Vivid Civic

Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding

2017-01-14T00:00:00-00:00

In September 2016 at a Phoenix AZ campaign stop, president-elect Donald Trump, said he would cut all federal funds to sanctuary cities if cities did not comply with immigration enforcement.

Cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and many more have come out against the president-elect in support of local residents to say their city will remain a sanctuary city regardless of threats from the federal government.

City officials are not required to enforce federal immigration law, so the only recourse the federal government has is to threaten defund to sanctuary cities.

Cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and many more have come out against the president-elect in support of local residents to say their city will remain a sanctuary city regardless of threats from the federal government.

What would happen if sanctuary cities did lose all federal grants? Around the country, cities receive varying amounts of money from the federal government and would be impacted differently if federal funding was completely eliminated. Cities like New York, Seattle, and and Los Angeles rely on roughly between 1%-12% of their budget from the federal government, and the amount varies city to city. Certain cities like Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Seattle receive very little in federal grants currently, so cuts would not be devastating. For some sanctuary cities, like New York, Philadelphia, and Seattle, if no federal grants comes in, the city has a variety of revenue sources to fall back on. Some cities like Chicago rely heavily on federal grants and are limited in raising alternative revenue. Certain cities are well positioned to refuse federal (Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Seattle) funding while other are not (Chicago, Seattle, New York) because of how much federal funding they currently receive.

This may signal a sea change in how cities view federal authority. With residents coming out in support of funding transportation projects themselves at the city level, cities have repositioned themselves to thrive in the midst of federal turmoil.

(photo by Julia Fredenburg)

Can the president-elect actually take away all federal grants? Supreme Court rulings restrict the federal government in using funding to coerce municipalities. Also, city police forces are often prohibited from detaining someone past their jail term for immigration detention. Finally, federal funding comes to cities via grants. These grants have terms which must be clear to cities and are connected to what they should be spent on. Grant terms limits the federal government’s ability to put immigration or law enforcement criteria on education grants or social service grants for instance. The president-elect is limited in federal grants he can take away from cities like New York, Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

Can the president-elect actually take away all federal grants?

Cities have an incredible power within their boundaries. The way that we think about cities has changed over time. Voters have shown they are willing to pay for projects that are important to them, and can have control over their futures. Cities are self sufficient in many ways, and have the flexibility to be innovative and risky. New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and San Francisco have the financial and population power to stand up for rights of immigrants and refuse grants with unreasonable strings attached.

What are Sanctuary cities?

Sanctuary cities (and counties) limit their cooperation with federal immigration law enforcement. There is no one definition for a sanctuary city, but oftentimes sanctuary cities will prohibit the use of municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities often prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status. Local law enforcement will not cooperate with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) request to detain individuals.

Because there is no one definition for sanctuary cities, it is often difficult to say how many there. According to the New York Times, there are roughly 39 Sanctuary cities, though this number is up for debate.

(photo by Julia Fredenburg)

What Sanctuary Cities Have to Say

With the recent election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, many residents are concerned about family, friends, and neighbors who are immigrants. Because of the president-elect’s caustic remarks about immigrants during the presidential campaign, many residents are concerned for their safety. As a result, many sanctuary cities have come out to publicly state they will remain so, regardless of threats to cut off funding from the federal government.

Notably, sanctuary cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia (amongst many others) have publicly stated they will remain sanctuary cities and are not in the business of using local police forces to enforce federal immigration laws. All of those cities prohibit police officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status. Most (LA, NYC, San Francisco, and Philadelphia) do not hand over people to federal immigration officials for deportation if they’ve been arrested for low level crimes. Additionally, most do not detain people past a previous jail term for the purpose of being deported.

Cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia have publicly stated they will remain sanctuary cities and are not in the business of using local police forces to enforce federal immigration laws.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said on Nov 14, 2016 that the police department was not going to be a part of deportations by the federal government. The police department would also continue to prohibit officers from stopping people to ask about immigration status. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti said in early Nov 2016 “we’re a very welcoming city, where our law enforcement officers and LAPD don’t go around asking people for their papers, nor should they.”

