Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Latino voters' views are diverse but most dislike Trump, study finds

Latino voters

New research of Latino voters shows general dislike of President Trump but a diversity of viewpoints.

David McNew/Getty Images

New research on Latino voters in battleground states heading into the 2020 campaign finds a growing dislike of President Trump but also a rich texture of views in what is sometimes viewed as a monolithic community.

In an election in which turnout will be as important as ever — and motivating voters of all ideologies and demographics to get to the polls is a unifying goal for advocates of a healthier democracy — the numbers are particularly enlightening.

Researchers said the 32 million eligible Latino voters will comprise the largest minority voting population in 2020 but that national polls "portray Latinos as a single electorate, glossing over differences between regions, subgroups and other important factors."


Equis Labs, started by Democratic activists Stephanie Valencia and Carlos Odio, and Equis Research last week released the study on Latino voters in 11 states where they are a significant voting bloc. All but one (reliably blue California) look destined to draw heavy investments from both presidential nominees: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin and Virginia.

Among the findings from interviews with voters:

  • In every state, Trump was well behind a generic Democratic presidential nominee among Latino voters. The margins were largest in Colorado (71 percent to 19 percent) and in Wisconsin (75 percent to 13 percent.)
  • In several states, Trump's poll numbers are lagging the percentage of Latino votes he received in 2016. In Texas, 22 percent of Latinos said they would vote to re-elect the president in 2020, compared to 34 percent who voted for him in 2016, according to exit polls. In North Carolina only 18 percent of Latinos expressed support for Trump's re-election compared to 40 percent who voted for him in 2016. In Virginia, his support dropped from 30 percent of Latinos who voted for him to 2016 to 20 percent who now say they would vote for him again.
  • Trump also faces a growing Latino gender gap in several states, with the president doing far worse among women than men and worse than he did in 2016. In Nevada, for example, 77 percent of Latinas said they support the Democratic presidential candidate with only 14 percent supporting Trump, compared to 63 percent support for the Democratic candidate among Latinas in 2016 and 29 percent support for Trump, according to exit polls.

The polling also captured the differences in Latino views based on country of origin and religious affiliation, among other factors.

In Florida, for example, 53 percent of Cuban men and 45 percent of Cuban women support Trump's re-election compared to only 36 percent of non-Cuban Latino men and 24 percent of non-Cuban women.

Even within Cubans, support for Trump was much greater among Florida Cubans age 45 and older compared to those 18 to 44.

In Colorado, 77 percent of Latino Catholics supported the Democratic candidates against Trump, versus 56 percent of Protestant/evangelical Latinos who said they will vote to re-elect Trump.

Researchers said this was the "first wave" of research that would be followed by deeper efforts and ongoing tracking polling.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less