Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the number of Latino and African-American congressional representatives has increased dramatically. Benefiting in part from VRA provisions that create so-called majority-minority districts—those in which minority groups constitute a majority of the voting population—California's minority legislators have emerged as visible political actors in an institution traditionally dominated by whites. Advocates argue that majority-minority districts are beneficial because they encourage more Latinos and African Americans to participate in the political process. Although this claim has met with considerable skepticism, so far neither the advocates nor the skeptics have offered firm evidence for or against the link between majority-minority redistricting and increased political participation. Claudine Gay's The Effect of Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Political Participation in California provides this evidence by addressing two key questions: Do Latino, African-American, and white turnout rates vary with the racial and ethnic balance of a district? Does the race or ethnicity of the congressional representative in a majority-minority district affect these turnout rates? Answers to these questions have important implications for redistricting in 2001. If majority-minority districts promote political participation among Latinos and African Americans, creating such districts may compensate for other socioeconomic barriers that are associated with low voter participation. As a result of connecting new voters to the political world, race-conscious redistricting can create an active electorate that more accurately reflects the state's racial and ethnic make-up.

The Effect of Minority Districts and Minority Representation on Political Participation in California

Politics & Social Sciences

Gay, Claudine

Politics & Government

Public Policy Inst of California

California’s recent population and job growth have outstripped its new housing production. As a result, median home prices and rents have escalated while affordability rates have fallen. Although these trends present various challenges to the state government, city governments actually make most of the land-use decisions that affect housing. Many observers maintain that California’s cities have not done enough to accommodate new housing in recent years, and some critics have argued that local growth controls are a major cause of the state’s housing shortfalls. 
In Cities Under Pressure: Local Growth Controls and Residential Development Policy, Paul Lewis and Max Neiman evaluate these claims by examining the residential development policies of California’s cities. Focusing on local efforts to control the amount, type, and location of new housing, the authors use a variety of data sources—including a detailed survey of almost 300 city planning officials in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Central Valley—to investigate which communities adopt growth controls and why. Their findings indicate that most growthmanagement policies are understandable responses to the cross-pressures experienced by city officials. 
Although the authors note that some local growth controls may indeed hinder homebuilding, they argue that broader market forces and state policies probably do more to explain California’s high housing costs and slow production. They suggest that a more predictable and transparent development process would help minimize conflict over growth. They also urge local officials to manage such conflicts before they erupt and to take the lead in resolving them once they do.

Cities Under Pressure: Local Growth Control and Residential Development Policy

Paul G. Lewis

Max Neiman

Business & Money

See the best price to sell, buy or rent books by the Public Policy Inst of California publisher. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Books by Public Policy Inst of California