Census’ claim that black turnout surpassed white in 2012 may be flimsy

On Wednesday, the Census Bureau released its biannual study of voting patterns in federal elections, which included a remarkable finding: African-American voter turnout surpassed that of white, non-Hispanic voters in 2012 for the first time in recent memory, perhaps ever.

USA Today ran this news on the front page, and the report received write-ups in every other major national newspaper. There's only one problem: That landmark may have been passed four years ago. Or maybe not at all.

The uncertainty stems from the fact that the data the census used to create this report has what several experts consider a major hole in it: Data on whether people voted is collected every other November in a supplement to the Current Population Survey, a regular government survey of about 60,000 households. If respondents decline to say whether or not they voted, or if the interviewer does not ask, it is assumed that they did not vote.

According to detailed tables released yesterday, 61.8 percent of those surveyed said they voted, 25.4 percent said they did not, and 12.8 percent did not respond. The census figures combine the second two categories.

As a result, the data appears, at first glance, to generally agree with other methods of measuring voter turnout. The Federal Election Commission reports that 129,067,662 people voted for president in the last election, while the census estimates that 132.9 million people voted—the sort of modest 3 percent difference that one might expect from a survey. (There are, of course, reasons to suspect that the FEC figure is also not perfectly accurate.)

It is only by assuming that all people who did not answer the survey did not vote, however, that the census is able to produce estimates in line with ballot totals. Were it to omit nonresponses, as most surveys do, it would end up with figures that were drastically higher than what the FEC reports.

"They are literally cheating to make it look more accurate," says Jon Krosnick, a polling expert at Stanford who has worked with the Census Bureau. "They have been doing it for a long time."

It's not surprising that the census would otherwise find its data indicated inflated voter participation rates. Surveys of voting behavior, in which people are directly asked whether or not they went to the polls, consistently report significantly higher turnout rates than the actual number of ballots cast would suggest.

There are competing explanations for why this occurs. A study that Krosnick and others conducted for American National Election Studies, an academic survey of civic involvement, suggests that there is a bias in who choses to participate in these studies. As the researchers put it: "[P]eople who vote in elections (and thereby choose to express their political preferences) also appear to be unusually likely to participate in political surveys (and thereby choose to express their political preferences)."

Another, more insidious explanation is that people who are directly asked if they voted are tempted to lie and say they did. Academics know this as the "social desirability bias"—even when responding anonymously, people who did not vote may be tempted to say they did since voting is generally considered a good thing.

"This is a very common problem that post-election surveys have a large amount of over-report bias," says Michael McDonald, a professor at George Mason University who closely tracks studies voting data.

While McDonald is not as bluntly critical of the CPS survey as Krosnick is, he too is skeptical of how it conflates those who said they did not vote with those who didn't respond. When he recalculated the recent census figures for white and black turnout while simply omitting those who did not respond, he found that black voters surpassed white voters in turnout four years ago, by a rate of 78.9 to 75.5. As McDonald wrote yesterday in the Huffington Post:

These adjusted numbers may help resolve another incongruity in the CPS survey data. The Census Bureau reports that the overall number of voters increased from 131.1 million in 2008 to 132.9 million. This can't possibly be correct since my tabulations from official election results show the overall turnout declined from 132.7 million to 130.7 million.

McDonald's corrected figures may produce results more proportional to actual voting records, but the raw numbers are absurdly high.

The Census Bureau is well aware of these mitigating factors. At the end of yesterday's report, the author, Thom File, acknowledges that, "In previous years, the disparity in the estimates in presidential elections has varied between 3 percent and 12 percent of the total number of votes shown as cast in the official tallies." The report also notes that "the respondent's willingness and ability to provide correct and accurate answers" is a potential source of error.

"Our strategy is to be as transparent as we can," File said in an interview today. In the bureau's defense, several of the spreadsheets of data that accompanied yesterday's report included raw data on the number of people who did not complete the survey, allowing for the sort of analysis that McDonald conducts. File defended the observations in his report in spite of these issues.

Information on who turns out to vote in an election is critically important to both parties as they project current party identification forward to predict future elections. The past election very well may have been the first one in which African-American voters turned out in higher proportions than white voters, but yesterday's figures are largely incapable of answering that question.

View the original article here

A State-By-State Look at the Record Black Turnout in 2012

The Census Bureau yesterday verified what initial Associated Press data suggested: turnout among black voters for the first time topped that among whites in 2012. That shift may have affected the results in some states — and could affect perceptions of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing.

RELATED: Rivals Have Little to Say So Far About Perry's N-Word Camp

According to the Bureau's review of the November election, 66.2 percent of registered black voters went to the polls, compared to 64.1 percent of white voters — and only 61.8 percent of voters overall. The election marks the first time that turnout in the African-American community has been higher than in other ethnic groups.