Mayor Ed Murray stated that Seattle would remain a sanctuary city even if it meant losing federal funding, though expressed concern about funding for homeless services and transit projects that he feared might be lost.

“LAPD don’t go around asking people for their papers, nor should they.” - LA Mayor Eric Garcetti

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, and Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney echoed similar sentiments, assuring residents they would remain sanctuary cities. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said Nov 10, 2016 that New York would also continue to be a sanctuary city. "We are not going to sacrifice a half million people who live among us, who are part of our community. We are not going to tear families apart."

Federal Funding

With a threat from the president-elect to cut funding to sanctuary cities, New York will be affected differently than Philadelphia differently than Seattle differently than Los Angeles. How much will cities really lose if they are cut off from Federal grants?

In fiscal year 2016 (typically from July 2015-June 2016), the federal government provided different cities with wildly different grant allocations for city expense budgets. New York City received the most with roughly $7 billion for social services, education, police, transportation, and more. Minneapolis and Philadelphia received $29 million in federal grants. Chicago received the most as a percentage (11.26%) of the city’s entire budget, receiving over $1 billion in federal grants in FY 2016. Philadelphia received the least in total ($29 million) and percentage (0.74% of total city budget) as is it contributes to the city budget. Some cities have a lot more to lose than others.

Some cities have a lot more to lose than others.

Federal Grants in FY2016 to Cities

Federal Grants as a % City Budget

For context, different cities spend wildly different sums per capita, so this plays into the total sum they receive from the federal government. I.e. if they total budget is large, the amount from the federal government will be large as well. New York receives $843 per resident in federal grants, San Francisco receives $535 per resident, and Chicago receives $368 per resident. Minneapolis receives receives $74 per resident in federal grants while Philadelphia, a city with roughly 3 times the population of Minneapolis receives only $19 per resident in federal grants. Some cities spend a lot on each resident, while others spend little, and this is oftentimes proportionally represented in federal funding.

Some cities spend a lot on each resident, while others spend little, and this is oftentimes proportionally represented in federal funding.

Per Capita Spending by City for Entire Budget

Per Capita Federal Grants by City

Cities’ ability to respond to a lack of federal funding relies heavily of the current level they receive from the federal government and also their current revenue structure. Those heavily reliant on federal funds and also fees for services are not on as sure a footing as those with little federal funding currently and flexible taxing revenue structure with support from state grants.

Where do Cities Get Money from?

Chicago

(photo by Jamie Burkart)

Chicago gets the most as a percentage because the city has few other funding sources. Chicago is not well positioned to refuse federal funding.

Chicago relies very heavily on grants from the federal government to provide services, resulting in a reliance on fees from services to make up a majority of revenue. Chicago received 11% of their FY16 budget revenue from federal grants, and 1.8% in State Grants ($168,900,000 FY16). This imbalance may be due in large part because Chicago also relies heavily on fees for services and does not have a city income tax. Relying on service fees means that if Chicago were to lose a major funding source, the city would have to increase the costs of services like sewer and water. Increasing costs for basic services puts an undue burden on those with the lowest income because they will pay a much larger portion of their income than those with much high income for a very similar service.

Chicago gets the most as a percentage because the city has few other funding sources. Chicago is not well positioned to refuse federal funding.

Federal Grants as a % of City Budget

Chicago receives very little grants from the State of Illinois. Compared to Philadelphia which receives 5.4% of total city revenue from the State of Pennsylvania, or New York City which receives 16% of its revenue from the State of New York. This makes it difficult for the City of Chicago to turn down federal funding because the city does not have any way to make up the difference.

Chicago Sources of Revenue FY16

New York City

(photo by Julia Fredenburg)

NYC gets the most as a total, receiving $7 billion in federal grants in FY16, though is less reliant on outside sources and fees for revenue than Chicago.

