1
REPORT OF ALLAN J. LICHTMAN
THE VOTING RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF NONPARTISAN CITYWIDE, BOROUGH
PRESIDENT, AND CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS AND NONPARTISAN SUCCESSION
ELECTIONS FOR MAYOR IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Allan J. Lichtman
Professor of History
Department of History
American University
Washington, DC 20016
August 2003
2
INTRODUCTION
my work for the 2002 Charter Revision Commission analyzing whether changing from partisan to
nonpartisan elections of citywide officials, borough presidents, and city council members would
likely violate the Voting Rights Act by restricting the ability of minority voters to elect candidates
of their choice and to participate fully in the political process. This analysis does not consider the
broader question of whether such changes are justified on policy grounds. Rather, the analysis is
narrowly focused on the voting rights implications of such a change in electoral procedures.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
As described below in detail, my study of nonpartisan elections for citywide contests reaches the
following conclusions:
• The analysis of election results and electoral systems in the nation’s 100 largest cities
indicates that nonpartisan elections are not an impediment to the election of mayors from
members of minority demographic groups.
• The analysis of citywide elections and voting within New York City shows that standard
explanations for how partisan elections help minority voters elect candidates of their
choice do not apply to citywide elections in New York.
• A change from partisan to nonpartisan elections of citywide officials in New York might
well enhance the prospects for minority candidates of choice of minority voters to
compete successfully in primary and general elections for citywide offices.
• These findings for citywide elections are confirmed by the analysis of borough president
and city council positions.
BACKGROUND
I am a Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C. Formerly, I
served as Chair of the History Department and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences at American University. I received my BA in History from Brandeis University in 1967
and my PhD in History from Harvard University in 1973, with a specialty in the mathematical
analysis of historical data. My areas of expertise include political history, voting analysis, and
historical and quantitative methodology. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which accurately sets
forth my professional qualifications and experience, is attached as Appendix II of this detailed
report.
I am the author of numerous scholarly works on quantitative methodology in social
science.
3
This scholarship includes articles in such academic journals as Political Methodology,
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, and Social Science History. I have also coauthored with Dr.
Laura Langbein Ecological Inference, a standard text on the subject of inferring the behavior of
population groups from data collected for political units. In addition, I have published articles on
the application of social science analysis to the Voting Rights Act. This work includes articles in
such journals as Journal of Law and Politics, La Raza Law Journal, Evaluation Review, and
National Law Journal.
My scholarship also includes the use of quantitative and qualitative techniques to perform
political and historical studies of voting, published in such academic journals as The Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, The American Historical Review, and The Journal of
Social History. Quantitative and historical analyses also ground my books, Prejudice and the Old
Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928, The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency (co-authored
with Ken DeCell), and The Keys to the White House.
I have worked as a consultant or expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in more
than sixty federal voting rights and redistricting cases. I have been admitted as an expert witness
in voting rights, political history, political systems, statistical methodology, quantitative analysis
of voting, and socioeconomic analysis, among other matters, in more than fifty federal court cases
in which I have presented oral or written testimony. I have worked on more than a dozen cases
for the United States Department of Justice and have also worked for such civil rights
organizations as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Puerto-Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund, the NAACP, the LDF, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
METHODOLOGY AND DATA
The database for this study consists of information internal to New York City as well as
data on the results of mayoral elections for the nation’s 100 largest cities. For citywide elections
from 1989 to 1997, the New York City data includes returns at the Assembly District level. For
citywide elections in 2001 the data includes returns at the voter tabulation district (VTD) level.
The data also includes returns at the VTD level for city council elections and for borough
president elections held in 1997 and 2001. In addition, the New York City data also includes the
racial composition of Assembly districts and VTDs and exit poll findings. The 2001 exit polls
covered all primary, runoff, and general elections for citywide offices. For earlier years the exit
polls covered all citywide general elections as well as the 1989 mayoral primary.
1
Exit polls for
2001 and prior years also included the party identification of voters. External data included
information on whether cities elected their mayors through partisan or nonpartisan elections, the
1
Exit poll data was not available for non-mayoral primaries in 1989 or the primaries of 1993 and 1997.
4
racial composition of the city, and the racial identity of the mayors. I utilized for this study
standard statistical methods to analyze the aggregate election returns in order to assess the
candidate choices made by Anglo and minority voters as well as the turnout in elections of Anglo
and minority voters. The analysis follows procedures recognized by the Supreme Court in
Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).
The voting behavior of whites, blacks, and Hispanics is estimated by comparing the racial
composition of the various voting precincts to the division of the vote among competing
candidates in each precinct. Ecological regression, the standard method for inferring the behavior
of population groups from data collected for aggregate units, was used to estimate the voting
behavior of blacks and whites. The ecological regression procedure is based on a comparison of
the racial composition of each Assembly District or VTD within New York City and the votes
cast for competing candidates. The regression procedure generates a prediction equation that
indicates how changes in voting across Assembly Districts or VTDs respond to changes in the
racial composition of each Assembly District. The parameters of that equation are then used to
measure the voting of each racial group on average for all Assembly Districts. Given the presence
of several distinct racial groups in New York City, I employed a multivariate regression model
that included in the regression equation the percentage of both voting age Hispanics and blacks in
each Assembly District or VTD in New York City.
2
The ecological regression procedure for analyzing the behavior of voter groups is set forth in my
book, Ecological Inference (Sage Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Science, 1978:
with Laura Irwin Langbein) and analyzed, in depth, in my December, 1991 article in Evaluation
Review.
White and minority voting can also be examined through a technique termed extreme case
analysis that examines the actual choices of voters in the most heavily white, black and Hispanic
Assembly Districts or VTDs. For purposes of the analysis reported here, a cutoff of 80 percent
was used for the extreme case analysis for each demographic group. The extreme case results
will not correspond exactly with the results of ecological regression analysis, given that it does
not include all Assembly Districts or VTDs and the chosen districts are not completely
homogeneous. Unlike ecological regression, extreme case analysis involves no inferential
procedures. It simply tallies the votes actually cast for candidates in the heavily white, black and
Hispanic precincts.
2
Asian-Americans were not sufficiently concentrated in assembly districts to provide a separate estimate of voting
for this demographic group. For the aggregate-level statistical analysis, therefore, the category “white” includes
Asians and others. In some cases, however, exit polls measured separately the voting of Asians and of other races.
5
PARTISAN VERSUS NONPARTISAN ELECTIONS
The main voting rights concern raised by the adoption of nonpartisan elections is that
such elections might deprive minority voters of electoral advantages built into the system of
partisan primaries and general elections. In principle, partisan elections are alleged to facilitate the
election of candidates of choice of minority voters through the following process:
1. A minority group, even though it constitutes less than a majority of all voters,
overwhelmingly affiliates with the Democratic Party.
2. Whites are divided between Democrats and Republicans.
3. The minority group constitutes a majority of voters in the Democratic Party and
selects a nominee of its choice, presumably a member of the minority group.
4. The minority candidate prevails in the general election through virtually unanimous
support from minority voters and sufficient votes from white Democrats, who place
partisanship above race in their voting decisions.
There is support for this model in the experience of legislative districts in the south and
east which have elected minority representatives with substantial, but less than majority, black
populations. However, for citywide municipal elections, the model is neither supported by the
analysis of partisan versus nonpartisan city elections nationwide nor by the analysis of citywide
elections in New York City. Indeed, analysis of citywide elections in New York indicates that
nonpartisan elections may well enhance the opportunities for minority voters to elect candidates
of their choice to citywide positions.
EXPERIENCE OF CITIES NATIONWIDE WITH PARTISAN AND NONPARTISAN
ELECTIONS
If New York City were to switch from partisan to nonpartisan elections for citywide
officials it would join with the great majority of large cities that currently elect their mayors
through nonpartisan elections. According to data provided in 2002 by the National League of
Cities, updated by municipal web sites, 83 percent of the nation’s 100 largest cities currently elect
their mayor through nonpartisan elections.
3
Of the nation’s 10 largest cities, only New York and
Philadelphia continue to use partisan systems for electing their mayor. Chicago recently switched
to nonpartisan elections and held its first nonpartisan election for mayor in 1999, reelecting white
incumbent mayor Richard Daley.
3
Virtually all of these major cities have a mayor/council form of government in which the mayor is the key
executive official.
6
A comparison of the cities using partisan and nonpartisan systems fails to demonstrate that the use
of a partisan system facilitates the election of a minority mayor. To the contrary, there is a
negative, although not a statistically significant, relationship between maintaining a partisan
election system and electing a minority mayor among the nation’s 100 largest cities. As indicated
in Table 1, the 17 cities with partisan election of the mayor include 14 Anglo and 3 minority
mayors (all black), for a minority percentage of 18 percent. Table 1 also shows that the 83 cities
with nonpartisan election of the mayor include 59 Anglo and 24 minority mayors (both
black and Hispanic), for a minority percentage of 29 percent.
This negative relationship between partisan elections and the election of a minority
mayor holds when examining only cities with a non-Hispanic white majority population
according to the Census of 2000.
4
As indicated in Table 2, the 11 white-majority cities that elect
their mayors through partisan elections include 11 Anglo mayors and no minority mayors. Thus
TABLE 1
RACE OF MAYOR & ELECTION TYPE, 100 LARGEST U. S. CITIES, 2000 CENSUS*
PARTISAN ELECTION OF MAYOR
ALL CITIES CITIES WITH
ANGLO MAYORS
CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
% OF CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
17 14 3 18%
NONPARTISAN ELECTION OF MAYOR
ALL CITIES CITIES WITH
ANGLO MAYORS
CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
% OF CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
83 59 24 29%
* SOURCE: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, UPDATED WITH MUNICIPAL WEB SITES.
ALL MINORITY MAYORS CURRENTLY ELECTED IN THE 100 LARGEST US CITIES
ARE EITHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN OR HISPANIC.
4
In this case, the negative relationship between partisan election systems and the election of a minority mayor is
statistically significant.
