Developing Latino Leadership

Alackluster gubernatorial primary last month confirmed what many of us already knew: most people cared so little about the issues and differences between the candidates that they did not even bother to vote--indeed, a mere 30 percent came to the polls statewide.

And this November, as voters today choose between two gubernatorial candidates with very different visions and styles, as well as vote on important ballot initiatives on campaign finance reform and electricity deregulation, voters will likely come out to vote again in small numbers.

These turnout percentages will be lowest in the Latino community. Ironically, this demographic group stands the most to gain by participation in politics. Voter participation could empower the government to address these chronic problems in the Latino community--the highest unemployment rate, lowest per capita income, highest infant mortality rate and lowest high school graduation rate.

A similarly lackluster California gubernatorial primary fight in June nonetheless yielded an extraordinary turnout of Latino voters on election day. Propelled in large part by the controversial Proposition 227 referendum on bilingual education, the Latino vote was up a whopping 50 percent over the gubernatorial primary only four years before when the equally distasteful anti-immigrant Proposition 187 came before the state's voters.

What happened between 1994 and 1998 in California? Analysts are quick to point to the politicizing effects of these propositions as reasons for the dramatic increase in turnout. The impact, they claim, was to motivate the Latino community--getting it roused, getting it registered and then, most dramatically, getting it to the polls on Election Day.

Could the same upsurge in voter participation happen in Massachusetts, where the Latino community recently became the largest minority group in the state? If we were faced with a similarly divisive ballot initiative--say, for example, on bilingual education--would we see the same results, as in California?

It is true that, in absolute terms, the Latino community of Massachusetts is still a much smaller portion of our population and, therefore, a smaller proportion of our voter list than in California.

But the real missing step on the road to political mobilization--taken for granted by the punditry in the California case--is the role of Latino political leaders in catalyzing this mobilization. In California, there are Latino Congressmen and Congresswomen; the Speaker of the State Assembly is Mexican-American; there are legion local officials, political organizations and grassroots operatives.

In Massachusetts, neither the 160-member House of Representatives nor the 40-member Senate has a single Latino. There is no active statewide Latino political organization, nor do Latinos frequent the fund-raisers which pave the way to political access--the access which is necessary to secure allies in power.

Committing resources, organizing bodies, inspiring in believers the dedication to work long hours: these are the hallmarks of empowered peoples. The four-year turnaround experienced in California is far from possible in Massachusetts. We simply lack the political infrastructure.

For Latinos--as with all interest groups--the key is winning. The formula for success requires more than just a winnable district. It takes political skills to execute a field plan, and to raise funds. Including Latinos as part of Anglo campaigns helps pass on skills. Including Latinos on municipal committees, boards and private, non-profit organizations cultivates ties to people in positions of power and authority.

So, too, Latinos have to recognize the importance of voter participation. This means not just following community organizers, but political leaders--most specifically, elected representatives. The California political establishment was, in part, a Latino political establishment. In mobilizing the mass of Latinos not registered, or who are registered but who do not vote, they built on a successful operation--that is, on an existing political infrastructure.

Latinos in Massachusetts must strive to create an infrastructure. That means electing school committee members, city councilors, state representatives. Starting with a manageable district is critical, one in which a few dedicated volunteers and a larger group of occasional volunteers can have reasonable prospects for success. As compared to issue-related campaigns (e.g. a community campaign to stop an asphalt plant or to educate on air quality and asthma rates in urban children), the infrastructural advantage of a campaign for elective office is that it must be reactivated with frequency and--at least for the successful ones--that it can continue to grow with the success of the candidate.

Ultimately, the onus is on the newcomer to make a place for herself or himself. Many of us are trying. But Latinos cannot just keep our eyes on the prize; we have to look down inward to our thirst for a political voice, around at the desert of the current political landscape, and across color lines to those in majority and African-American communities who can help end the drought.

And in discovering the ways to mobilize our communities--vote by vote, door by door--we prove again the aphorism that all politics is, still, local. And this is a lesson with practical applications for all of us. Latinos in Massachusetts must mobilize their community to vote. Jarrett Tomas Barrios '90 is an attorney at Hill and Barlow and the Democratic candidate for the 28th Middlesex seat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.