Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less