7
TABLE 2
RACE OF MAYOR AND ELECTION TYPE, 100 LARGEST U. S. CITIES
CITIES WITH NON-HISPANIC WHITE POPULATION MAJORITY ONLY
2000 CENSUS
PARTISAN ELECTION OF MAYOR
ALL CITIES CITIES WITH
ANGLO MAYORS
CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
% OF CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
11 11 0 0%
NONPARTISAN ELECTION OF MAYOR
ALL CITIES CITIES WITH
ANGLO MAYORS
CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
% OF CITIES WITH
MINORITY MAYORS
45 37 8 18%
8
all three of the cities with partisan election systems and a minority mayor are majority-minority in
their population. These cities include Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Rochester. Table 2 also
shows that the 45 white-majority cities without a black or Hispanic or other-race majority and
nonpartisan election of the mayor include 37 Anglo and 8 minority mayors for a minority
percentage of 18 percent.
Likewise, a negative, but not statistically significant, relationship between partisan
elections and the election of a minority mayor emerges when examining equations that
statistically control for the minority percentage of cities. Equations that predict the race of the
mayor (white versus minority) based on the minority percentage of the city and whether the city
elects the mayor through partisan or nonpartisan elections, yield negative, but not statistically
significant coefficients for the variable measuring partisan elections.
5
Thus, the examination of America’s 100 largest cities reveals a negative, not a positive,
relationship between partisan elections and the election of a minority mayor. The analysis does
not demonstrate with a high degree of confidence that partisan system election systems impede
the election of minority mayors. However, the analysis provides no support for the contrary
proposition that conversion from a partisan to a nonpartisan system would impede the opportunity
for minority voters in a city to elect minority candidates of their choice.
THE NEW YORK CITY EXPERIENCE
For several reasons the standard model of how partisan elections allegedly benefit
minority voters does not apply to New York City.
• First, whites, not minorities, are the strongest voting bloc in Democratic primary
elections.
• Second, the current voting strength of minorities is similar in Democratic primaries and
general elections.
• Third, distinct minorities in New York City do not necessarily vote together cohesively.
• Fourth, a minority candidate nominated in a Democratic primary will not necessarily
win enough white votes to carry the general election.
5
The analysis examined equations that combined minority groups and considered groups separately. All equations
included a variable that took on a value of 1 for partisan elections and 0 for non-partisan elections. The racial
composition of a jurisdiction is the most important determinant of whether the jurisdiction elects minorities to office.
9
I. WHITES ARE THE STRONGEST VOTING BLOC IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES
As indicated in Table 3, the 2000 Census discloses that minorities of voting age are a
larger percentage of New York City’s population than whites of voting age. However, unlike
legislative districts in the south there is no dominant minority group in New York City. Black and
Hispanics each constitute about a quarter of the voting-age population, with Asians accounting for
about 10 percent of the voting-age population. Whites are the plurality group by a significant
margin with 39 percent of the city’s voting-age population. Whites combined with Asians and
others constitute about 52 percent of the voting-age population.
As revealed by the 2001 Exit Poll data presented in Tables 4 and 5, blacks and
Hispanics are more Democratic in their party affiliation than whites. Asians and others are about
TABLE 3
NEW YORK CITY VOTING AGE POPULATION, 2000 CENSUS
% WHITE % BLACK % HISPANIC % ASIAN % OTHER
39% 23% 25% 10% 3%
10
TABLE 4
PARTY IDENTICATION OF RACIAL GROUPS, RACIAL COMPOSITION OF
PARTIES, NEW YORK CITY, EXIT POLL, 2001 GENERAL ELECTION*
PARTY IDENTIFICATION BY RACE
WHITES
BLACKS
HISPANICS
ASIANS
OTHERS
DEMOCRATS 55% 85% 74% 50% 53%
REPUBLICANS
26%
6%
14%
29%
21%
OTHERS 18% 9% 12% 21% 26%
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF PARTIES
DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS OTHERS
WHITES 44% 71% 62%
BLACKS 30% 8% 13%
HISPANICS 20% 13% 14%
ASIANS 3% 5% 5%
OTHERS 3% 4% 6%
* EXIT POLLS CONDUCTED BY EDISON MEDIA RESEARCH OF SOMMERVILLE,
MASSACHUSETTS, WITH 1458 INTERVIEWS FOR THE FIRST DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, 1665
FOR THE DEMOCRATIC RUNOFF, AND 2036 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION.
TABLE 5
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF VOTERS, 2001 CITYWIDE
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES & GENERAL ELECTION, EXIT POLLS
FIRST DEM.
PRIMARY
DEMOCRATIC
PRIM. RUNOFF
GENERAL
ELECTION
WHITES 48% 47% 52%
BLACKS 24% 23% 23%
HISPANICS 23% 24% 18%
ASIANS 2% 1% 3%
OTHERS 3% 4% 3%
11
equal to whites in their Democratic Party affiliation. As a result, for voters in the 2001 New York
City general election, the percentage of whites among Democrats is 44 percent, lower than the
white percentage of 52 percent for all general election voters. Still, by a significant margin, whites
are the plurality group within the Democratic Party, with blacks second at 30 percent of
Democrats and Hispanics third with 20 percent of Democrats.
Among voters participating in 2001 Democratic primary elections for citywide office,
Whites are likewise the plurality group. According to Table 5, in the 2001 Democratic primary
elections for citywide positions, whites comprised 48 percent of voters, blacks 24 percent,
Hispanics 23 percent, Asians 2 percent and others 3 percent.
II. MINORITY VOTING STRENGTH IS NOT MARKEDLY GREATER IN NEW YORK
CITY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES THAN GENERAL ELECTIONS
As a result of the lack of substantial Republican Party affiliation among any of New
York City’s demographic groups, primary voters from all groups participate mainly in
Democratic primaries for citywide offices. Thus, minority versus white voting strength in
Democratic primaries is not markedly greater than in general elections. The comprehensive Exit
Polls of 2001 that cover the citywide Democratic primaries as well as the citywide general
election provide a comparison of white and minority voting strength in Democratic primaries and
general elections, based on the current demography of New York City. According to results
reported in Table 5, whites constituted 48 percent of citywide voters in the first Democratic
primary in 2001, 47 percent of citywide voters in the Democratic runoff, and 52 percent of
citywide voters in the general election.
III. BLACKS AND HISPANICS IN NEW YORK CITY DO NOT NECESSARILY VOTE
TOGETHER AS A BLOC IN CITYWIDE ELECTIONS
Voting is usually, but by no means universally, racially polarized in New York City:
white voters usually prefer to vote for white candidates in citywide primary and general elections
and black and Hispanic voters usually prefer to vote for candidates from their racial groups. There
have not been any politically significant citywide Asian candidates or candidates from another
minority group. If minority voters within New York City united as a bloc for a single minority
candidate, they could nominate that candidate in a Democratic primary despite concerted
opposition from whites. However, black and Hispanic voters in citywide primary elections do not
exhibit such cohesive behavior. Appendix I of this report provides detailed analyses of all white
versus minority citywide primary and general elections from 1989 to 2001. The analysis of
mayoral Democratic primary elections from 1989 to 1997 (Table 1 of Appendix I) discloses
significant disparities in black and Hispanic voting. For example, in the 1989 Democratic primary
for mayor, 90 percent or more of black voters voted for black candidate Dinkins, compared to
about 55 to 60 percent of Hispanic voters. Even in the relatively uncontested 1993 Democratic
12
primary for mayor, a minor Hispanic candidate challenged Dinkins and garnered about 20 percent
of the Hispanic vote, but virtually none of the black vote. In the 1997 Democratic primary for
mayor, blacks voted overwhelmingly for the two black candidates (mainly Sharpton), whereas
less than a third of Hispanic voters supported the black candidates. Hispanic voters in the 1997
primaries actually preferred white candidate Messinger to either of the black candidates or even
the Hispanic candidate (Melendez). In the 2001 first Democratic primary for mayor, according to
Appendix I Table 2, about 70 percent or more of Hispanic voters supported Ferrer -- the only
minority candidate competing with 4 white candidates -- compared to 44 to 52 percent of black
voters. Moreover, Asian and Other voters cast the great majority of their votes for white
candidates, with Ferrer winning only 21 percent of the Asian vote and 27 percent of the Other
vote. Even in the 2001 Democratic runoff primary, with a choice between a single white
candidate (Green) and a single minority candidate (Ferrer), Appendix I Table 2 shows that
Hispanic support for Ferrer (77 percent to 100 percent) was substantially higher than black
support for Ferrer (65 percent to 71 percent). Asian voters favored Green over Ferrer by 58
percent to 42 percent and Other voters favored Green over Ferrer by 59 percent to 41 percent.
Similar disparities in the preferences of voters from different minority groups emerged
in the several minority versus white primary elections for citywide offices other than Mayor.
Appendix I Table 3 shows that in the 1989 primary for Council President, black voters
surprisingly gave majority support to the Hispanic candidate Mendez, whereas Hispanic voters
preferred the white candidate Stein. In the 1993 primary for Comptroller, Appendix I Table 3
reveals that Hispanic voters supported the Hispanic candidate Badillo, whereas black voters
supported the white candidate Holtzman and provided just token support for Badillo. In the 1993
primary for Public Advocate, Appendix I Table 3 shows that black voters preferred black
candidate Patterson and also provided significant support to white candidate Green, but virtually
no support for Hispanic candidate Ramirez. Hispanic voters in this primary preferred Ramirez,
who, in turn, received virtually no support from black voters. In the 1997 primary for Public
Advocate, all voter groups favored white candidate M. Green over black candidate R. Green,
according to Appendix I Table 3.
In 2001 there were multiracial primaries for both Public Advocate and Comptroller. In
the First Democratic primary for Public Advocate, Appendix I Table 4 reveals that Hispanic
candidate Colon – the only minority candidate competing against 6 white candidates – finished
clearly in first place among Hispanic voters, while finishing in fourth place among black voters.
Colon, who failed to advance to the Democratic runoff primary, received none of the Asian vote
and 22 percent of the Other vote. In the First Democratic primary for Comptroller, Appendix I
Table 4 reveals that black candidate Thompson – competing against a single white candidate –
received majority support from all minority groups. However, Thompson, who won the primary
and advanced to the general election, won much greater support from black voters (more than 80
percent) than from Hispanic voters (52 percent to 66 percent), Asian voters (61 percent), or Other
voters (72 percent).
13
Although minorities have comprised the majority of New York City’s population and
voting-age population for more than a decade, only two minority candidates from 1989 to 2001
have won the Democratic nomination for a citywide office: Dinkins for mayor in 1989 and 1993
and Thompson for Comptroller in 2001.
