Racism Has a Hand at the Ballot Box : State’s Minority Candidates Hindered by Bias, Studies Indicate

As California nears the time when minorities make up half its population, there still is a racial handicap to bear for any black, Latino or Asian who competes against a white for major statewide public office, according to academics, politicians and pollsters.

Moreover, there are deep divisions between minority groups themselves, and these schisms present formidable obstacles to their attaining political power. There is no “rainbow coalition,” the experts agree.

“It is clear that voting is racially polarized in this state,” said Caltech political science professor Bruce E. Cain, who has studied the subject in depth.

Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Woo said in an interview: “There definitely is racism out in the community to be tapped in campaigns. There are negative feelings. It’s hard to measure in polls because most people have very polite self-images and do not want to think of themselves as racists.”

The Times, seeking to measure the impact of racial prejudice on voting in California, interviewed scores of political professionals, social scientists and public opinion pollsters over several weeks. The consensus was that although racial tolerance is increasing among Californians--as it is among Americans generally--significant prejudice remains, and it can have a substantial, even decisive, impact on statewide voting.

The question of racial impact on voting decisions is particularly relevant this year. California voters are being asked to decide on the fate of a ballot measure that would declare English the official language of the state and on the future of Latino state Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso. At the top of the ballot, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black, again will be vying for the state’s highest office against Gov. George Deukmejian.

Veteran pollster Mervyn D. Field of the independent California Poll concluded after the 1982 gubernatorial election that then-Atty. Gen. Deukmejian’s thin margin of victory--1.2%--could be attributed to Mayor Bradley’s “net measurable loss” of votes “because he was a black candidate.” Field estimated that Bradley’s net loss due to “racial bias” was 96,500 votes. Deukmejian won by 93,345.

Field arrived at his figures after analyzing the official election results and his own polls, taken both before election day and as voters left the ballot booths.

Virtually nobody The Times interviewed, however, thought that race was playing a significant role in this year’s repeat contest between Deukmejian and Bradley. The feeling was that the potential impact of racial bias has been rendered inconsequential, at least so far, because the Republican incumbent has been running far ahead of his Democratic challenger for many reasons totally unrelated to any possible voter bigotry.

‘Less Threatening’

“People are not convinced Bradley has a chance to win and as a result his race is less threatening to them,” said Virtual Murrell, now an aide to Oakland City Councilman Leo Bazile and formerly a campaign adviser to Virginia Lt. Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the first black since Reconstruction to win statewide office in the Old Confederacy.

But there will be other issues on the Nov. 4 state ballot that could kindle racial or ethnic bias. One is Proposition 63, opposed by Asian and Latino groups, which would decree English as the state’s official language.

Irvin R. Lai, a Los Angeles restaurateur who is national president of the Chinese-American Citizens Alliance, asserted that the so-called English-only measure was generated by people who “are anti-minority, anti-immigration and anti-foreign language.”

Stanley Diamond of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. English group that is sponsoring the ballot measure, emphatically denied that its supporters are anti-immigrant. But he said they do strongly object to dividing the country along linguistic lines. “We have Hispanic politicians with an unstated or hidden agenda to turn California into a bilingual, bicultural state,” he said.

Decision on Reynoso

Another decision voters must make on Nov. 4 is whether to reconfirm Reynoso as a member of the state Supreme Court. Reynoso is among six Supreme Court justices seeking reconfirmation, and he is the only one with a Spanish surname. Except for Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, who has been the focus of court controversy and appears at this stage to have little chance of winning reconfirmation, Reynoso has fared the worst in the polls.

While public opinion surveys have shown Reynoso with more voter support than opposition, his margin of support has been significantly narrower than for another associate justice who also has been targeted by conservatives for defeat, Joseph R. Grodin. Many political pros privately attribute this to Reynoso’s Latino surname.

Indeed, a survey of California registered voters by The Los Angeles Times Poll showed that there tends to be more of a bias against Latino candidates on a statewide ballot than against blacks. Telephone interviews in May found that if a hypothetical candidate for governor is identified to voters as being of Mexican ancestry, he runs four percentage points worse than if he is identified as a black, and nine points worse than if he is not identified by any ethnic or racial origin.

