CALIFORNIA COMMENTARY : A New Electorate Gains Power : Asian-American politicians are succeeding in the cities with the help of white, Latino and black voters, not ethnically focused campaigns.

The 1990 Census stimulated wide interest in California’s changing population, its increasing proportions of minorities and the implications of race in electoral politics.

In a survey of all 459 cities in the state, supplemented by census data, we examined the diversity of California’s Asian population and the scope of Asian-American electoral success at the municipal level, with some interesting conclusions.

California’s Asian-Americans are a heterogeneous group, including Filipinos, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Pacific Islanders, Asian Indians, Laotian, Thai, Hmong, Cambodians and Vietnamese. Under the dubiously unifying category “Asian” are people who have come to California over decades from widely separated nations with a variety of languages, religions, customs, cultures and histories. In most of these nations, American-style political participation is weak or nonexistent. Given their diversity and political heritage, how have Asians fared at the entry level of American government--the city election?

At first glance, there appears to be relatively few Asian city council members and mayors in the state. Only 40 (1.7%) of California’s 2,419 elected mayors and council members are Asian, and they serve in only 34 (7.4%) of the state’s 459 cities. A closer look at the cities where Asians are elected, however, offers a different perspective on the qualitative value of their representation.

The 19 counties in which Asians hold city office include 12 of the 15 most populous in the state. In 10 of these counties, an Asian sits on the council in the county’s largest city. California’s 40 Asian mayors and council members are so well-placed on big-city councils that they actually represent 2.7 million Californians, or 8.9% of the state’s population. More significant, these Asian city officials represent 12.1% of the state’s voting-age population, even though Asian-Americans constitute 9.6% of the state population and only 8.9% of the voting-age population. In short, we have the statistical nicety of Asians, with 8.9% of the voting population, representing exactly 8.9% of the state’s residents.

In recent years a number of legislators, special-interest-group leaders and judges have adopted the doctrine that racial groups should be represented in elected governmental bodies in rough proportion to their numbers in the general population. How do the California patterns of Asian representation in general and representation in local government in particular bear on this issue?

California voters elected a Japanese-American, S. I. Hayakawa, to the U.S. Senate (1977-83) and a Chinese-American woman, March Fong Eu, as Secretary of State (1975-present); the state’s congressional delegation has two Japanese-American members, one of whom, Norm Mineta, was the mayor of San Jose. In each of these instances, the Asian politician was elected at large. The same pattern holds at the municipal level, where in 1991 only four of the 40 Asian council members (in Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento and Stockton) have been elected to represent a particular district. In none of these districts do Asians constitute a majority. The other 36 Asian council members won their races in citywide at-large races, 34 of them in cities where Asians are a minority of the population.

In short, Asian politicians, representing 8.9% of California citizens, have achieved a proportionate share of local political power under the traditional at-large city election system, without any racial gerrymandering to further their cause.

This is not to say that increased Asian-American political activity (particularly for the newer arrivals from Asia) needs no encouragement. There are areas of the state, like Orange County, with sizable pockets of recent Asian residents but no Asians among 151 council members.

Would changing California’s municipal races--from at-large elections, which are typical throughout the state, to district elections--significantly increase the number of Asians elected to office? Probably not. Although there are more Asians than blacks in California (2.8 million versus 2.2 million), the Asian population tends to be more widely dispersed in the state’s major metropolitan areas. Only one California city, Monterey Park, with two Asian council members, has an Asian majority, and in only six others (Alhambra, Cerritos, Daly City, Gardena, Hercules and Walnut) do Asians constitute the largest ethnic group.

Asians-Americans are clearly getting elected to important municipal positions in the state, not because of massive voter turnout by fellow Asians but because they are being supported in large numbers by white, Latino and black voters. Pursuing this proven coalition-building formula for success, Asian-American politicians are likely to increase their numbers and clout.

But major questions remain. Is the contemporary Asian-American political experience in California being matched by that of the state’s Latino and black officeholders, or are politicians from these two groups attaining office in districts with heavy majorities of their own race? Will the current rush in Sacramento to create legislative districts packed with specific racial groups assist or retard the political progress of minorities? Will politicians elected to the “black” or “Latino” districts be isolated among a racially polarized electorate? And will the political careers of these minority politicians be artificially stunted, since the relative homogeneity of their districts will make it unnecessary for them to form the broad racial coalitions required if they are to move on to higher office?