IV. A MINORITY DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE WILL NOT NECESSARILY WIN THE
WHITE VOTES NEEDED TO CARRY A CITYWIDE GENERAL ELECTION
White voters in New York City, despite their Democratic proclivities, may still not
provide sufficient support for a minority Democratic nominee to win a general election. This may
hold even if the minority candidate gains considerable white support. In 1989, despite
overwhelming support from blacks and strong support from Hispanics, Dinkins barely carried the
general election, winning only 21 to 26 percent of the white vote. In 1993, although he continued
to gain overwhelming black and strong support from Hispanics, he lost the general election as his
support among whites slipped to 20 to 21 percent. Thus, in both of these elections, the Republican
candidate won the overwhelming majority of the white vote, even though only about 25 percent of
white voters were Republicans. In 2001, black nominee Thompson for Comptroller faced only
token opposition in the general election and easily prevailed with the overwhelmingly majority of
the votes cast. Since Dinkins’ victory in 1989, Thompson is the only minority elected to a
citywide position in New York.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF NONPARTISAN CITY ELECTIONS FOR MINORITY
VOTERS IN CITYWIDE ELECTIONS
It should be noted that a nonpartisan system of electing citywide officials might
increase the prospects for minority candidates of choice of minority voters to compete in general
elections or runoff elections. Given that whites in New York City are only 39 percent of the
voting-age population, the white percentage of voters in a nonpartisan primary election, although
greater than the white percentage of voters in a partisan Democratic primary, will not be nearly
large enough for whites to control the nomination of two candidates. As indicated in Table 5
above, the 2001 percentage of white voters in the general election where all voters participate is
about 52 percent. Even assuming highly polarized voting between whites and minorities, this
percentage would be generally sufficient for whites to control the nomination of only a single
candidate. Moreover, this white percentage is not great enough to ensure that a white candidate
wins a majority of a nonpartisan general election, given political divisions among whites. Not
only are there political divisions in New York City between white Democrats, Republicans,
independents, and members of other parties, but white Democrats are divided as well. As
demonstrated in Appendix I, whites in Democratic primaries often split their vote among two or
more candidates. Thus openings may be created for a minority candidate to win sufficient votes to
be one of the top two finishers in a nonpartisan primary and even to prevail in a nonpartisan
general election.
14
The experience of other cities with a white voting-age population plurality and divided
minority groups demonstrates that minority candidates have the potential to prevail in a
nonpartisan runoff or nonpartisan general election against a single white opponent. In the most
recent election in San Jose, for example, Hispanic candidate Ron Gonzales beat a white opponent
one-on-one as did black candidate Lee Brown in Houston. San Jose is 4 percent black, 30 percent
Hispanic, and 27 percent Asian. Houston is 25 percent black, 37 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent
Asian. In San Francisco, the current African-American mayor Willie Brown defeated the previous
white incumbent Frank Jordan in a one-on-one contest. San Francisco is 8 percent black, 14
percent Hispanic, and 31 percent Asian. In the 3 cities with partisan elections and minority
mayors, all the mayors are black. One was elected in Washington D.C., where blacks are the
majority group, and two were elected in majority-minority cities where blacks are the
predominant minority group (Philadelphia which is 43 percent black and Rochester which is 39
percent black).
Some have argued that any potential advantages of nonpartisan elections could be
negated by a decline in voter turnout, especially for minorities, which might come with the
abrogation of party labels. Examination of the experience with cities that use partisan and
nonpartisan election systems provides no support for the proposition that nonpartisan elections
depress turnout. I was able to ascertain turnout data for recent mayoral elections in 81 of the
nation’s 100 largest cities. There is no systematic relationship in these cities between turnout and
election systems, with turnout about equally low in cities with nonpartisan and partisan elections
for mayor. In 66 cities with nonpartisan elections, the turnout averaged about 25 percent of the
voting age population, as compared to 26 percent in 15 cities with partisan elections. Likewise
there is no statistically significant relationship between turnout and partisan elections when
estimating turnout from an equation that controls for the racial composition of a city and the
percentage of its population that is of voting age.
CONFIRMATION OF CITYWIDE FINDINGS IN BOROUGH PRESIDENT AND CITY
COUNCIL ELECTIONS
The findings detailed above for citywide elections are confirmed by the analysis of
borough president and city council elections.
1. BOROUGH PRESIDENT ELECTIONS
As indicated in Table 6, 4 of 5 boroughs (all but Staten Island) in New York City are
50 percent or more minority in their voting-age populations according to the 2000 Census. Only 3
out of these four boroughs have minority Borough Presidents (Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens).
Thus, partisan elections to this point in New York City have not produced minority Borough
Presidents in all boroughs with substantial concentrations of minority populations. Thus, there is
15
TABLE 6
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF BOROUGHS AND RACE OF CURRENT
BOROUGH PRESIDENT
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF BOROUGH
% NH
WHITE
%
BLACK
%
HISP
%
ASIAN
%
OTHER
RACE OF
BOROUGH
PRES
MANHATTAN
50% 14% 24% 10% 2% BLACK
BRONX 18% 31% 45% 3% 3% HISPANIC
BROOKLYN 37% 33% 18% 8% 4% WHITE
QUEENS 36% 18% 23% 17% 6% BLACK
STATEN
ISLAND
74% 8% 11% 6% 1% WHITE
TABLE 7
PARTY AFFILIATIONS, REGISTRATION AND EXIT POLL IDENTIFICATION, NYC BOROUGHS
PARTY REGISTRATION 2001 EXIT POLL SELF ID 2001 PRIMARY VOTING
% DEM % REP % OTH % DEM % REP % OTH % DEM % REP % OTH
MANHATTAN
68% 12% 21% 63% 16% 21% 92% 8% NA
BRONX 75% 8% 17% 78% 12% 9% 96% 4% NA
BROOKLYN 71% 10% 19% 69% 18% 13% 94% 6% NA
QUEENS 64% 15% 21% NA NA NA 89% 11% NA
STATEN
ISLAND
46% 31% 23% NA NA NA 68% 32% NA
16
only a limited basis for any diminution of minority voter opportunities to elect Borough
Presidents of their choice through a change from partisan to nonpartisan elections. As indicated in
Table 7, in the four boroughs that are 50 percent or more minority in their voting-age populations,
there is minimal representation of Republicans, measured by party registration, the self-
identification of voters participating in the 2001 general elections, and participation in the 2001
primary elections. In addition, there have not been any seriously contested general elections in the
four majority-minority boroughs, as election in the Democratic primary is tantamount to election.
Thus, as with citywide elections, standard arguments about distinctions between Democratic
primaries and general elections do not apply to elections for Borough President in the four
boroughs that are 50 percent or more minority in their voting-age populations.
Tables 8 and 9 provide detailed analysis of contested white versus minority Borough
President elections during the past decade. There were no such elections in 1993, one in 1997
(Democratic primary, Manhattan), and three in 2001 (Democratic primary, Bronx, Brooklyn, and
Queens). In the 1997 Manhattan election, black candidate Fields easily prevailed over a racially
large and diverse group of candidates, with overwhelming support from blacks and some support
from the other demographic groups. In the 2001 election in the Bronx, where whites are less than
20 percent of the voting-age population, Hispanic candidate Carrion prevailed with strong support
from blacks and Hispanics. In Queens, where whites are less than 40 percent of the voting-age
population, black candidate Marshall prevailed with overwhelming support from blacks and
Hispanics and significant support from whites. In Brooklyn, where whites are likewise less than
TABLE 8
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC BOROUGH
PRESIDENT ELECTIONS, ECOLOGICAL REGRESSION,
EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, 1997 MINORITY V. WHITE *
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
1997 PRIMARY
MANHATTAN
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
FIELDS (B) 31% 32% 77% 78% 12% 34%
POWELL (B/H)** 1% 4% 17% 14% 51% 39%
PAGAN (H) 7% 7% 1% 1% 23% 15%
FAGER (W)
GLICK (W)
SPITZ (W)
61% 57% 5% 7% 14% 13%
* GIVEN LOW TURNOUT, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE
SEPARATELY ASIAN-AMERICAN VOTING IN THIS ELECTION
** POWELL HAS BLACK & HISPANIC ANCESTRY
17
TABLE 9
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN BOROUGH PRES IDENT ELECTIONS,
ECOLOGICAL REGRESSION, EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARIES 2001 ELECTIONS, MINORITY V. WHITE
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
BROOKLYN
GADSDEN (B) 9% 13% 54% 51% 41% 27% NA NA
FISHER (W)
MARKOWITZ (W)
91% 87% 46% 49% 59% 73% NA NA
BRONX
CARRION (H)
ESPADA (H)
6% 25% 80% 85% 100% 93% NA NA
EISLAND (W) 94% 25% 20% 15% 0% 7% NA NA
QUEENS
MARSHALL (B) 32% 35% 75% 76% 100% 72% 0% NA
LEFFLER (W)
GRESSER (W)
68% 65% 25% 24% 0% 28% 100% NA
40 percent of the voting-age population, black candidate Gadsden lost to white candidate
Markowitz. Gadsden, was the candidate of choice of African-Americans, with slightly more than
a majority of the vote, and won substantial, but not majority support from Hispanics. He was
much less successful with other demographic groups in Brooklyn. However, under a nonpartisan
system of elections, it is extremely likely that black candidate Gadsden would have qualified for a
general election in competition with Markowitz, giving African-Americans a second opportunity
to elect a candidate of their choice.
2. CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS
As indicated in Table 10, 25 of 51 City Council districts have white voting-age
populations of less than 30 percent white and correspondingly have combined minority voting-
age populations of greater than 70 percent. Likewise 26 of 51 districts have white voting-age
populations that are greater than 30 percent and correspondingly have combined minority voting-
age populations of less than 70 percent. As indicated in Table 10 and the accompanying bar
graph, minority city council members have almost exclusively been elected from the districts that
are greater than 70 percent minority. Specifically, 24 of 25 of 70%+ minority districts have a
minority city council member in 2002, compared to just 1 of 26 districts with less than a 70
percent minority voting-age population. Given that minority members are currently elected only
when minorities are overwhelmingly dominant in a Council district, there is virtually no basis in
the current partisan elections of City Council elections for retrogression of minority voter
opportunities to elect candidates of their choice to City Council positions. Also, there is minimal
18
TABLE 10: CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS, VOTING-AGE POPULATION, RACE OF 2002
MEMBER
16
1.3
45.5
49.9
.8
black
36
1.3
84.6
10.1
.9
black
41
1.6
85.9
9.2
.6
black
17
1.8
31.3
64.3
.9
hisp
42
2.4
75.2
18.6
.9
black
27
3.5
78.5
8.3
3.7
black
28
4.2
54.7
19.1
9.5
black
37
4.2
28.3
56.8
5.2
black
14
4.3
25.3
64.3
3.4
hisp
40
5.5
73.8
13.1
3.4
black
18
5.6
28.6
58.2
4.0
hisp
15
6.2
26.4
62.0
2.5
hisp
45
7.3
80.2
7.1
2.0
black
10
8.3
6.4
82.1
1.8
hisp
21
8.3
10.3
66.1
12.7
hisp
12
9.3
66.7
18.9
1.5
black
34
10.2
21.8
61.3
4.1
hisp
31
12.5
6
8.2
13.3
1.6
black
7
17.1
33.0
44.3
3.0
black
35
17.6
62.3
13.2
3.2
black
8
18.2
24.5
51.0
3.9
black
25
20.0
6.6
36.2
33.4
white
9
23.4
54.7
14.5
4.5
black
38
23.9
8.5
50.7
13.3
hisp
20
28.8
3.8
17.1
47.1
asian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DIST
PWHITE
PBLACK PHISP PASIAN
RACE
19
TABLE 10 CONTINUED, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS
26
38.0
6.2
31.3
20.3
white
1
39.1
4.5
12.5
41.3
white
24
43.5
10.6
16.6
23.8
white
11
44.9
15.7
29.8
6.3
white
23
47.9
12.0
11.9
22.4
white
22
49.1
8.2
23.7
11.6
white
46
51.0
33.7
7.7
5.0
white
32
52.0
5.0
22.8
10.6
white
49
54.9
19.0
17.1
6.1
white
13
57.0
8.8
26.2
5.1
w
hite
30
58.3
1.7
28.8
7.5
white
39
60.6
4.3
13.5
17.0
white
29
61.1
2.9
15.0
16.9
white
2
61.4
6.3
18.9
10.9
hisp
47
67.0
8.6
10.7
11.0
white
19
68.1
1.5
10.6
18.0
white
33
70.5
6.2
14.4
4.2
white
3
70.7
5.3
12
.9
8.4
white
43
71.0
.5
9.0
15.5
white
44
72.6
2.3
8.0
14.0
white
6
75.6
5.9
10.3
6.3
white
48
75.8
3.3
6.3
12.3
white
50
77.4
1.9
8.2
10.6
white
4
81.2
3.1
5.9
8.2
white
5
82.7
3.0
5.5
7.1
white
51
88.0
1.0
5.8
4.4
white
26.00
27.00
28.00
29.00
30.00
31.00
32.00
33.00
34.00
35.00
36.00
37.00
38.00
39.00
40.00
41.00
42.00
43.00
44.00
45.00
46.00
47.00
48.00
49.00
50.00
51.00
DIST
PWHITE
PBLACK PHISP PASIAN
RACE
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
0%-10%W 10%-20%W 20%-30%W 30%-40%W 40%-50%W 50%+W
% WHITE IN DIST
% MINORITY COUNCIL MEMBERS & % WHITE IN
DIST
% MIN MEMBER
21
Republican representation in the heavily minority City Council districts in New York City.
Detailed electoral analysis of city council elections reported in Appendix II of this
report indicates that there have been very few significantly contested white versus minority
elections from 1993 through 2001. Specifically, there were three such elections in 1993, four in
1997, and six in 2001. Although Asian-Americans represent only 10 percent of New York City’s
voting-age population, Asian-American candidates were the main source of opposition to white
candidates in 6 of these 13 elections (46 percent). Despite heavily contesting City Council
elections, an Asian-American candidate has been elected only in City Council 23, which is greater
than 70 percent combined minority in its voting-age population and nearly half Asian-American
in its voting-age population. As indicated by the analysis reported in Appendix II, Asian-
American candidates have usually garnered overwhelming support from Asian-American voters,
but only limited support from other voter groups.
Hispanics have contested more of the remaining elections reported in Appendix II and
have been successful in overwhelmingly minority District 38 (76 percent voting-age minority)
and in District 2, which is majority white and is the one exception to the pattern of minority
candidates prevailing only in districts that are 70 percent or more minority in their voting-age
populations. In the few contested elections involving African-American candidates, an African-
American has prevailed only in overwhelmingly minority District 7 (83 percent voting-age
minority).
CONCLUSIONS: BOROUGH PRESIDENT AND CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS
Assessment of nonpartisan elections for Borough President and City Council does not
differ fundamentally from the assessment for citywide elections in New York. Given the racial
demography and partisan breakdowns of New York City Boroughs and City Council Districts,
current patterns of success and failure for minority candidates of choice of minority voters, and
divisions among minority groups in their choices of candidates, analysis indicates that a shift from
partisan to nonpartisan elections of Borough Presidents and City Council members would produce
the retrogression of minority voter opportunities.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
In sum, neither the analysis of the broad electoral experience of America’s major cities nor
of elections and voting within New York City sustains the proposition that a change from partisan
to non-partisan elections would impede the opportunity for minority voters to participate fully in
the political process and elect candidates of their choice to citywide offices. To the contrary, both
external and internal evidence indicates that a system in which two non-partisan candidates
advance to a non-partisan general election might well enhanced the prospects for minority
candidates of choice of minority voters to compete successfully for public office in New York.
22
APPENDIX I: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MINORITY V. WHITE CITYWIDE
ELECTIONS
23
APPENDIX I, TABLE 1
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC MAYORAL ELECTIONS, ECOLOGICAL
REGRESSION, EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS, EXIT POLLS, 1989-1997
MINORITY VERSUS WHITE ELECTIONS
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS
% OF WHITE
VOTERS
% OF BLACK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
1989 PRIMARY
MAYOR
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
DINKINS (B) 21% 20% 29% 92% 89% 93% 58% 61% NA
KOCH (W) 70% 71% 61% 4% 7% 3% 30% 35% NA
OTHERS (W) 8% 9% 10% 4% 2% 4% 11% 10% NA
1989 GENERAL
MAYOR
DINKINS (B) 23% 21% 26% 97% 95% 91% 93% 73% 64%
GIULIANI (W) 75% 77% 71% 2% 5% 7% 6% 26% 35%
OTHERS (W) 8% 9% 10% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1%
1993 PRIMARY
MAYOR
DINKINS (B)
INNIS (B)
94% 92% NA 100% 97% NA 77% 87% NA
MELENDEZ (H) 6% 8% 61% 0% 3% NA 23% 13% NA
1993 GENERAL
MAYOR
DINKINS (B) 20% 20% 21% 100% 93% 95% 94% 72% 60%
GIULIANI (W) 78% 71% 77% 0% 6% 5% 25% 27% 37%
OTHERS (W) 3% 9% 2% 0% 1% 0% 6% 1% 3%
24
APPENDIX I, TABLE 1, CONTINUED
% OF WHITE
VOTERS
% OF BLACK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
1997 PRIMARY
MAYOR
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
SHARPTON (B)
ROGERS (B)
4% 9% NA 75% 71% NA 23% 32% NA
ALBANESE (W) 46% 45% NA 3% 5% NA 5% 9% NA
MESSINGER (W) 50% 45% NA 21% 22% NA 55% 46% NA
MELENDEZ (H) 1% 2% NA 2% 2% NA 17% 12% NA
1997 GENERAL
MAYOR
MESSINGER (W) 18% 19% 21% 87% 79% 79% 80% 59% 57%
GIULIANI (W) 80% 79% 76% 12% 20% 20% 20% 40% 43%
OTHERS (W) 2% 2% 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1%
25
APPENDIX I, TABLE 2
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC MAYORAL ELECTIONS, ECOLOGICAL
REGRESSION, EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS, EXIT POLLS, 2001
MINORITY VERSUS WHITE ELECTIONS *
% OF WHITE
VOTERS
% OF BLACK
VOTERS
% OF HISPANIC
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
% OF OTHER
VOTERS
2001
PRIMARY
MAYOR
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
FERRER
(H)
0% 11% 7% 44% 44% 52% 90% 69% 72% NA NA 21% NA NA 27%
GREEN
(W)
41% 38% 40% 39% 40% 34% 2% 18% 12% NA NA 33% NA NA 39%
HEVESI
(W)
23% 21% 20% 7% 6% 9% 0% 3% 5% NA NA 13% NA NA 8%
VALLONE
(W)
35% 28% 31% 8% 9% 4% 7% 9% 12% NA NA 27% NA NA 18%
SPITZ
(W)
1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% NA NA 0% NA NA 3%
2001
RUNOFF
MAYOR
FERRER
(H)
0% 19% 17% 65% 65% 71% 100
%
77% 84% NA NA 42% NA NA 41%
GREEN
(W)
100
%
81% 83% 35% 35% 29% 0% 23% 16% NA NA 58% NA NA 59%
* IN THE 2001 GENERAL ELECTION WHITE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE GREEN COMPETED AGAINST WHITE
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE BLOOMBERG.