Just as there is no “rainbow coalition” of often-competing racial and ethnic groups that can be counted on regularly to unite politically, California also is not a utopian “melting pot” for smooth assimilation of dissimilar cultures, life styles and backgrounds. But it may be as effective a melting pot as exists anywhere. Certainly, the working politicians and academics interviewed by The Times frequently pointed out that California is one of the most racially tolerant states in the nation.

Bias ‘Still Out There’

“A black candidate for governor has a better chance in California than anyplace else in the country,” said Stuart K. Spencer, a veteran of three decades of advising Republican politicians, both in this state and nationally. Nevertheless, he added, racial bias in voting “is still out there.”

The next few years, of course, will offer both a challenge and an opportunity for Californians to test the melting pot as the state’s population becomes increasingly diverse. By the year 2010--less than a quarter of a century away--minorities will make up more than half the state’s population, according to political science professor Jack Citrin of the University of California, Berkeley. “The coming society will be more heavily Hispanic and Asian,” he noted.

As of last year, Citrin said, whites accounted for 63.2% of California’s population and 78.2% of the registered voters. But by the year 2000, the white majority will decline to 54.4% of the population and 71.5% of the registered electorate, he estimated. In contrast, there will be an increase in Latino and Asian populations and voting strengths. Black ratios will stay relatively the same.

“A lot of people think that when the minorities--blacks, Latinos and Asians--become a majority, there will be a thunderclap. That’s not going to happen,” said pollster Field, echoing the obvious point made by others that the biggest group of California voters far into the foreseeable future still will be non-Latino whites.

Political consultant David Townsend, a Bradley adviser, noted that “people tend to vote for people who are like themselves, people they can relate to.”

Problems in Relating

Ethnic groups and the races since time immemorial have had problems relating to each other, of course. And California, although relatively tolerant, never has been an exception to this.

Anti-Asian discrimination was sanctioned in California law as recently as the post-World War II era--Japanese aliens were forbidden to own agricultural land, for example--and this prejudice can be traced to the Gold Rush days. First came the anti-Chinese fervor, and then an anti-Japanese crusade. Roger Daniels, in his book “The Politics of Prejudice,” recalls that resentment of Asians “had roots in the San Francisco labor unions concerned about hard times, unemployment, low wages, poor working conditions and competition from low-paid foreign workers.”

First Asian Elected

It was not until 1974 that an Asian was elected to statewide office in California. Democrat March Fong Eu, of Chinese ancestry, won the post of secretary of state. Two years later, Republican S. I. Hayakawa, of Japanese ancestry, was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Blacks began trickling into California in the late 1800s, clustering mostly in Southern California and getting work as custodians, cooks, railroad porters, gardeners and domestics.

At the same time, there was a steady immigration of Southern whites to other parts of the state, such as Kern County. State Sen. Walter W. Stiern, 72, of Bakersfield said that “when the oil fields came on strong around 1906 and 1907, enormous numbers of men began coming out from the South to work in them. They often came as drilling teams, and they were all white. They wouldn’t work as a mixed team. . . . For years and years and years it was kind of a standing joke: If you ever found a black person employed by an oil company he was probably a custodian with a University of California ring on his finger.”

Riles Was First

Black migration to California continued through most of the century, resulting in local political gains--most notably Bradley’s election as mayor of Los Angeles in 1973. But no black was elected to statewide office until 1970, when Wilson Riles won the nonpartisan post of superintendent of public instruction. The only other black to win statewide office was Democrat Mervyn M. Dymally, elected lieutenant governor in 1974.

No Latino has won statewide office in California for the past 112 years. And Latinos used to own the place.

Latinos and Anglos have clashed throughout the state’s history--for example, the 1943 Zoot Suit Riot, when white sailors and Marines moved into downtown Los Angeles and attacked young Mexican-American Pachucos .

Racial violence is not just a thing of the past, although its practitioners are a small minority. Last April, the state Attorney General’s Commission on Racial, Ethnic, Religious and Minority Violence reported in a 155-page cataloguing of the worst side of bigotry that “in every region of the state . . . racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities have been harassed, intimidated, assaulted and even murdered. . . . Violence motivated by bigotry is widespread in California.”