New York receives a lot of money because it serves the largest number of people, and provides different services. New York City has a population of over 8 million people, more than twice the population of the next largest city, Los Angeles. New York City also passes the largest budget, coming in at $84 billion for FY16. That is more than 9x the budget of Chicago ($9 billion FY16), which is the next largest. New York City provides a lot of services that a state would, like housing and other social services.

NYC gets the most as a total, receiving $7 billion in federal grants in FY16, though is less reliant on outside sources and fees for revenue than Chicago.

Even with the largest amount of federal grants of all cities, that funding source only makes up 8.4% of New York City’s expense budget in FY 2016.

New York City receives funding primarily from property taxes, income taxes, and state grants, allowing it to be more nimble if the city did in fact lose federal funding. The state provided roughly 16% ($13 billion) of the total revenue budget in FY 16 compared to Chicago’s 1.8% in state grants. New York City also utilizes a progressive income tax, allowing for those with higher incomes to pay more to city coffers. New York City is well situated if it lost federal grants because of its flexible revenue structure from taxes and state grants.

New York Sources of Revenue FY16

Philadelphia

Philadelphia gets the least in federal grants as a percentage and in total sum amongst all the cities studied, and the city spends the least per capita on its residents. Philadelphia is well positioned to turn down federal funding because the city receives so little currently.

Philadelphia receives very little in federal grants. The city’s overall budget is also very small. Philadelphia was awarded $18.67 per capita in federal grants in FY16 and spent roughly $2,500 per capita in total in FY16. Compared to San Francisco’s budget of $10,673 per capita and $535 per capita in federal grants, Philadelphia pales in comparison of overall spending and federal grant receipt.

Philadelphia is flexible in terms of revenue sources and could withstand defunding from the federal government. Primarily, city revenues come from income tax, property tax, business taxes, and the Pennsylvania Intergov Cooperation Authority (PICA). Roughly 5% comes from state grants.

Philadelphia is well positioned to turn down federal funding because the city receives so little currently.

Philadelphia receives very little in federal grants and has a flexible revenue structure. If the city did lose all federal grants, Philadelphia could fall back on income taxes, property taxes, and state grants.

Philadelphia Sources of Revenue FY16

Los Angeles

(photo by Don Lee)

Los Angeles receives some grants from the federal government but not the most of all cities studied. The city does not have particularly flexible revenue sources, relying on fixed property taxes and fees for services.

Los Angeles receives roughly 5% of the city’s expense budget from the federal government, a middle level city in terms of amount received. LA falls in the middle of cities studied for per capita spending from federal grants with $106 in federal grants per resident. The city spends the least in total per resident with $2,209 per resident for city services.

LA relies heavily on property taxes and fees as revenue sources and very little on the State of California (1.7% of FY16 expense budget).

Los Angeles is not perfectly situated to refuse federal funding, but with low reliance on funding currently and political backing from the state of California, it could work.

Los Angeles Sources of Revenue FY16

Los Angeles is not perfectly situated to refuse federal funding, but with low reliance on funding currently and political backing from the state of California, it could work.

What Could Cities Lose?

What do cities stand to lose if they lost federal grants? Social services and housing could take a big hit. San Francisco and Chicago specifically have focussed on the ability to lose justice related funds because of non-compliance. This is the most likely result for all cities studied.

Many cities have looked to residents to cover the cost of services and capital projects. Residents in Seattle and Los Angeles recently passed initiatives at the ballot box that ask residents to pay more for transportation projects (and receive less from the federal government). Cities may find their own ways to pay for the services needed. This could be a path to independent cities and a complete change in how residents see the structure and responsibility of local government.

Social services and housing could take a big hit.

(photo by Don Lee)

Los Angeles received roughly $400 million in FY16 in federal grants for services like port security, library reading programs, and homeless shelters. This number only accounts for services and not physical capital projects funded by the federal government. The Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA) also received roughly $23 million in federal Housing and Urban Development funds this fiscal year. If all funds were pulled out by the federal government, it stands to reason that the Los Angeles housing authority may be the biggest loser.