26
APPENDIX I, TABLE 3
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC OTHER CITYWIDE ELECTIONS,
ECOLOGICAL REGRESSION, EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS, EXIT POLLS, 1989-1997
WHITE V. MINORITY ELECTIONS
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS
% OF WHITE
VOTERS
% OF BLACK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
1989 PRIMARY
COUN PRES
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
STEIN (W) 66% 62% NA 47% 38% NA 68% 51% NA
MENDEZ (H) 34% 38% NA 53% 62% NA 32% 49% NA
1993 PRIMARY
COMPTROLLER
BADILLO (H) 29% 36% NA 8% 15% NA 82% 54% NA
HEVESI (W) 50% 42% NA 28% 22% NA 0% 15% NA
HOLTZMAN (W) 21% 22% NA 63% 63% NA 18% 31% NA
1993 PRIMARY
PUBLIC ADV
ALTER (W) 20% 19% NA 8% 11% NA 0% 7% NA
GREEN (W) 64% 57% NA 31% 33% NA 11% 26% NA
PATTERSON (B) 1% 3% NA 50% 43% NA 11% 17% NA
RAMIREZ (H) 0% 3% NA 5% 7% NA 79% 44% NA
OTHERS (W) 15% 17% NA 6% 6% NA 0% 5% NA
1993 GENERAL
COMPTROLLER
HEVESI (D, W) 42% 40% 42% 98% 90% 91% 56% 59% 43%
BADILLO
(R & L, W)
56% 58% 56% 2% 9% 5% 42% 39% 55%
OTHERS (W) 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1%
27
APPENDIX I, TABLE 3, CONTINUED
% OF WHITE
VOTERS
% OF BLACK
VOTERS
% OF HISP VOTERS
1997 PRIMARY
PUBLIC ADV
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
REG EXT
CASE
EXIT
POLL
M. GREEN (W) 89% 87% NA 71% 70% NA 72% 73% NA
R. GREEN (B) 11% 13% NA 29% 30% NA 28% 27% NA
1997 GENERAL
COMPTROLLER
HEVESI (D, W) 71% 69% 70% 95% 91% 90% 95% 84% 86%
MCAVOY
(R & L, W)
28% 33% 31% 3% 7% 8% 0% 13% 11%
TORRES (I, H) 31% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 3%
28
APPENDIX I, TABLE 4
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC OTHER CITYWIDE ELECTIONS, ECOLOGICAL
REGRESSION, EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS, EXIT POLLS, 2001
WHITE V. MINORITY ELECTIONS
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES
% OF WHITE
VOTERS
% OF BLACK
VOTERS
% OF HISPANIC
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
% OF OTHER
VOTERS
2001
PRIMARY
PUBLIC
ADVOCATE
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
REG EXT
CSE
EXIT
COLON
(H)
1% 4% 3% 10% 12% 14% 60% 37% 50% NA NA 0% NA NA 22%
DIBRIENZA
(W)
20% 16% 17% 11% 12% 11% 3% 5% 10% NA NA 21% NA NA 15%
FLAXMAN
(W)
2% 2% 3% 5% 6% 4% 4% 3% 4% NA NA 5% NA NA 2%
FREED (W) 12% 10% 8% 8% 9% 7% 6% 7% 5% NA NA 16% NA NA 7%
GOTBAUM
(W)
33% 32% 33% 25% 24% 24% 1% 17% 14% NA NA 23% NA NA 17%
SIEGEL
(W)
14% 15% 17% 26% 24% 22% 11% 14% 11% NA NA 19% NA NA 31%
STRINGER
(W)
19% 20% 18% 14% 13% 19% 15% 18% 6% NA NA 16% NA NA 5%
2001
PRIMARY
COMPT
THOMPSON
(B)
34% 39% 36% 80% 80% 81% 66% 57% 52% NA NA 61% NA NA 72%
BERMAN
(W)
66% 61% 64% 20% 20% 19% 34% 43% 48% NA NA 39% NA NA 28%
* THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANTLY CONTESTED WHITE V. MINORITY RUNOFFS OR GENERAL ELECTIONS IN 2001.
29
APPENDIX II: DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MINORITY V. WHITE CITYWIDE
ELECTIONS
30
APPENDIX II: TABLE 1
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS,
ECOLOGICAL REGRESSION, EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, 1993-97 MINORITY V. WHITE
1993 DEM PRIM
ELECTIONS
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
DISTRICT 1
MANHATTAN
CHIN (A) 8% 10% 5% NA 47% NA 100% 72%
FREED (W)
JOICE (W)
92% 90% 95% NA 53% NA 0% 28%
DISTRICT 2
MANHATTAN
PAGAN (H) 45% 50% 17% NA 82% NA NA NA
FRIEDLANDER
(W)
FRIEDMAN (W)
55% 50% 83% NA 18% NA NA NA
DISTRICT 38
BROOKLYN
RIVERA (H) 0% 14% 65% NA 71% 68% 0% NA
MCCABE (W)
O’HARA (W)
100% 86% 35% NA 29% 32% 100% NA
31
APPENDIX II: TABLE 1, CONTINUED
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
1997 DEM PRIM
ELECTIONS
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
DISTRICT 1
MANHATTAN
LIM (A) 15% 15% 6% NA 57% NA 94% 65%
DORTMUTH (W)
FREED (W)
85% 85% 94% NA 43% NA 6% 35%
DISTRICT 2
MANHATTAN
LOPEZ (H) 23% 34% 41% NA 64% NA 100% NA
FABOZZI (W)
RAPFOGEL (W)
77% 66% 59% NA 36% NA 0% NA
DISTRICT 20
QUEENS
CHU (A)
LIU (A)
32% NA 23% NA NA NA 52% 49%
HARRISON (W)
MARKELL (W)
68% NA 77% NA NA NA 48% 51%
DISTRICT 38
BROOKLYN
CASTELL (H)
HAGGERTY (H)
RODRIGUEZ (H)
31% NA 84% NA 94% 83% NA NA
LOEB (W)
MCDERMOTT
(W)
69% NA 16% NA 6% 17% NA NA
32
APPENDIX II: TABLE 1, CONTINUED
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS,
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
2001 DEM PRIM
ELECTIONS
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
DISTRICT 1
MANHATTAN
CHIN M (A)
CHIN R (A)
HUI (A)
13% 18% 76% NA 47% NA 100% 81%
FRATTA (W)
GERSON (W)
HOLYMAN (W)
POSNER (W)
87% 82% 24% 16% 53% NA 0% 19%
DISTRICT 2
MANHATTAN
LOPEZ (H) 75% 78% NA NA 92% NA NA NA
WILSON (W) 25% 22% NA NA 8% NA NA NA
33
APPENDIX II: TABLE 1, CONTINUED
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS,
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
2001 DEM PRIM
ELECTIONS
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
DISTRICT 7
MANHATTAN
ADAMS (B)
BLOODSAW (B)
DOTSON (B)
JACKSON (B)
SPENCER (B)
51% NA 90% 67% 14% 21% NA NA
BERNACE (H)
MORILLA (H)
TORRES (H)
2% NA 5% 16% 71% 58% NA NA
LEVINE (W) 47% NA 5% 17% 15% 20% NA NA
DISTRICT 20
QUEENS
CHEN (A)
LIU (A)
PARK (A)
80% NA 61% NA NA NA 98% 96%
JANNACCIO (W) 20% NA 39% NA NA NA 2% 4%
34
APPENDIX II: TABLE 1, CONTINUED
ESTIMATES OF VOTER BEHAVIOR IN NYC CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS,
% OF WHT
VOTERS
% OF BLK
VOTERS
% OF HISP
VOTERS
% OF ASIAN
VOTERS
2001 DEM PRIM
ELECTIONS
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
REG EXT
CSE
DISTRICT 23
QUEENS
THAKRAL (A) 7%% 6% 78% NA NA NA 0% NA
WEPRIN (W) 93% 94% 22% NA NA NA 100% NA
DISTRICT 49
STATEN ISLAND
ROSE (B) 5% 9% 92% NA NA NA NA NA
DEL GIOMO (W)
MCMAHON (W)
95% 91% 8% NA NA NA NA NA
35
APPENDIX III: CV
36
Curriculum Vitae
Allan J. Lichtman
9219 Villa Dr.
Bethesda, MD 20817
(301) 530-8262 h
(202) 885-2401 o
May 2003
EDUCATION
BA, Brandeis University, Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude, 1967
PhD, Harvard University, Graduate Prize Fellow, 1973
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Teaching Fellow, American History, Harvard University, 1969-73
Instructor, Brandeis University, 1970, quantitative history.
Assistant Professor of History, American University, 1973-1977
Associate Professor of History, American University, 1977-78
Professor of History, American University, 1978 -
Associate Dean for Faculty and Curricular Development, College of Arts &
Sciences, The American University 1985 - 1987
Chair, Department of History, American University, 1997- 2001
Editor, Lexington Books Series, Studies in Modern American History
HONORS AND AWARDS
Outstanding Teacher, College of Arts and Sciences, 1975-76
Outstanding Scholar, College of Arts and Sciences, 1978-79
Outstanding Scholar, The American University, 1982-83
Outstanding Scholar/Teacher, The American University, 1992-93 (Highest
University faculty award)
Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar, California Institute of
Technology, 1980-81
37
American University summer research grant, 1978 & 1982
Chamber of Commerce, Outstanding Young Men of America 1979-80
Graduate Student Council, American University, Faculty Award, 1982
Top Speaker Award, National Convention of the International Platform
Association, 1983, 1984, 1987
National Age Group Champion (30 - 34) 3000 meter steeplechase 1979
Eastern Region Age Group Champion (30 - 34) 1500 meter run 1979
Defeated twenty opponents on nationally syndicated quiz show, TIC TAC DOUGH,
1981
Biographical Listing in Marquis, WHO=s WHO IN THE AMERICA AND WHO=s WHO IN THE
WORLD
Selected by the Teaching Company as one of America=s ASuper Star Teachers.@
SCHOLARSHIP
A. Books
PREJUDICE AND THE OLD POLITICS: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1928 (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979)
PREJUDICE AND THE OLD POLITICS: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1928
(Lexington Books, 2000), reprint of 1979 edition with new introduction.
HISTORIANS AND THE LIVING PAST: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF HISTORICAL STUDY
(Arlington Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1978; with Valerie French)
ECOLOGICAL INFERENCE (with Laura Irwin Langbein, Sage Series in Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences, 1978)
YOUR FAMILY HISTORY: HOW TO USE ORAL HISTORY, PERSONAL FAMILY ARCHIVES, AND
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS TO DISCOVER YOUR HERITAGE (New York: Random House, 1978)
KIN AND COMMUNITIES: FAMILIES IN AMERICA (edited, with Joan Challinor,
Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Press, 1979)
THE THIRTEEN KEYS TO THE PRESIDENCY (Lanham: Madison Books, 1990, with Ken
DeCell)
THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, 1996 EDITION (Lanham: Madison Books, 1996)
38
THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, (Lanham: Lexington Books Edition, 2000)
WHITE PROTESTANT AMERICA: THE RISE OF THE MODERN AMERICAN RIGHT, under
contract, Grove/Atlantic Press
B. Scholarly Articles
"The Federal Assault Against Voting Discrimination in the Deep South,
1957-1967," JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY (Oct. 1969)
"Executive Enforcement of Voting Rights, 1957-60," in Terrence Goggin and John
Seidel, eds., POLITICS AMERICAN STYLE (1971)
"Correlation, Regression, and the Ecological Fallacy: A Critique," JOURNAL OF
INTERDISCIPLINARY HISTORY (Winter 1974)
"Critical Election Theory and the Reality of American Presidential Politics,
1916-1940," AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (April 1976)
"Across the Great Divide: Inferring Individual Behavior From Aggregate Data,"
POLITICAL METHODOLOGY (with Laura Irwin, Fall 1976)
"Regression vs. Homogeneous Units: A Specification Analysis," SOCIAL SCIENCE
HISTORY (Winter 1978)
"Language Games, Social Science, and Public Policy: The Case of the Family,"
in Harold Wallach, ed., APPROACHES TO CHILD AND FAMILY POLICY (Washington, D.