Friction also has come from heightened competition for dwindling government aid--such as economic development loans and housing grants--and this creates tension that often spills over into the ballot box. “There is resentment over how the social pie is cut,” said Jess Margarido, mayor of the heavily Latino city of San Fernando. “There has always been a rivalry between blacks and Hispanics over this and I think resentment grows out of that kind of competition for small stuff.”

‘Fear, Alienation’

As the attorney general’s commission concluded: “Perceived differences in standards of living, in representation in government, in treatment by government officials, and in the options and conditions for employment lead to tensions between those who are more fortunate and those who are deprived. Fear and alienation are nurtured by stereotypes and myths about minorities. . . . Citizenship is not credited to people whose appearance, language or customs are different from the majority population.”

Racism--prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance--tends to be in the eye of the beholder. But social scientists have made careers out of identifying and studying it. And the political pros certainly know how it works from experience.

“People with latent racial prejudices will always find an excuse to vote against someone,” Democratic campaign consultant Carl D’Agostino observed.

Political science professor Seymour Martin Lipsett of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution agreed. “Very few people are conscious bigots. They want to believe they don’t have prejudices. But a lot of people, if you give them any excuse to vote against a black, they’ll take it,” he said. “There are all kinds of reasons why a person can be predisposed against a candidate.”

UCLA political science professor David O. Sears, who has been researching racial bias at the ballot box since the mid-1960s, said, “We’re starting to see a decline in the racist factor” in voting. Specifically, he said, “There’s a decline in old-fashioned racism, but less of a decline in ‘symbolic’ racism.”

Racism More Subtle

“Symbolic” racism has largely replaced old-fashioned, “redneck” racism and amounts to a less overt, more subtle hostility toward racial and ethnic groups, Sears said. He and Yale University political scientist Donald R. Kinder, using polling data gathered in Los Angeles, expounded on this view in an article dealing largely with anti-black bias, titled “Prejudice and Politics,” published in 1981 by the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Sears and Kinder wrote that “the explicitly segregationist, white supremacist view has all but disappeared” and is “no longer a major political force.”

“What has replaced it,” they continued, “is a new variant that might be called ‘symbolic racism’ . . . based on moral feelings that blacks violate such traditional American values as individualism and self-reliance, the work ethic, obedience and discipline.”

They added that “symbolic racism (finds) its most vociferous expression on political issues that involve ‘unfair’ government assistance to blacks: welfare (‘welfare cheats could find work if they tried’); ‘reverse discrimination’ and racial quotas (‘blacks should not be given a status they have not earned’); ‘forced’ busing (‘whites have worked hard for their neighborhoods, and for their neighborhood schools’); or ‘free’ abortions for the poor (‘if blacks behaved morally, they would not need abortions’).”

The professors characterized symbolic racism as “politically, the most potent vehicle for racial prejudice today” and said it had “a strong effect on voting behavior.”

‘They’re More Polite’

Caltech’s Cain said in an interview: “Prejudice hasn’t gone away, but the way we talk about it now is different. People feel embarrassed to talk about it. They’re more polite. They’re unwilling to talk in public about what they are thinking in private: fear of blacks, anxiety about Latinos assimilating, antagonism toward Chinese not using English.”

Referring to public opinion polling, Cain observed: “You can’t come right out and ask people if they are a racist. So you use diversionary measures.”

For example, The Los Angeles Times Poll during the height of presidential primary campaigning in 1984 asked 2,030 California adults this question: “Suppose your party nominated a black for President. Would you vote for that candidate if he or she was qualified for the job?” Among whites, 8% said no--indicating that, in their opinion, being black was reason enough not to support somebody for President. And among Latinos, the response was twice as negative--16%.

Still, this anti-black bias among Californians was less than the degree of prejudice frequently recorded among Americans as a whole. Nine national surveys conducted by three polling organizations from 1978 to 1985 found proportions ranging from 14% to 18% of people--representing all races--who said they would not vote for a black for President, even if they considered the candidate to be qualified.