Cities may find their own ways to pay for the services needed. This could be a path to independent cities and a complete change in how residents see the structure and responsibility of local government.

Los Angeles city officials are also looking to the federal government to partially cover new transportation and infrastructure projects like restoring an 11 mile section of the Los Angeles River and a subway through the Sepulveda Pass. Interestingly, the passage of a new tax to fund transportation in the county expresses residents’ interest willingness to pay for transportation projects, with no federal strings attached.

(photo by Jamie Burkart)

In Seattle, cuts to federal funding would mean the loss of $37 million towards the city Human Services Department’s $144 million budget. What also stands to be lost is $10 million in federal grant money as part of the city’s Transportation Master Plan. Additionally, the city was counting on grants for a streetcar, bridge project, and bus rapid transit.

Los Angeles isn’t the only city to look to residents instead of the federal government to fund federal transportation projects. Washington state recently passed a transit package to add $53.85 billion to add 62 miles of new light rail in the Puget Sound area.”

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray stated that he was concerned about getting federal funding for homeless services and transit projects. The mayor stated that homeless services funding may have to go to voters as well.

“At some point, the federal government is going to have to step up. Obviously, it doesn’t look like that’s going to be soon. We as a city are going to have to ask ourselves, ‘What more do we do?’ ” Murray said.

Los Angeles and Seattle have rethought transportation funding with a new focus on services and infrastructure supported by residents directly. Cities will be forced to be financially independent from the federal government, and will in turn will have the ability to refuse terms the city does not agree with. Essentially this will create more freedom for the city to enact policies that are more flexible and risky than the federal government could implement because of the political climate and sheer size of bureaucracy.

“At some point, the federal government is going to have to step up. Obviously, it doesn’t look like that’s going to be soon. We as a city are going to have to ask ourselves, ‘What more do we do?’” -Seattle Mayor Ed Murray

(photo by Jamie Burkart)

In the most likely scenario, there will be cuts in funding for law enforcement and justice grants.

San Francisco and Chicago have voiced concerns about losing annual justice grants. Grants with stipulations tied to immigration procedures are those most likely to be cut. Even before the president-elect entered the dialogue on sanctuary cities, the Department of Justice had blocked select cities and states from applying for certain grants because they wouldn’t meet the department's criteria, including the state of California.

Cities will be forced to be financially independent from the federal government, and will in turn will have the ability to refuse terms the city does not agree with.

(photo by Julia Fredenburg)

Because Department of Justice grants are tied to outcomes around enforcing immigration policies, cities are most likely to lose Department of Justice grants of all current federal grants.

Can the Federal Gov Cut All Funds to Cities?

The federal government cannot use coercive conditions like withholding funding in order to facilitate its goals. The Supreme Court has ruled on several cases involving the federal government's control over other levels of government. In 2012, with the Supreme Court struck down the federal government’s Medicaid expansion, the ruling stated that the federal government couldn’t use overly coercive tactics for funding conditions. In the Supreme Court’s South Dakota vs. Dole ruling, the court came to a similar decision about Congress and its inability to coerce local governments to act based on the threat of withholding federal funds.

{image 14} (photo by Julia Fredenburg)

In 2012, with the Supreme Court struck down the federal government’s Medicaid expansion, the ruling the federal government couldn’t use overly coercive tactics for funding conditions.

Also, local authorities cannot hold people beyond their release date for an unrelated immigration crime as it violates the 4th amendment right against unreasonable seizures. In 2014, a federal court ruling found that an Oregon county illegally held an inmate beyond their release date to be transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This lead several cities to take up sanctuary city status in order to comply with federal laws regarding unreasonable seizures. As a result, it is largely illegal for local officials to hold inmates after their release date in order to transfer them to federal officials.

Additionally, federal grants to state and local governments have conditions in order to receive the grant, and those conditions must relate to the grant’s purpose. Criteria must relate to the purpose of the grant. The grant can not be taken away midterm unless those criteria are not met. The federal government cannot withhold federal grants to specific cities unless it can prove the grants criteria related to deportation policies, and very few are given with conditions relating to federal deportation. Federal grants have certain criteria that is related to the grant which is agreed upon by the recipient.