C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981)
"Pattern Recognition Applied to Presidential Elections in the United States,
1860-1980: The Role of Integral Social, Economic, and Political Traits,"
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (with V. I. Keilis-Borok,
November 1981)
"The End of Realignment Theory? Toward a New Research Program for American
Political History," HISTORICAL METHODS (Fall 1982)
"Kinship and Family in American History," in National Council for Social
Studies Bulletin, UNITED STATES HISTORY IN THE 1980s (1982)
"Modeling the Past: The Specification of Functional Form," JOURNAL OF
INTERDISCIPLINARY HISTORY (with Ivy Broder, Winter 1983)
"Political Realignment and `Ethnocultural` Voting in Late Nineteenth Century
America," JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY (March 1983)
"The `New Political History:`Some Statistical Questions Answered," SOCIAL
SCIENCE HISTORY (with J. Morgan Kousser, August 1983)
39
"Personal Family History: A Bridge to the Past," PROLOGUE (Spring 1984)
"Geography as Destiny," REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY (Sept., 1985)
"Civil Rights Law: High Court Decision on Voting Act Helps to Remove Minority
Barriers," NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (with Gerald Hebert, November 10, 1986).
"Tommy The Cork: The Secret World of Washington`s First Modern Lobbyist,"
WASHINGTON MONTHLY (February, 1987).
"Discriminatory Election Systems and the Political Cohesion Doctrine,"
NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (with Gerald Hebert, Oct. 5, 1987)
"Aggregate-Level Analysis of American Midterm Senatorial Election Results,
1974-1986," PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (Dec. 1989, with
Volodia Keilis-Borok)
"Black/White Voter Registration Disparities in Mississippi: Legal and
Methodological Issues in Challenging Bureau of Census Data," JOURNAL OF LAW
AND POLITICS (Spring, 1991, with Samuel Issacharoff)
"Adjusting Census Data for Reapportionment: The Independent Role of the
States," NATIONAL BLACK LAW JOURNAL (1991)
"Passing the Test: Ecological Regression in the Los Angeles County Case and
Beyond," EVALUATION REVIEW (December, 1991)
Understanding and Prediction of Large Unstable Systems in the Absence of Basic
Equations," PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CONCEPTUAL TOOLS FOR
UNDERSTANDING NATURE (with V. I. Keilis-Borok, Trieste, Italy, 1991).
"The Self-Organization of American Society in Presidential and Senatorial
Elections," in Yu. Krautsov, ed., THE LIMITS OF PREDICTABILITY (with V.I.
Keilis-Borok, Nauka, Moscow, 1992).
"'They Endured:' The Democratic Party in the 1920s," in Ira Foreman, ed.,
DEMOCRATS AND THE AMERICAN IDEA: A BICENTENNIAL APPRAISAL (1992).
"A General Theory of Vote Dilution," LA RAZA (with Gerald Hebert) 6 (1993).
"Adjusting Census Data for Reapportionment: The Independent Role of the
States," JOURNAL OF LITIGATION (Dec. 1993, with Samuel Issacharoff)
"The Keys to the White House: Who Will be the Next American President?,"
SOCIAL EDUCATION 60 (1996)
"The Rise of Big Government: Not As Simple As It Seems," REVIEWS IN AMERICAN
HISTORY 26 (1998)
40
“The Keys to Election 2000,” SOCIAL EDUCATION (Nov/Dec. 1999), pp. 422-424
“The Keys to the White House 2000,” NATIONAL FORUM (Winter, 2000), pp. 13-16.
“Report on the Implications for Minority Voter Opportunities if Corrected
census Data Had Been Used for the Post-1990 Redistricting: States With The
Largest Numerical Undercount,” UNITED STATES CENSUS MONITORING BOARD, January
2001
“Report on the Racial Impact of the Rejection of Ballots Cast in the 2000
Presidential Election in the State of Florida,” and “Supplemental Report,” in
VOTING IRREGULARITIES IN FLORIDA DURING THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, United
States Commission on Civil Rights, June 2001
“What Really Happened in Florida’s 2000 Presidential Election,” JOURNAL OF
LEGAL STUDIES (January 2003)
"The Alternative-Justification Affirmative: A New Case Form," JOURNAL OF THE
AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Charles Garvin and Jerome Corsi, Fall
1973)
"The Alternative-Justification Case Revisited: A Critique of Goodnight,
Balthrop and Parsons, `The Substance of Inherency,`" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
FORENSIC ASSOCIATION (with Jerome Corsi, Spring 1975)
"A General Theory of the Counterplan," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC
ASSOCIATION (with Daniel Rohrer, Fall 1975)
"The Logic of Policy Dispute," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION
(with Daniel Rohrer, Spring 1980)
"Policy Dispute and Paradigm Evaluation," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC
ASSOCIATION (with Daniel Rohrer, Fall 1982)
"New Paradigms For Academic Debate," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC
ASSOCIATION (Fall, 1985)
"Competing Models of the Debate Process," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC
ASSOCIATION (Winter 1986)
"The Role of the Criteria Case in the Conceptual Framework of Academic
Debate," in Donald Terry, ed., MODERN DEBATE CASE TECHNIQUES (with Daniel
Rohrer, 1970)
"Decision Rules for Policy Debate," and "Debate as a Comparison of Policy
Systems," in Robert 2, ed., THE NEW DEBATE: READINGS IN CONTEMPORARY DEBATE
THEORY (with Daniel Rohrer, 1975)
"A Systems Approach to Presumption and Burden of Proof;" "The Role of
Empirical Evidence in Debate;" and "A General Theory of the Counterplan," in
41
David Thomas, ed., ADVANCED DEBATE: READINGS IN THEORY, PRACTICE, AND TEACHING
(with Daniel Rohrer, 1975)
"Decision Rules in Policy Debate;" "The Debate Resolution;" "Affirmative Case
Approaches;" "A General Theory of the Counterplan;" "The Role of Empirical
Evidence in Debate;" and "Policy Systems Analysis in Debate," in David Thomas,
ed., ADVANCED DEBATE (revised edition, with Daniel Rohrer and Jerome Corsi,
1979)
C. Popular Articles
"Presidency By The Book," POLITICS TODAY (Nov. 1979) Reprinted:
LOS ANGELES TIMES
"The Grand Old Ploys," NEW YORK TIMES
Op Ed (July 18, 1980)
"The New Prohibitionism," THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY (Oct. 29, 1980)
"Which Party Really Wants to `Get Government Off Our Backs`?" CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (Dec. 2, 1980)
"Do Americans Really Want `Coolidge Prosperity` Again?" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
MONITOR Opinion Page (August 19, 1981)
"Chipping Away at Civil Rights," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (Feb.
17, 1982)
"How to Bet in 1984. A Presidential Election Guide," WASHINGTONIAN MAGAZINE
(April 1982) Reprinted: THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
"The Mirage of Efficiency," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (October 6,
1982)
"For RIFs, It Should Be RIP," LOS ANGELES TIMES Opinion Page (January 25,
1983)
"The Patronage Monster, Con`t." WASHINGTON POST Free For All Page (March 16,
1983)
"A Strong Rights Unit," NEW YORK TIMES Op Ed Page (June 19, 1983)
"Abusing the Public Till," LOS ANGELES TIMES Opinion Page (July 26, 1983)
The First Gender Gap," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR Opinion Page (August 16,
1983)
"Is Reagan A Sure Thing?" FT. LAUDERDALE NEWS Outlook Section (Feb. 5, 1984)
"The Keys to the American Presidency: Predicting the Next Election," TALENT
42
(Summer 1984)
"GOP: Winning the Political Battle for `88," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR,
Opinion Page, (Dec. 27, 1984)
"The Return of `Benign Neglect`," WASHINGTON POST, Free For All,
(May 25, 1985)
"Selma Revisited: A Quiet Revolution," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion
Page, (April 1, 1986)
"Democrats Take Over the Senate" THE WASHINGTONIAN (November 1986; article by
Ken DeCell on Lichtman`s advance predictions that the Democrats would
recapture the Senate in 1986)
"Welcome War?" THE BALTIMORE EVENING SUN, Opinion Page, (July 15, 1987)
"How to Bet in 1988," WASHINGTONIAN (May 1988; advance prediction of George
Bush's 1988 victory)
"President Bill?," WASHINGTONIAN (October 1992; advance prediction of Bill
Clinton's 1992 victory)
"Don't be Talked Out of Boldness," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion Page
(with Jesse Jackson, November 9, 1992)
"Defending the Second Reconstruction," CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Opinion Page
(April 8, 1994)
"Quotas Aren't The Issue," NEW YORK TIMES, Op Ed Page (Dec. 7, 1994)
"History According to Newt," WASHINGTON MONTHLY (May, 1995)
“A Ballot on Democracy,” WASHINGTON POST Op Ed (Nov. 1, 1998)
“The Theory of Counting Heads vs. One, Two, Three,” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Op Ed (June 22, 1999)
“Race Was Big Factor in Ballot Rejection, BALTIMORE SUN Op Ed (March 5, 2002)
Bi-weekly column, THE MONTGOMERY JOURNAL, GAZETTE 1990 - present
Election-year column, REUTERS NEWS SERVICE 1996 & 2000
D. Reviews
Robert W. Fogel and Stanley Engerman, TIME ON THE CROSS: THE ECONOMICS OF
SLAVERY, THE NEW REPUBLIC (July 6, 1974)
43
Burl Noggle, INTO THE TWENTIES, AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (1976)
Jerome Clubb, William Flanigan, and Nancy Zingale: PARTISAN REALIGNMENT,
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (1982)
Paul M. Kleppner, WHO VOTED?, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY
(1983)
Stanley Kelley, INTERPRETING ELECTIONS, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY (1984)
Paula Eldot, AL SMITH AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
(1984)
Paul Kleppner, THE THIRD ELECTORAL SYSTEM, JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY (1988)
Arno Mayer, WHY THE HEAVENS DID NOT DARKEN, WASHINGTON POST (1989)
TEACHING
Ongoing Courses
The History of the U. S. I & II, The Emergence of Modern America, The U. S. in
the Twentieth Century, United States Economic History, Historiography, Major
Seminar in History, Graduate Research Seminar, Colloquium in U. S. History
Since 1865, The American Dream, The Urban-Technological Era, Senior Seminar in
American Studies, Seminar in Human Communication.