Gauging Racial Bias

Pollsters also use other, more subtle ways to help gauge racial bias. The Times Poll, for instance, has found in various surveys of Californians since 1980 that:

- One in five Anglos and a like ratio of Latinos believed that blacks “aren’t as intelligent as other people.”

- Six in 10 Anglos thought that Latinos did not “try hard” to speak English.

- One in five Anglos and a like ratio of Latinos would be “upset” if more blacks moved into their neighborhoods. If it were the Latinos doing the moving, one in five blacks and one in six Anglos would be “upset” if it were into their neighborhoods.

- One in five Anglos believed that the state government in Sacramento paid “too much attention to blacks and other minorities.”

- One in five Anglos and one in six Latinos thought blacks had “too much political power.” Likewise, one in five Anglos and one in seven blacks believed Latinos had too much power.

- Six in 10 blacks and slightly more than half the Anglos thought there were “too many” Mexican immigrants in California. And, actually, four in 10 Latinos felt the same way.

- One in five Anglos and a like ratio of blacks believed that “Latino life styles and sense of values” had “changed the American way of life for the worse.”

Looked at from the positive side, of course, most people who were polled demonstrated few if any signs of harboring a negative bias toward racial or ethnic groups. But, when statewide elections often are decided by margins of 10 percentage points or less, it would be hard for a black candidate to feel positive about polling data showing that one-fifth of the whites believed that people of his race were of inferior intelligence--or for a Latino to be encouraged by a finding that one-fifth of the Anglos thought that his ethnic group had made life worse in America.

Less Data Available

There is much less polling data available concerning anti-Asian bias. But Asian politicians interviewed by The Times said they do not need public opinion surveys to tell them that significant prejudice exists.

“Being an Asian, I have to be twice better than someone of a different race, say, white,” Democratic activist Tom Hsieh of San Francisco said. Hsieh, an immigrant from Taiwan, said his racial background is making it more difficult for him to win election to the Board of Supervisors.

Los Angeles City Councilman Woo said resentment of recently arrived immigrants from Asia is “a very potent force.” He added: “It’s symptomatic of a shortness of memory. There’s a tendency to try to shut the door after you’ve gotten in yourself.”

Woo also said, in a general comment echoed by many political pros and academics, that “Asians have trouble voting for other minorities--and the same for Latinos and blacks. I think it’s easier for whites to vote for a minority candidate. . . . The ‘rainbow coalition’ is a better slogan than an operating principle.”

Political consultant Spencer observed that, among other things, “It’s a matter of pecking order. No one wants to be the last one and get kicked, like the dog.”

Dividing Up the Crumbs

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), the first black ever to be elected to lead either legislative house, said many blacks fear “that as the crumbs come off the table, those same crumbs which (formerly) were exclusively directed at blacks will now have to be divided with a lot of other people. The size of the crumbs don’t increase, but the number of applicants seems to increase.”

For example, blacks and Latinos long have regarded central city ghettos and barrios as their own turf. So they now resent the arrival of Asian immigrants who are taking over convenience stores. Murrell, the black Oakland City Council aide, said: “We walk into their (Asian-owned) stores, one thing we get is arrogance. But is it arrogance or is it just part of their way of life? We still, nonetheless, perceive what we see as arrogance.”

A different example of what many Asians and Latinos regard as anti-immigrant prejudice is the current campaign, through Proposition 63, to decree English as the official “common language” of California. A recent survey by the California Poll found that 65% of the state’s registered voters were aware of the initiative, and that it was being supported by a ratio of 3 1/2 to 1. Latinos actually were divided about equally over the measure. But whites backed it by more than 4 to 1, and blacks by about 3 to 1.

Why were Latinos split? Poll director Field theorized: “Many Latinos have moved up; they’re now in the middle class. They have kind of the attitude of the older European immigrants, that if you’re in this country, the only way to make it is to speak English.”

Language Measures

In California--a state undergoing the greatest immigration of foreign-born since the early part of the century--”English-only” measures already have been approved in such places as Fillmore, Alameda and Los Altos.