Should Cities Hold their Ground?

Cities are uniquely positioned at this time. Federal grants have decreased substantially over time, and local residents, seeing the value of important capital projects, have voted to fund those projects in part themselves. Cities with limited funds from the federal government and flexible sources of revenue are best positioned to resist federal government immigration threats. Through Supreme Court rulings, a solid footing for local pushback has been put in place. While unlikely to lose all federal grants, it is possible that cities may lose U.S Department of Justice grants for not following department criteria for grants based on current immigration practices. Many cities already do not receive those grants because of current policies, so there is little lost for certain cities. Cities are generally well positioned to maintain their sanctuary status because of small amount they currently receive in federal grants and also because the federal government is limited in immigration restrictrictions it can apply to federal grants.

Get the Data and Sources

All Cities Federal Grants FY2016 CSV Los Angeles Revenue CSV Philadelphia Revenue CSV New York City Revenue CSV Chicago Revenue Sources CSV

How the Democrats can win in 2020 (and every election after) by flipping one state

2017-01-18T00:00:00-00:00

Until election night, most of the (left leaning) coverage of the 2016 presidential election focused on a small group of 9 to 16 "swing states". Conventional wisdom says that swing states are states where there is a thin margin in the polls, and enough undecided or swayable voters to swing the state toward either candidate.

Polls and Advertising

Framing the election this way creates erratic trends seen in election forecasts. Small shifts in polls seen across several swing states can cause severe shifts in national forecasts. In 2016, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast shifted Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning from 51% on July 31 to 88% on August 8, a little over a week later.

Taking a closer look at results from past presidential elections shows that the concept of swing states may be a misnomer. Looking at 2016 results in the context of past elections shows that it would be wise for Democrats to abandon the swing state logic and look for more effective ways to get to 270 electoral votes. Few true swing states exist, and focusing on states which are truly shifting to left is a way for Democrats to win in 2020 and beyond.

Along with the media focus on swing states, the presidential campaigns themselves put most of their advertising dollars toward the same group of close races. Bloomberg Politics showed 16 states where at least one candidate was spending money for TV ads last fall. Most of this money was going towards 4 of the top 6 swing states by electoral vote: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The Clinton campaign’s TV ad spending was greater than Trump’s, but Trump’s reveals more of his campaign’s intentions and perceived paths to an electoral college victory. The Trump campaign’s TV ad spending makes it clear that they didn’t think he could win Michigan (he did), and that they thought he had a chance in Colorado and Virginia (he didn’t).

Swing and Drift

Taking a step back from the media definition of swing state that puts the label on any state with a close race, there are only 4 states that in the last 7 presidential elections since 1992 that have voted for each party at least 3 times.

Looking at these 4 states shows two distinct stories. Colorado and Virginia that are drifting from the Republican party to the Democratic party, while Florida and Ohio are the only true swing states that regularly shift support from one party to the other.

Democratic % change from previous election year

The algorithm for determining the winner in Florida and Ohio in elections since 1996 is actually very simple. If there is a sitting president on the ballot, both states will vote for them; if there is not a sitting president on the ballot both states will vote for the opposite party of the sitting president. While this trend does not bode well for Democrats in 2020, looking at the "drift" states shows a more optimistic picture.

Both Colorado and Virginia voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004, then voted Democratic in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Both states saw a large shift of between 12% and 14% for the Republican candidate in 2008, but in either election since neither state has dipped below a 3% margin for the Democratic candidate. Both Colorado and Virginia are becoming more Democratic over time, and we can expect that trend to continue.

8 states that have voted for each party at least twice in the past 7 presidential elections and they can be split into three categories. States that are drifting toward the Republican party: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia; and swing-ish states that tend to vote for the winner of the election: Iowa and Nevada.