New Courses: Taught for the first time at The American University
Quantification in History, Women in Twentieth Century American Politics, Women
in Twentieth Century America, Historians and the Living Past (a course
designed to introduce students to the excitement and relevance of historical
study), How to Think: Critical Analysis in the Social Sciences, Pivotal Years
of American Politics, Government and the Citizen (Honors Program),
Introduction to Historical Quantification, Public Policy in U. S. History,
Honors Seminar in U.S. Presidential Elections, America=s Presidential
Elections.
TELEVISION APPEARANCES
Political commentary on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC, PBS,
and numerous other broadcasting outlets internationally
Regular political commentary for NBC News Nightside.
Regular political commentary for Voice of America and USIA.
Regular political commentary for America=s Talking Cable Network.
Regular political commentary for the Canadian Broadcasting System.
44
Appearances on numerous foreign television networks.
Consultant and on-air commentator for NBC special productions video project on
the history of the American presidency.
CBS New Consulant, 1998 and 1999
RADIO SHOWS
I have participated in more than 1500 radio interview and talk shows broadcast
nationwide, in foreign nations, and in cities such as Washington, D. C., New
York, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles and Detroit. My appearances include the
Voice of America, National Public Radio, and well as all major commercial
radio networks.
PRESS CITATIONS
I have been cited hundreds of times on public affairs in the nation=s leading
newspapers. These include, among many others,
New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street
Journal, Miami Herald, Washington Times, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian
Science Monitor, Philadelphia Inquirer.
CONFERENCES AND LECTURES
Invited participant and speaker, Bostick Conference on Fogel and Engerman`s
TIME ON THE CROSS, University of South Carolina, Nov. 1-2, 1974
"Critical Election Theory and the Presidential Election of 1928," Annual
Meeting of the American Historical Association, Dec. 1974
"A Psychological Model of American Nativism," Bloomsberg State Historical
Conference, April 1975
"Methodology for Aggregating Data in Education Research," National Institute
of Education, Symposium on Methodology, July 1975 (with Laura Irwin)
Featured Speaker, The Joint Washington State Bicentennial Conference on Family
History, Oct. 1975
Featured Speaker, The Santa Barbara Conference on Family History,
May 1976
Chairman, The Smithsonian Institution and the American University Conference
45
on Techniques for Studying Historical and Contemporary Families, June 1976
Panel Chairman, Sixth International Smithsonian Symposium on Kin and
Communities in America, June 1977
"The uses of History for Policy Analysis," invited lecture, Federal
Interagency Panel on Early Childhood Research, Oct. 1977
Invited participant, Conference on "Child Development within the Family -
Evolving New Research Approaches," Interagency Panel of the Federal Government
for Research and Development on Adolescence, June 1978
Commentator on papers in argumentation, Annual Meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, Nov. 1978
Commentator on papers on family policy, Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Jan. 1979
"Phenomenology, History, and Social Science," Graduate Colloquium of the
Department of Philosophy," The American University, March 1979
"Comparing Tests for Aggregation Bias: Party Realignments of the 1930`s,"
Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association March 1979, with
Laura Irwin Langbein
"Party Loyalty and Progressive Politics: Quantitative Analysis of the Vote for
President in 1912," Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians,
April 1979, with Jack Lord II
"Policy Systems Debate: A Reaffirmation," Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, Nov. 1979
"Personal Family History: Toward a Unified Approach," Invited Paper, World
Conference on Records, Salt Lake City, Aug. 1980
"Crisis at the Archives: The Acquisition, Preservation, and Dissemination of
Public Documents," Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association,
Nov. 1980
"Recruitment, Conversion, and Political Realignment in America: 1888- 1940,"
Social Science Seminar, California Institute of Technology, April 1980
"Toward a Situational Logic of American Presidential Elections," Annual
Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Nov. 1981
"Political Realignment in American History," Annual Meeting of the
Social Science History Association, Oct. 1981
46
"Critical Elections in Historical Perspective: the 1890s and the 1930s,"
Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association, Nov. 1982
Commentator for Papers on the use of Census data for historical research,
Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians, April 1983
"Thirteen Keys to the Presidency: How to Predict the Next Election," Featured
Presentation, Annual Conference of the International Platform Association,
August 1983, Received a Top Speaker Award
"Paradigms for Academic Debate," Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, Nov. 1983
Local Arrangements Chairman, Annual Convention of the Social Science History
Association Oct. 1983
"Forecasting the Next Election," Featured Speaker, Annual Convention of the
American Feed Manufacturers Association (May 1984)
Featured Speaker, "The Ferraro Nomination," Annual Convention of The
International Platform Association, August 1984, Top Speaker Award
"Forecasting the 1984 Election," Annual Convention of the
Social Science History Association Oct. 1984,
Featured Speaker, "The Keys to the Presidency," Meeting of
Women in Government Relations Oct. 1984
Featured Speaker, "The Presidential Election of 1988," Convention
of the American Association of Political Consultants, December, 1986
Featured Speaker, "The Presidential Election of 1988," Convention of the
Senior Executive Service of the United States, July 1987
Commentary on Papers on Voting Rights, Annual Meeting of the American
Political Science Association, September 1987.
Commentary on Papers on Ecological Inference, Annual Meeting of
the Social Science History Association, November 1987.
Featured Speaker: "Expert Witnesses in Federal Voting Rights Cases," National
Conference on Voting Rights, November 1987.
Featured Speaker: "The Quantitative Analysis of Electoral Data," NAACP
National Conference on Voting Rights and School Desegregation, July 1988.
Panel Chairman, "Quantitative Analysis of the New Deal Realignment," Annual
Meeting of the Social Science History Association, Nov. 1989.
Keynote Speaker, Convocation of Lake Forest College, Nov. 1989.
47
Featured Speaker, The American University-Smithsonian Institution Conference
on the Voting Rights Act, April 1990
Panel Speaker, Voting Rights Conference of the Lawyer's Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law, April 1990
Panel Speaker, Voting Rights Conference of the NAACP, July 1990
Panel Speaker, Voting Rights Conference of Stetson University, April 1991
Panel Chairman, Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians,
April, 1992
Panel Speaker, Symposium on "Lessons from 200 Years of Democratic Party
History, Center for National Policy, May 1992
Olin Memorial Lecture, U.S. Naval Academy, October 1992
Commentator, Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians, April,
1993
Panel presentation, Conference on Indian Law, National Bar Association, April
1993
Feature Presentation, Black Political Science Association, Norfolk State
University, June 1993
Delegation Head, Delegation of Washington Area Scholars to Taiwan, Presented
Paper on the promotion of democracy based on the American experience, July
1993
Feature Presentation, Southern Regional Council Conference, Atlanta Georgia,
November, 1994
Master of Ceremonies and Speaker, State of the County Brunch, Montgomery
County, February, 1996
Feature Presentation, APredicting The Next Presidential Election,@ Freedom=s
Foundation Seminar on the American Presidency, August 1996
Feature Presentation, APredicting The Next Presidential Election,@ Salisbury
State College, October 1996
Feature Presentation on the Keys to the White House, Dirksen Center, Peoria,
Illinois, August, 2000
Feature Presentation on American Political History, Regional Conference of the
Organization of American Historians, August 2000
48
Testimony Presented Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights
Regarding Voting Systems and Voting Rights, January 2001
Testimony Presented Before the United States House of Representatives,
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 2001
Testimony Presented Before the United States Senate, Government Operations
Committee, Regarding Racial Differentials in Ballot Rejection Rates in the
Florida Presidential Election, June 2001
DEPARTMENTAL AND UNIVERSITY SERVICE
Department of History Council 1973 -
Undergraduate Committee, Department of History 1973-77
Chairman Undergraduate Committee, Department of History 1984-85
Graduate Committee, Department of History, 1978-84
Freshman Advisor, 1973-1979
First Year Module in Human Communications, 1977-79
University Committee on Fellowships and Awards 1976-78
University Senate 1978-79, 1984-85
University Senate Parliamentarian and Executive Board 1978-79
Founding Director, The American University Honors Program, 1977-79
Chairman, College of Arts and Sciences Budget Committee 1977-78, 1982-84
University Grievance Committee, 1984-85
Member, University Honors Committee 1981-82
College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee 1981-82
Jewish Studies Advisory Board, 1982-1984
Mellon Grant Executive Board, College of Arts & Sciences, 1982-83
Chairman, College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Colloquium, 1983
Chairman, College of Arts and Sciences Task Force on the Department
of Performing Arts, 1984-85
49
Local Arrangements Chairman, National Convention of the Social
Science History Association, 1983
Chairman, Rank & Tenure Committee of the Department of History,
1981-82, 1984-85
Board Member, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, The American
University, 1988-89
Chairman, Graduate Committee, Department of History, 1989 - 1991
Chairman, Distinguished Professor Search Committee 1991
Member, College of Arts & Sciences Associate Dean Search Committee, 1991
Board Member, The American University Press, 1991-95
Chair, Subcommittee on Demographic Change, The American University Committee
on Middle States Accreditation Review 1992-94
Member, Dean's Committee on Curriculum Change, College of Arts and Sciences
1992 - 1993
Member, Dean's Committee on Teaching, College of Arts and Sciences 1992 -
Co-Chair, Department of History Graduate Committee, 1994-95
Vice-Chair, College of Arts & Sciences Educational Policy Committee, 1994-95
Elected Member, University Provost Search Committee, 1995-96
Chair, Search Committee for British and European Historian, Department of
History, 1996
OTHER POSITIONS
Director of Forensics, Brandeis University, 1968-71
Director of Forensics, Harvard University, 1971-72
Chairman, New York-New England Debate Committee, 1970-71
Historical consultant to the Kin and Communities Program of the Smithsonian
Institution 1974-1979
Along with general advisory duties, this position has involved the
following activities:
50
1. directing a national conference on techniques for studying historical
and contemporary families held at the Smithsonian in June 1976.