RELATED: Chris Matthews Accuses Romney of 'Encouraging White Anger'

Black turnout was highest in Wisconsin, Mississippi, and North Carolina. The lowest percentages — of eligible black voters, not of voters overall — were in Arizona, Washington, and Arkansas. (Many states have African-American populations too small for the Census Bureau to track; those states are in white in the interactive map below. Otherwise, the darker the color of the state in the map, the higher the turnout.)

RELATED: Herman Cain Says He Proves the Tea Party Isn't Racist

Looking at a map of the results in 2012, it's hard to see a strong correlation between that turnout and electoral results. Here's how each state voted, using the traditional red/Republican, blue/Democrat format.

RELATED: Stuff Cain Says: What Herman Doesn't Know Can Hurt Him

The effect comes into sharper relief when you look at the margin of black turnout — in other words, how much black voters turned out compared to voters on the whole. That gives us this map, wherein darker shaded states indicate higher turnout compared to the voting population, and lighter shades indicate lower margins.

RELATED: Just How Racist Is the 'Obama Phone' Video?

Swing states — Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Wisconsin — had black turnout that was higher than the rest of the population, perhaps in part due to turnout efforts in those states.

With the Supreme Court currently reviewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act, mandating, among other things, that certain states subject new voting plans to the Department of Justice before implementation, it's worth seeing how turnout did in those states. Below are the states that have some form of mandated review, or preclearance.

As may be clear from the maps above, those states didn't see lower-than-average black turnout. In fact, averaging both turnout and deviance from the norm in those Voting Rights Act (VRA) states, we see that they outperformed non-VRA ones.

This data carries a heavy caveat, of course. The 2012 election featured the nation's first African-American president facing off against a not-terribly-popular white Republican. And Voting Rights Act states are commonly ones in which there's a higher percentage of African-Americans; racism against that community is why Congress stepped in to create the VRA in the first place.

The true test will likely come in 2016, when Obama is not on the ticket. It's very likely that black turnout is no longer the highest during that election. And there's a small chance that Latino turnout will be.

View the original article here

In a first, black voter turnout rate passes whites

WASHINGTON (AP) — America's blacks voted at a higher rate than other minority groups in 2012 and by most measures surpassed the white turnout for the first time, reflecting a deeply polarized presidential election in which blacks strongly supported Barack Obama while many whites stayed home.

Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.

Census data and exit polling show that whites and blacks will remain the two largest racial groups of eligible voters for the next decade. Last year's heavy black turnout came despite concerns about the effect of new voter-identification laws on minority voting, outweighed by the desire to re-elect the first black president.

William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, analyzed the 2012 elections for the AP using census data on eligible voters and turnout, along with November's exit polling. He estimated total votes for Obama and Romney under a scenario where 2012 turnout rates for all racial groups matched those in 2004. Overall, 2012 voter turnout was roughly 58 percent, down from 62 percent in 2008 and 60 percent in 2004.

The analysis also used population projections to estimate the shares of eligible voters by race group through 2030. The numbers are supplemented with material from the Pew Research Center and George Mason University associate professor Michael McDonald, a leader in the field of voter turnout who separately reviewed aggregate turnout levels across states, as well as AP interviews with the Census Bureau and other experts. The bureau is scheduled to release data on voter turnout in May.

Overall, the findings represent a tipping point for blacks, who for much of America's history were disenfranchised and then effectively barred from voting until passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

But the numbers also offer a cautionary note to both Democrats and Republicans after Obama won in November with a historically low percentage of white supporters. While Latinos are now the biggest driver of U.S. population growth, they still trail whites and blacks in turnout and electoral share, because many of the Hispanics in the country are children or noncitizens.

In recent weeks, Republican leaders have urged a "year-round effort" to engage black and other minority voters, describing a grim future if their party does not expand its core support beyond white males.

The 2012 data suggest Romney was a particularly weak GOP candidate, unable to motivate white voters let alone attract significant black or Latino support. Obama's personal appeal and the slowly improving economy helped overcome doubts and spur record levels of minority voters in a way that may not be easily replicated for Democrats soon.

Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.

More significantly, the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and Colorado would have tipped in favor of Romney, handing him the presidency if the outcome of other states remained the same.

"The 2012 turnout is a milestone for blacks and a huge potential turning point," said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University who has written extensively on black politicians. "What it suggests is that there is an 'Obama effect' where people were motivated to support Barack Obama. But it also means that black turnout may not always be higher, if future races aren't as salient."

Whit Ayres, a GOP consultant who is advising GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible 2016 presidential contender, says the last election reaffirmed that the Republican Party needs "a new message, a new messenger and a new tone." Change within the party need not be "lock, stock and barrel," Ayres said, but policy shifts such as GOP support for broad immigration legislation will be important to woo minority voters over the longer term.

"It remains to be seen how successful Democrats are if you don't have Barack Obama at the top of the ticket," he said.

___

In Ohio, a battleground state where the share of eligible black voters is more than triple that of other minorities, 27-year-old Lauren Howie of Cleveland didn't start out thrilled with Obama in 2012. She felt he didn't deliver on promises to help students reduce college debt, promote women's rights and address climate change, she said. But she became determined to support Obama as she compared him with Romney.