Average drift in the difference between the national popular vote and individual states' popular vote between 2008 and 2016

The split between swing states that switch back and forth, and drift states that seem like they have made a stable shift from one party to the other shows an effective strategy for compounding election success. As the Democrats have succeeded in flipping Colorado and Virginia, the Trump campaign's success in the Rust Belt will carry into future elections. The 3 "recount" states that decided the 2016 election, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, had not voted Republican since the 1980s, but have all drifted towards the Republican party steadily since 2008.

Texas

The polarization that many people feel when looking at election results is real in many ways. For the most part, states that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 have drifted towards the Democratic party since 2008, while states that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 have drifted towards the Republican party. There are a few states though that could tip the 2020 election, the most important one is Texas.

The two largest states, California and Texas have voted for the Democratic party, and the Republican party respectively in each of the last 7 elections. But, in each of the 3 elections won by a Republican (2000, 2004, and 2016), flipping Texas to the Democrats would have swung the election, while in none of the 4 elections won by Democrats would flipping California to the Republicans have changed the outcome. By traditional swing state logic, in most elections, a party needs to win many swing states to reach 270 electoral votes. For the Democrats, Texas is in many ways the ultimate swing state, if they can win Texas they can lose almost every historically close state.

This goal may not be as far fetched as it sounds. Ignoring Utah and Hawaii because of home state swings, only California has drifted farther left than Texas in the last 3 elections. Trump won Texas in 2016 by a large 9% margin, but 46 out of 51 states (plus D.C.) have had at least one shift at least that big since 1992. Texas also continues to grow in population quickly, and is projected to gain 3 electoral votes in the 2024 election.

Instead of continuing to pour advertising dollars into states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania where demographic shifts tend to work in Republicans’ favor, Democrats should focus their resources almost exclusively in Texas where the momentum is already going in their direction.

Whose Votes Count? State Demographics and Election Qualities

2017-01-19T00:00:00-00:00

At the end of 2016, the Electoral Integrity Project, an organization run by Dr. Pippa Norris, released a report which scores the quality of each state's elections. The purpose of the study is to inform researchers and other interested parties how democratic each state is– how well government policies reflect public beliefs and values.

To understand the quality of elections, the EIP collected surveys from 726 experts on a variety of topics, including electoral laws, ease of voter registration, and balloting facility characteristics by state. From their 49 question survey, the EIP constructed the standardized Perceptions of Electoral Integrity (PEI) Index and calculated it for each state during the month after the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Using the data from the EIP report, I began exploring various public data sources to understand what factors are important when considering electoral integrity. I settled on data from the American Community Survey and the US Census. I also used data from a 2013 Williamson/Gallup poll on LGBT identification.

Electoral Integrity Project State Democracy Ranking

Demographics

While looking through various demographics collected by these organizations, I found four important factors: total state population, economic disparity, net international migration, and solely white population.

Total state population is the estimated population of each state in 2015. Economic disparity, defined by a measure called the GINI index, is how exponential the difference in wealth between citizens of a state is. Larger numbers indicate more extreme differences between poorer and richer citizens.

Net international migration is how many people have legally settled in the state from another nation subtracted by how many people have moved out of the United States after living in said state. A positive number indicates that migrants are moving into the state.

The solely white population is the portion of the population that lists their race as white, and only white.

These factors, and the interactions between these factors, account for 29% of the variance in PEI indices by state. This means that these four variables can be used to explain between a fourth and a third of the differences between states’ PEI scores.

Description: Multiple regression of electoral integrity for each state by net migration, total population, white population, and economic disparity as measured by the GINI index (F(15,34)= 2.34, p = .02, R^2 = 0.29). All 3- and 4-way interactions were insignificant and were thus excluded. Probability values are color-coded (see key).

There were significant main effects for net migration, total population, and white population. The most statistically robust finding was that electoral integrity increases as a function of the number of migrants in a given state (b = 5.42,t = 3.732, p < .001). Meanwhile, as the total population size of a state increases, the electoral integrity of the state decreases (b = -12.95, t = 3.20, p < .01). The more white residents of a state, the higher the electoral integrity of the state (b = 7.03, t = 2.62, p < .05). Thus, both highly populous and racially diverse states were found to have weaker democracies, while states that accepted more international migrants tended to have stronger democracies (though the positive effect of larger migrant populations was smaller than the negative effect of smaller white populations on electoral integrity). In this data, no direct relationship of economic disparity on electoral integrity was found.

