citizens, respectively. 6339 cases or 7.5 percent of the unweighted cases were excluded from the total citizen analysis due to missing registration data and 6225 cases or 7.4 percent were excluded due to missing voting data. 391 cases or 10.9 percent of the unweighted cases were excluded from the naturalized citizen analysis due to missing registration data and 368 cases or 10.2 percent were excluded due to missing voting data. The CPS has a complex sample design, involving cluster, multistage sampling, and stratification. As a result, standard errors produced by SAS tend to be underestimated. To adjust for these sample ‘design effects’, we multiply the standard errors produced in SAS by 1.20 (the square root of the design effects) in the models containing all citizens, and 1.37 in the models containing naturalized citizens, and recalculate the significance levels based on the adjusted standard errors. The ‘Other North America’ region excludes Mexico, the United States, and U.S. territories. The ‘Latin America’ region includes Mexico. African countries, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, and the Pacific Islands were excluded from this analysis because they did not have enough cases to allow for separate categories. These categories are determined in part by the categorization of the public-use data by the Census Bureau. All arrivals prior to 1950 are topcoded into one variable in order to protect the privacy of sample respondents. The categories constructed are generally in line with major changes in immigration law in the 20th century, namely the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act and the 1986 Immigration and Naturalization Reform Act. We use the terms ‘Black’ and ‘White’ to refer to the joint race and ethnicity classifications of ‘Black, not Hispanic’ and ‘White, not Hispanic’, respectively. Age is a continuous variable. Income is an eight-category variable. Income for related individuals living in family households is family income, while income for unrelated individuals is personal income. Missing income information is coded to the mean income category and we add a dummy variable to indicate whether income data are missing.
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
509
14. Note that both registering and voting findings for Blacks and the voting finding for Hispanics are the reverse in the bivariate analysis (Table 1). To our knowledge, no one has considered race in a multivariate model predicting registration. However, Leighley & Nagler (1992) found that Blacks are more likely to vote than Whites of similar socioeconomic status.
References Alba, R. & Nee, V. (1997), Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of Immigration, International Migration Review 31(4): Winter. Alvarez, R. (1973), A profile of the citizenship process among Hispanics in the United States, International Migration Review 21: 327–352. Bass, L.E. & Casper, L.M. (2001), What social and demographic factors predict who registers and votes among naturalized Americans? Political Behavior 23(2): June. Bobo, L. & Gilliam, Jr., F.D. (1990), Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment, American Political Science Review 84: 377–393. Borjas, G. (1995), Assimilation and changes in cohort quality revisited: What happened to immigrant earnings in the 1980’s? Journal of Labor Economics 13(2): 201–245. Borjas, G. (1990), Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy. New York: Basic Books. Borjas, G. (1989), Immigrant and emigrant earnings: A longitudinal study, Economic Inquiry 27: 21-37. Cain, B.E., Kiewiet, R. & Uhlaner, C.J. (1991). The acquisition of partisanship by Latinos and Asian Americans, American Journal of Political Science 35: 390–422. Callis, R. (1997), Immigration bolsters U.S. housing market. Census Brief. CENBR/97-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Casper, L.M. & Bass, L.E. (1998), Voting and registration in the election of November 1996. Current Population Reports P-20-504. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Chen, K. (1992), Political Alienation and Voting Turnout in the United States, 1960–1988. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press. De la Garza, R.O. & DeSipio, L. (1998), Interests not passions: Mexican-American attitudes toward Mexico, immigration from Mexico, and other issues shaping U.S.-Mexico relations, International Migration Review 32(2), 122, Summer: 401–422. De la Garza, R.O., Falcon, A. & Garcia, C.F. (1996), Will the real Americans please stand up: Anglo and Mexican-American support for core American political values, American Journal of Political Science 40(May): 335–351. De la Garza, R.O., Falcon, A. Garcia, F.C. & Garcia, J. (1992), Hispanic Americans in the mainstream of U.S. politics, The Public Perspective 3(5): 19–23. DeSipio, L. (1996), Making citizens or good citizens? Naturalization as a predictor of organizational and electoral behavior among Latino immigrants, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18(2) May: 194–213. DeSipio, L. (1987), Social science literature and the naturalization process, International Migration Review 21(2) Summer: 390–405. Garcia, F.C., Falcon, A. & de la Garza, R.O. (1996), Ethnicity and politics: evidence from Latino national political survey, Special issue, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18(2). Hansen, K.A. (1997), Geographical mobility: March 1995 to March 1996. Current Population Reports P20-497. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