"I got the feeling Mitt Romney couldn't care less about me and my fellow African-Americans," said Howie, an administrative assistant at Case Western Reserve University's medical school who is paying off college debt.

Howie said she saw some Romney comments as insensitive to the needs of the poor. "A white Mormon swimming in money with offshore accounts buying up companies and laying off their employees just doesn't quite fit my idea of a president," she said. "Bottom line, Romney was not someone I was willing to trust with my future."

The numbers show how population growth will translate into changes in who votes over the coming decade:

—The gap between non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black turnout in 2008 was the smallest on record, with voter turnout at 66.1 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively; turnout for Latinos and non-Hispanic Asians trailed at 50 percent and 47 percent. Rough calculations suggest that in 2012, 2 million to 5 million fewer whites voted compared with 2008, even though the pool of eligible white voters had increased.

—Unlike other minority groups, the rise in voting for the slow-growing black population is due to higher turnout. While blacks make up 12 percent of the share of eligible voters, they represented 13 percent of total 2012 votes cast, according to exit polling. That was a repeat of 2008, when blacks "outperformed" their eligible voter share for the first time on record.

—Latinos now make up 17 percent of the population but 11 percent of eligible voters, due to a younger median age and lower rates of citizenship and voter registration. Because of lower turnout, they represented just 10 percent of total 2012 votes cast. Despite their fast growth, Latinos aren't projected to surpass the share of eligible black voters until 2024, when each group will be roughly 13 percent. By then, 1 in 3 eligible voters will be nonwhite.

—In 2026, the total Latino share of voters could jump to as high as 16 percent, if nearly 11 million immigrants here illegally become eligible for U.S. citizenship. Under a proposed bill in the Senate, those immigrants would have a 13-year path to citizenship. The share of eligible white voters could shrink to less than 64 percent in that scenario. An estimated 80 percent of immigrants here illegally, or 8.8 million, are Latino, although not all will meet the additional requirements to become citizens.

"The 2008 election was the first year when the minority vote was important to electing a U.S. president. By 2024, their vote will be essential to victory," Frey said. "Democrats will be looking at a landslide going into 2028 if the new Hispanic voters continue to favor Democrats."

___

Even with demographics seeming to favor Democrats in the long term, it's unclear whether Obama's coalition will hold if blacks or younger voters become less motivated to vote or decide to switch parties.

Minority turnout tends to drop in midterm congressional elections, contributing to larger GOP victories as happened in 2010, when House control flipped to Republicans.

The economy and policy matter. Exit polling shows that even with Obama's re-election, voter support for a government that does more to solve problems declined from 51 percent in 2008 to 43 percent last year, bolstering the view among Republicans that their core principles of reducing government are sound.

The party's "Growth and Opportunity Project" report released last month by national leaders suggests that Latinos and Asians could become more receptive to GOP policies once comprehensive immigration legislation is passed.

Whether the economy continues its slow recovery also will shape voter opinion, including among blacks, who have the highest rate of unemployment.

Since the election, optimism among nonwhites about the direction of the country and the economy has waned, although support for Obama has held steady. In an October AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of nonwhites said the nation was heading in the right direction; that's dropped to 52 percent in a new AP-GfK poll. Among non-Hispanic whites, however, the numbers are about the same as in October, at 28 percent.

Democrats in Congress merit far lower approval ratings among nonwhites than does the president, with 49 percent approving of congressional Democrats and 74 percent approving of Obama.

William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, says that in previous elections where an enduring majority of voters came to support one party, the president winning re-election — William McKinley in 1900, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 — attracted a larger turnout over his original election and also received a higher vote total and a higher share of the popular vote. None of those occurred for Obama in 2012.

Only once in the last 60 years has a political party been successful in holding the presidency more than eight years — Republicans from 1980-1992.

"This doesn't prove that Obama's presidency won't turn out to be the harbinger of a new political order," Galston says. "But it does warrant some analytical caution."

Early polling suggests that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton could come close in 2016 to generating the level of support among nonwhites as Obama did in November, when he won 80 percent of their vote. In a Fox News poll in February, 75 percent of nonwhites said they thought Clinton would make a good president, outpacing the 58 percent who said that about Vice President Joe Biden.

Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP, predicts closely fought elections in the near term and worries that GOP-controlled state legislatures will step up efforts to pass voter ID and other restrictions to deter blacks and other minorities from voting. In 2012, African-Americans were able to turn out in large numbers only after a very determined get-out-the-vote effort by the Obama campaign and black groups, he said.

Jealous says the 2014 midterm election will be the real bellwether for black turnout. "Black turnout set records this year despite record attempts to suppress the black vote," he said.

___

AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ "America at the Tipping Point: The Changing Face of a Nation" is an occasional series examining the cultural mosaic of the U.S. and its historic shift to a majority-minority nation.

View the original article here