However, significant interactions occurred between economic disparity and both migration and total population. The interaction between net migration and economic disparity was negative (b = -5.41, t = -2.89, p < .01), meaning that as the number of immigrants and the economic disparity both increased, elections were less democratic. This suggests that places with large numbers of incoming migrants and a lot of unevenly distributed wealth have worse elections. However, the interaction between economic disparity and total population was positive (b = 10.61, t = 2.308, p < .05).

While trying to develop an interpretation of these findings, I considered that median income may be confounding our measure of income inequality– places with a few incredibly wealthy people could also have higher median household incomes. However, no correlation was apparent between median household income and income inequality by state (r(49) = 0.62, p = 0.54); no obvious confound is apparent to me.

Income inequality is associated with worse elections in states that receive a large number of migrants, but is associated with more responsive democracies when population increases.

From the main effect of population on PEI index, we know states with large populations are worse at representing the interests of their residents. Low-population states and unusually white states have relatively strong democracies– likely because there are fewer social divisions that could lead to differing political opinions. High-population states, which in general do a poor job of representing their residents, may rely on unique characteristics of cities to maintain their democracies: income inequality doesn't directly affect electoral integrity, but when income inequality and total population both increase (as it large cities), electoral integrity is higher.

An intuitive interpretation of this data suggests that democracy is easy when almost everyone wants the same things, but is more challenging in states with more diverse population and differing needs. If large cities are where both net migration and population are high, then “diversity” is not the sole determinant of a successful democracy in the face of discordant public interests; rather, “density” is what combats the general trends towards less effective elections in states with larger populations. Whether or not cities are really the crux of this phenomena will have to be tested in further research.

Density is what combats the general trends towards less effective elections in states with larger populations.

LGBT Population and Democracy

While considering urban areas, I wondered if non-heteronormative populations– which exist in higher proportions in cities– might be a useful predictor for understanding electoral quality. Hypothesizing that queerness may exist in more democratic environments, I attempted to add the percentage of participants who identified as LGBT from a 2013 federal poll by Gallup and the Williamson Institute– the most robust measure of national non-heteronormative population density I am aware of– to the model. However, its inclusion decreased the effectiveness of our model (F(18, 31)= 1.41, p = 0.22, R^2 = 0.21). No relationship exists between electoral integrity and LGBT identification– there is no clear connection between democracy and queerness.

There is no clear connection between democracy and queerness.

Frankly, this finding surprised me. I posit these possible reasons for the lack of a relationship:

LGBT voters are not systematically disadvantaged by restrictive conditions for voting, and resident LGBT people do not play a major role in promoting democracy at the state level. While People of Color have historically been disenfranchised by discriminatory voter suppression laws (and states with more People of Color continue to have weaker elections, as we found in this analysis), LGBT people have not.

Relatedly, LGBT-identifying individuals may have their perceptions of elections shaped by their parents, as most children tend to inherit their parents' political beliefs. Thus, gender and sexuality may not be relevant to the voting habits and perceptions of these populations and LGBT people may relate to state governments in very similar ways to their straight counterparts. LGBT identification is unrelated to democracy and the efficacy of elections. Anecdotally, New York City Mayoral Candidate Christine Quinn's lukewarm popularity among LGB voters in 2013 supports the claim that there is no LGBT voting profile or unifying voting experience.

LGBT suppression, while intrinsically antidemocratic, may give the illusion of democracy via representivity: for example, North Carolina's "Bathroom Bill" (which was considered discriminatory to trans and gender-nonconforming individuals) may have energized voters who felt otherwise out of touch with federal and state governments' recent wave of legal protections for LGBT people. Judith Butler has described succinctly how even popular measures of discrimination are never democratic, but the effects of discrimination in practice are less clear. We have established that democracies function most easily when they serve relatively homogenous populations; divisive legislation that scapegoats a small minority could bring together an oppressive majority that emulates democracy, which could drown the relationship between LGBT populations, discrimination, and electoral integrity in noise and echos.