510
LORETTA E. BASS AND LYNNE M. CASPER
Hansen, K.A. & Faber, C.S. (1997), The foreign-Born population: 1996. Current Population Reports P-20-494. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization – Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Isajiw, W.W. (1974), Definitions of ethnicity, Ethnicity 1: 111–124. Jennings, J.T. (1993), Voting and Registration in the Election of November 1992. Current Population Reports P-20-466. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jennings, J.T. (1989), Voting and Registration in the Election of November 1988. Current Population Reports P-20-440. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jennings, J.T. (1985), Voting and registration in the election of November 1984. Current Population Reports P-20-405. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jennings, J.T. (1983), Voting and registration in the election of November 1982. Current Population Reports P-20-383. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jones-Correa, M. (1998). Different paths: gender, immigration and political participation, International Migration Review 32(2) Summer. Kelley, S. Jr., Ayres, R.E. & Bowen, W.G. (1967), Registration and voting: Putting first things first, American Political Science Review 61: 359–379. Kim, Jae-On, Petrockik, J.R. & Enokson, S.N. (1975), Voter turnout among the American states: Systemic and individual components, American Political Science Review 69: 107– 131. Leighley, J.E. & Nagler, J. (1992), Individual and systemic influences on turnout: who votes? Journal of Politics 54: 718–740. Lewis, P., McCracken, C. & Hunt, R. (1994), Politics: Who cares? American Demographics 16(10). Lien, Pei-te (1994), Ethnicity and political participation: A comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans, Political Behavior 16(2) June: 237–264. Manza, J. & Brooks, C. (1998), The gender gap in U.S. political elections: When? why? implications? American Journal of Sociology 103(5) March: 1235–1266. Milbrath, L.W. & Goel, M.L. (1977), Political Participation, 2nd edition. Chicago: Rand McNally. Portes, A. (1984), The rise of ethnicity: Determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami, American Sociological Review 49: 383–397. Rusk, J. & Stucker, J. (1978), The effect of the southern system of election laws on voting participation: A reply to V.O. Key, Jr., pp. 198–250, in: J. Silbey, A. Bogue, and W. Flanigan (eds.), The History of American Electoral Behavior, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Salvo, J. & Ortiz, R. (1992), The Newest New Yorkers: An Analysis of Immigration into New York City during the 1980’s. New York: Department of City Planning, City of New York. Schmidley, D.A. & Gibson, C. (1999), Profile of the foreign-born population in the United States: 1997. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-195, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC 1999. Smith, J.P. & Edmonston, B. (1997), The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. National Academy Press. Squire, P., Wolfinger, R.E. & Glass, D. (1987). Residential mobility and voter turnout, American Political Science Review 81(1): March. Teixeira, R. (1992), The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
DIFFERENCES IN VOTING BETWEEN NATIVE AND NATURALIZED AMERICANS
511
Uhlaner, C.J. (1991), Political participation and discrimination: A comparative analysis of Asians, blacks, and Latinos, pp. 139–170, in W. Crotty (ed.), Political Participation and American Democracy. Westport, CT: Greenwood. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990), Census of the Population – Social and Economic Characteristics. CP-2-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Verba, S. & Nie, N.H. (1972), Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row. Wolfinger, R. (1994), Improving voter participation, in: P.E. Frank & W.G. Mayer, What to Do: Recommendations for Improving the Electoral Process. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Wolfinger, R. & Rosenstone, S.J. (1980), Who Votes? New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Address for correspondence: Loretta E. Bass, University of Oklahoma, Kaufman Hall, Room 331, 780 Van Vleet Oval, Norman, OK 73019 Phone: 405-325-1751; Fax: 405-325-7825; E-mail:
[email protected] And Lynne M. Casper, Demographic and Behavioral Sciences Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 8B07, Bethesda, MD 20892 Phone: 301-435-6983; E-mail:
[email protected] 