2. chairing a public session at the Smithsonian on how to do the
history of one's own family.
3. helping to direct the Sixth International Smithsonian Symposium on
Kin and Communities in America (June 1977).
4. editing the volume of essays from the symposium.
Consultant, Expert Witness and Analyst of Third Parties in the United States.
1. Consultant to John Anderson campaign for president, 1980.
I researched and wrote a study on "Restrictive Ballot Laws and Third-
Force Presidential Candidates." This document was a major component of
Anderson's legal arguments against restrictive ballot laws that ultimately
prevailed in the Supreme Court (Anderson v. Celebreeze 1983). According to
Anderson's attorney: "the basis for the majority's decision echoes the themes
you incorporated in your original historical piece we filed in the District
Court."
2. Expert Witness for New Alliance Party Ballot Access in State of
Alabama, 1990 (New Alliance Party v. Hand)
I analyzed the state of Alabama=s system for third-party ballot access
to demonstrate that the state=s early filing deadline for third parties imposed
an undue burden on such parties, without justification by a compelling state
interest for the ballot restrictions. My analysis was accepted by the federal
district court (in which I was recognized as an expert on third parties) in a
decision that was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
3. Expert Witness for Reform Party Ballot Access in State of Arkansas,
1996 (Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v. Priest)
I analyzed the state of Arkansas system for third-party ballot access
to demonstrate that the combination of an early filing deadline and relatively
high signature requirements for third parties imposed an undue burden on such
parties, without justification by a compelling state interest for the ballot
restrictions. I also analyzed the burdens placed on third-parties by the
disparity between third-party and independent signature requirements and by
the lack of a cure provision for ballot signatures, which is available for
initiative and referendum petitions. My analysis was accepted by the federal
district court in which I was again recognized as an expert on third parties.
4. Books and articles dealing with third parties in the United States.
These include PREJUDICE AND THE OLD POLITICS: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
OF 1928, THE THIRTEEN KEYS TO THE PRESIDENCY, THE KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE,
1996, "Critical Election Theory and the Reality of American Presidential
Politics, 1916-1940," AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW (April 1976), "Political
Realignment and `Ethnocultural` Voting in Late Nineteenth Century America,"
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY (March 1983), "'They Endured:' The Democratic Party
51
in the 1920s," in Ira Foreman, ed., DEMOCRATS AND THE AMERICAN IDEA: A
BICENTENNIAL APPRAISAL (1992).
5. Media Citations and appearances.
These include quotations in newspaper articles dealing with third parties,
analyses of the role of third parties in popular articles (e.g., APresident
Bill?@ WASHINGTONIAN (Oct., 1992), an appearance as a third-party expert on C-
SPAN=s Washington Journal program on third parties (03/20/96), appearances on
United States Information Agency=s Worldnet television on the American party
system, an appearance on National Public Radio Talk of the Nation as an expert
on third parties, and a speech to foreign correspondents at the National Press
Club on third parties.
Statistical Consultant to the George Washington University Program of Policy
Studies in Science and Technology, 1983
I advised researchers at the Policy Studies Program on the application of
pattern recognition techniques to their work on the recovery of communities
from the effects of such natural disasters as earthquakes and floods.
Expert Witness-on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Political History,
and Voting Behavior for the Lawyers, Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1983-
I have analyzed racial bloc voting, turnout, and registration; socioeconomic
conditions; political systems; and methodological issues for voting rights
cases involving the following ,Jurisdictions: Petersburg, Virginia; Boston
Massachusetts; Holyoke Massachusetts; Hinds County Mississippi; the state of
Mississippi (voter registration); the state of Mississippi (judicial
elections); Springfield, Illinois, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; Anchorage, Alaska;
Holyoke, Massachusetts; Crittenden County, Arkansas; Red Clay School District,
Delaware; the state of Florida (judicial elections). I have also analyzed
statistical information on promotion practices for probation officers within
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
I prepared written reports for each of the three of the Mississippi cases, the
Pittsburgh case, the Red Clay School District case, the Philadelphia case, and
the Florida judges case. I presented in-court testimony for the judicial and
registration cases in Mississippi, two judicial cases in Florida, and for the
cases involving Springfield, Illinois; Holyoke Massachusetts; Crittenden
County, Arkansas; and Red Clay School District.
Expert Witness on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Political History,
and Voter Behavior for the United States Department of Justice 1983 -
I have analyzed racial bloc voting; turnout and registration; socioeconomic
conditions; political systems; methodological issues for voting rights cases
in the following jurisdictions: Greenwood, Mississippi; Halifax County, North
Carolina; Valdosta, Georgia; Bessemer, Alabama; Marengo County, Alabama;
52
Dallas County, Alabama; Selma, Alabama; Cambridge, Maryland; Darlington
County, South Carolina; Lee County, Mississippi; Passaic, New Jersey;
Lawrence, Massachusetts; Santa Paula, California; the state of North Carolina
(judicial elections); Augusta, Georgia; Wicomico County, Maryland; the state
of Mississippi; Los Angeles, California; the state of Georgia (judicial
elections, majority vote requirement, and Shaw v. Reno type challenge); the
state of Florida (statewide legislative plans); the state of Texas (judicial
elections, Edwards Aquifer governing plans); the city of Chicago (Shaw v. Reno
type challenge to Hispanic congressional district).
I prepared written reports for the cases in Greenwood, Halifax County,
Marengo County, Dallas County, Selma, Cambridge, Wicomico County, Los Angeles
County, Lee County, Passaic, Lawrence, Santa Paula, Georgia, Florida, and
Texas, and Chicago. I presented in-court testimony for the cases in Dallas,
Marengo, Wicomico, and Los Angeles Counties, and the states of Florida,
Georgia (judicial elections, Shaw v. Reno challenge), and Chicago.
Expert Witness on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Demography, and
Voter Behavior for State, Municipal and County Jurisdictions, 1986-
I have analyzed matters such as racial and party bloc voting, turnout and
registration, annexations, racial demography, political systems, and
methodological issues for various state, municipal and county jurisdictions:
Claiborne County, Mississippi; Dade County,
Florida; Grenada County, Mississippi; Spartansburg, South Carolina; Maywood
School District, Illinois; Crete-Monee School District and Rockford School
District, Illinois; the city of New York (Charter Revision Commission); the
state of North Carolina (judges and redistricting); the state of Virginia; the
state of Maryland; the state of Texas; the state of Connecticut; the state of
Pennsylvania (non-partisan commission); the state of New York (Assembly); the
state of New Jersey (non-partisan commission); the state of Louisiana; the
State of Texas (Speaker of the House), the state of Illinois (Speaker of the
House), the city of New York (Charter Revision Commission), and Indianapolis,
Indiana.
I prepared written reports for Claiborne, Grenada, and Dade Counties, Crete-
Monee School District, and the states of Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New
Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Texas, and Virginia. I presented oral
testimony on behalf of Claiborne County, Crete-Monee School District, Dade
County, the state of Texas, the state of New Jersey, the state of Illinois,
the state of North Carolina, the state of Louisiana, and the state of
Maryland. For the states of Louisiana, Texas, and North Carolina I have
provided testimony related to issues posed in the Supreme Court case, Shaw v
Reno.
Expert Witness on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Political History,
and Voter Behavior for Private Attorneys: 1986-
I analyzed matters such as racial bloc voting, turnout and registration,
53
political systems, political history, annexations, and methodological issues
for private attorneys in voting rights cases taking place in Boyle,
Mississippi; Cleveland, Mississippi; Mississippi statewide (on behalf of
minority voters, legislative plan and Supreme Court Districts); City of Starke
and Hardee County, Florida; Peoria Illinois; Chicago Heights, Illinois;
Jefferson County, Alabama; Chickasaw, Lafayette, Monroe, Newton, Simpson, and
Yalobusha counties, Mississippi; Columbus County, North Carolina; Kent County,
Michigan; Florida statewide (on behalf of minority plaintiffs), Massachusetts
statewide (on behalf of Republican party, legislative plan), Michigan
statewide (on behalf of Democratic party, legislative and congressional
plans), Pennsylvania statewide (Democratic congressional caucus) New Jersey
statewide (on behalf of the Democratic party), Texas Statewide (on behalf of
IMPAC 2000), and Virginia statewide (on behalf of the Democratic party). I
have analyzed statistical results of employment decisions by employers for an
employment discrimination case, analyzed the history of peremptory strikes of
black and white jurors in Hinds County for a death penalty case, and ballot
access by third parties in Jefferson County, Alabama. I have analyzed the
influence of voting system technology on voting in Florida during the 2000
presidential election.
I prepared written reports for all cases except Peoria and Jefferson County
and have presented oral testimony in the jury selection case; Starke County;
Hardee County; Jefferson County; Chicago Heights, Monroe County; Chickasaw
County; Lafayette County; Newton County, Columbus County; the statewide
Michigan cases; the statewide Mississippi redistricting case; and the Florida
voting systems case.
Expert Witness on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Political History,
and Voter Behavior for the ACLU. 1987 -
I analyzed racially polarized voting, the socioeconomic standing of racial
groups, and black political opportunities for Henrico and Brunswick Counties,
Virginia; and Southern Pines and Moore County, North Carolina. I prepared a
written report for the Henrico case and the Southern Pines case. I presented
in-court testimony for the Henrico, Brunswick, and Southern Pines cases.
Expert Witness on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Political History,
and Voter Behavior for the Southern Poverty Law Center. 1990 -
I analyzed racially polarized voting, the socioeconomic conditions, and black
political opportunities for judicial circuits in Alabama. I prepared a
written report and presented oral testimony.
Expert Witness for the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, 1991 -
I analyzed the impact of the Census undercount on the state legislative plan
in Texas, including oral testimony in state court. I analyzed racially
polarized voting in the city of Chicago and its implications for aldermanic
elections.
54
Expert Witness on Quantitative Analysis, Political Systems, Political History,
and Voter Behavior for the NAACP, 1993-
I prepared a written report and presented in-court testimony for the NAACP's
challenge to the State House and Senate plan in Michigan.
Expert Witness on voter purging for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund 1991 -
I prepared a written report and presented in-court testimony for PRLDEF's
challenge to voter purging in Philadelphia.