Divisive legislation that scapegoats a small minority could bring together an oppressive majority that emulates democracy

LGBT identification may not have been accurately reported in the 2013 poll (as these kinds of naturalistic, national polls are prone to various sampling biases), or other methodological concerns from the variety of large-scale datasets that were studied could be misdirecting our analysis.

The last possibility is the most seductive and the least supported. Intuitively, the association between democracy and personal freedoms, especially in the domain of identity, seem heavily intertwined. Are they actually disconnected? If so, what untraversed distance exists between LGBT identification and electoral integrity? The leftist histories of LGBTQ grassroots campaigns have left indellible marks in the laws and history books of the world's democracies; 92% of LGBT adults said that society has been noticeably more accepting of us in a 2013 PEW poll and, as of 2014, LGBT people are at least as likely as the general population to be politically active. What accounts for the disparity between these histories of activism and progress and the total disconnect between electoral integrity?

Of course, the lack of relationship between electoral integrity and LGBT identification can be perceived as a good thing– unlike with People of Color, there is no evidence in this data of systemic disenfranchisement of LGBT people at the ballot. Is that it? Is our finding that LGBT people have no influence on democracy because we are not immediately threatened and thus take no action?

More populous and diverse states generally struggle to listen to their people as well, cities may be the site of something that increases the quality of elections.

Ultimately, this analysis demonstrated that very white states without a lot of people and a large number of incoming migrants tend to have better elections. While more populous and diverse states generally struggle to listen to their people as well, cities may be the site of something (maybe increased drives for cooperation and conversation, or more established government infrastructures for elections) that increases the quality of elections. Currently, the proportion of a state who identifies as LGBT bears no relation to the quality of the state’s elections. As a queer person, this analysis has suggested to me that my friends and I would do well to prioritize electoral integrity in our political activity– while LGBT identification is not a perfect proxy for gender and sexual minorities’ political activity or prominence, I expected some relationship to exist. Human rights are intersectional, and the promotion of a more democratic America is, and, frankly, should have already been, a major priority– for queer people, and for all Americans.

The Women's March on Washington

2017-01-22T00:00:00-00:00

I traveled to D.C. from New York on Thursday evening Jan 19 to stay in D.C. for a few days before the Women’s March on Washington on Saturday. I drove with a friend Jessica and three sisters, in their grandfather’s Crown Victoria. Seats like a comfortable faux velvet couch, white fuzzy dice from the rear view mirror.

We spent a lot of time making signs, sashes, buttons, the works. It seems like everyone I know in New York is coming.

The day of the march, we leave the apartment where we are staying near Dupont Circle, the feeling has changed completely from the day before, where the few that were out were mourning inaugural zombies the day before. On the streets, people are streaming out of their apartments, towards the trains, towards the march. The metro workers tell us the trains are full, we will have to walk, it will only take thirty minutes. We’re two miles away from the march, but the streets are already packed with people.

We stream closer and closer, the crowds are growing. We are all trying to get to the rally spot, but there are so many people, it would unbelievable if we did. We are essentially already marching, thousands of women towards the official march. A jovial atmosphere persists in the crowd. It takes hours, but we reach the march that is in progress. There are women as far as the eye can see.

What is incredible about this march are the sheer numbers of course, but also who is here. The most common sight is to see whole families of women, grandmother, granddaughter, mother, aunt, sister. There are husbands and boyfriends and brothers. There is no defining age or race of the march. People are here who would never ordinarily march.

There is a calm and persistent feeling. A march is not a parade, it is a demand. It is a pilgrimage. We feel anger, of course or we would not show up, but we are also simply a presence. You can ignore us in the boardroom, but you’ll see us in the streets.

Photos by Julia Fredenburg