“It’s not the Asian people, it’s their architecture and their signs,” said Pat Reichenberger, a new member of the Monterey Park City Council, which passed a resolution urging Congress to approve an English-only measure. “The old Alpha Beta looks like it’s right out of Peking. When I go to the Hong Kong Market, it’s like I’m in a foreign country. The signs--you would drive down the street and you couldn’t tell what was what. This is America!”

As for Latinos, UC professor Citrin noted: “If you read American history, you see things being said today about the Hispanics that were said about the Italian Sicilians back at the turn of the century--’They won’t learn the language.’ ‘They’re peasants.’ ‘They go back and forth to their homeland. . . .’ ”

To which UCLA professor Sears added: “Fifty years from now, looking back, people won’t see a dime’s worth of difference in how Hispanics were treated in this era and how Southern Italians were treated in an earlier era. But blacks have had a unique experience in this country.”

One major problem that confronts a black politician who runs for statewide office, Caltech’s Cain pointed out, is “the automatic identification with liberalism. It becomes very hard for a black candidate to stand out as a moderate or a conservative Democrat. You’re a liberal unless proven otherwise.”

Degree of Threat

The political pros and academics hypothesize a lot about black candidates who seem to be “threatening” to non-black voters--Jesse Jackson is a good example--and black candidates who are “non-threatening.” Virtually everyone agrees that Mayor Bradley is a prime example of a “non-threatening” black.

Nevertheless, according to William Schneider, a veteran public opinion researcher and Times political consultant, “Voters think that even though Bradley’s OK, he may feel an obligation to his people because he’s black.”

Pollster Field, in analyzing the 1982 gubernatorial election, estimated that white voters favored Republican Deukmejian by a margin of 13 points, but Democrat Bradley carried blacks by 91 points and Latinos by 68. Blacks and Latinos traditionally vote Democratic by heavy margins.

More important, Field further broke down the results by racial bias. It came out like this: 3.5% of Deukmejian’s supporters--136,000--were people who confided they “did not want to vote for a black candidate,” and 0.6% of Bradley’s backers--23,000--were people who said they “could not vote for an Armenian.” Additionally, Bradley’s support among blacks was boosted about 3 percentage points--16,500 votes--because of his race. From that, Field figured the net loss to Bradley because of his race was 96,500 votes--slightly exceeding the margin of Deukmejian’s victory.

Avoided Race Issue

Political consultant Joseph Cerrell managed Dymally’s successful campaign for lieutenant governor in 1974. “I’m telling ya,” he said, “California didn’t know that Mervyn Dymally was black.” To make sure of this, the consultant acknowledged, he turned down many offers of free television exposure for the candidate during the campaign.

Deukmejian’s campaign advisers refuse to talk about racial prejudice. And Deukmejian, an outspoken advocate of human rights, gets irritated when he is asked about it. “Just because someone is black doesn’t mean they can’t get elected in a statewide election,” the governor responded in a March interview.

Bradley also objects to discussing the subject. “Color has nothing to do with performance. Color has nothing to do with programs or ideas or visions for this state,” he said last January. “I lost more votes (in 1982) because I’m a Democrat. Now, what do you think of that?”

During the present campaign, Bradley has changed his strategy somewhat from 1982. He has been spending more time in black communities. Black leaders felt that four years ago the mayor’s strategists were trying to avoid black communities in an effort to de-emphasize his race. This year, he is trying to galvanize blacks to turn out in higher numbers on election day.

‘There’s Prejudice’

But, according to professor Citrin: “There’s always a trade-off between mobilizing blacks and losing whites. . . . There’s prejudice in this society.”

Commented Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alatorre: “As long as people live together, you are going to have difficulties. Los Angeles is made up of a lot of people. And if we do not find a way we can communicate with each other, then I don’t know what the future of the city is going to be about.”

But Democratic political consultant Michael Berman--universally regarded as one of the most cynical practitioners of a very cynical profession--took an upbeat view. “Hey,” he said, “L.A. and the Bay Area are the most racially tolerant urban societies on the face of the Earth.”

Assisting in the research for this story were Director I. A. Lewis and Assistant Director Susan Pinkus of The Times Poll, Doug Connor of The Times library, Chele Smith of The Times Sacramento bureau and Cecilia Rasmussen of The Times city-county bureau.