The Center for Civic Participation

« Resources

• Library Research
• Articles
• Listservs
• Speakers Bureau
• Election Research Network
• Trainers Network

Native VOTE 2004: A National Survey and Analysis of Efforts to Increase the Native Vote in 2004 and the Results Achieved

Description

This study was conducted to examine the state of Native participation in the American electoral process generally, and the specific impact of the effort in 2004 to dramatically increase that participation. A combined survey approach was utilized whereby primary data collection from the U.S. Census, individual state Secretary of State offices and County Auditors, provided the numerical underpinnings while secondary sources, Tribal Leaders and activists, provided indispensable background and anecdotal information.

While election turnout by Native Americans has traditionally been among the lowest of all communities in the U.S., dramatic changes have occurred recently such that, in some places, Native and non-Native participation rates are closer than ever.

From treaty ratification to abrogation, from Trust responsibility to culpability, from natural and cultural resource protection to destruction, federal, state and public officials have tremendous influence over the very nature of the relationship between Natives and other Americans.

In the past, and until only recently, many circumstances conspired to discourage Native Americans from participating in the election of those who could, and often do, exercise dramatic power over their lives. There was, and with some still remains, the fear that registration of any kind with a non-Indian government could have only negative consequences. It was also axiomatic within Indian Country that to participate in the election of non-Indian government officials served only to undermine their own true sovereignty. Finally, and perhaps most importantly within the context of this report, historically, Native Americans simply felt that their voice wouldn't matter.

Indian Country has seen significant changes in the last 15 years. Along with the increase in economic opportunities present in many Native communities have come the greater vested interest in politics and policymaking in state capitals and Washington, D.C. where the gains made are often viewed as at risk. At the same time in the U.S. generally, elections have become more regularly so close that small electoral minorities can have a determinative role in the outcome.

Recently, coordinated participation and activism with Indian Country has had dramatic electoral results. In Washington state and in South Dakota federal race winners were determined by the participation of Native Americans. In Arizona, the fate of state office candidates and ballot measurers were determined by the participation of Native Americans. While it had always been known that Native voters could help determine local election winners and losers, for the first time candidates for statewide and federal offices became plainly aware of the importance of Native constituencies.

With the high profile impacts that Native voters were having, it was not long before the national media recognized the potential new found power and a proliferation of stories appeared highlighting Native victories and forecasting even greater influence in the 2004 elections. This served to reinforce the growing confidence of some Native communities and the sky became the limit.

Many analyses occurred of both recent victories and the potential for even more dramatic results in 2004. The empowerment felt in Native communities was palpable. Clearly there can be no downside to the self-assuredness developing in some communities where for far too long detachment and dependence was the prevalent raison d'etre.

To vote because one's voice may in fact be the determining factor in an election is an essential reward of Democracy. While the potential to have such power was a clear possibility in 2004, in perhaps more races across the U.S. than at anytime in U.S. history, some critical electoral realities may have gone somewhat under appreciated.

The “stars" which “lined up" in recent races so that Native voters had an impact far beyond their numbers were essential prerequisites for a recurrence. Particular candidates and/or issues of interest, an evenly divided electorate, a Native lead coordinated and professionally engineered campaign to register and get-out Native voters, and consensus among Native communities are all factors recent history shows are directly relevant to increasing the likelihood Native voters will turn out in greater numbers in state and federal races.

The challenges inherent in documenting Native voting patterns are considerable. Urban Indians are dispersed and difficult to organize and track, and data collected within non-standardized and incomplete frameworks created and maintained by non-Indian organizations present formidable obstacles to obtaining the full picture. It is within this environment, and maybe because of it that no such effort has endeavored previously to increase Native participation in the electoral process across the U.S. Further, there remains a dangerous paucity of data and analysis of actual participation so necessary in order to achieve meaningful increases in such participation.

In 2004, the rule was again proven true in that circumstances varied greatly from tribe to tribe and state to state. Overall, Native participation grew from a small amount in some places to tremendously in others. The extent to which increases occurred were directly tied to the presence of the factors listed above with one important addition: the first-of-its-kind national Native Vote effort can be credited with a near perfect record in directly resulting in increased participation.

Participation rates varied greatly, even where Native Vote was active. In addition, the absence of a Native Vote effort, as sponsored and coordinated from outside, did not necessarily mean participation rates didn't increase. In Montana, few outside resources were available, yet the results there were remarkable.

In an election year where hopes were high that Native voters would “make history," many Native-preferred candidates were unsuccessful. While party preference among Native voters remains consistent, the overwhelming support of Native voters can be virtually guaranteed only when a candidate has a record of support for Native issues. Further, in such cases where a candidate has a consistent record of hostility towards issues of importance to Native voters a strong showing of electoral opposition from Native voters can almost be assured.

Category: Civic Participation, Native American

Attachment:

• About Us
• Donate
• Contact Us
• Volunteer
• Press
• Privacy Policy