THE FIRST MEXICANS IN LOS ANGELES arrived in 1781. Twenty-three adults and 11 children
from Sonora, Mexico established a community called
Nuestra Sefiora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula,
and a constant Mexican presence in Los Angeles has
endured ever since. In the 1980s, the city acquired a
critical mass of other Latino groups. The area now contains
the largest concentration of Mexicans, Salvadorans,
and Guatemalans outside the capital cities of their respective
countries. Latinos comprise nearly 40% of Los Angeles
County’s residents [See Table 5, p. 35]. Indicative of
the rapid demographic change is the 62.2% increase in the
Census category “Hispanic” between 1980 and 1990. By
2010, if the trend continues, more Latinos than Anglos
will reside in this southland metropolis.’
The political history of Mexicans in the United States
begins with conquest. “The political significance of the
conquest crystalizes,” writes Christine Sierra, “when one
looks at three resultant processes: the usurpation of land
rights, the supplanting of Mexican institutional structures
and procedures with Anglo-American ones, and the suppression
of cultural autonomy.”2
Marta Lopez-Garza is assistant professorof sociology at CaliforniaState University, Los Angeles.
After the U.S. military occupation in 1848, Los Angeles-then the center of an extensive agricultural region-was an intermittent haven for Mexican migrant farm workers. Not until the 1930s did the majority of Mexicans in the region establish urban roots. And not until the post-World War II era did the Los Angeles Mexican community participate-as a community-in electoral politics. Until then, an at-large city council and county supervisor system were dominated by Anglo migrant “city builders” who came to the area principally from the Midwest.
For nearly a quarter of a century after 1945, a robust economy and an expanding economic base enabled those at the bottom to advance without threatening those at the top. This trend did not bridge the chasm between the powerful and the disenfranchised, but during the 1950s and 1960s, Mexicans in Los Angeles had access to higher-paying jobs and a wider range of occupations than ever before.(3)Middle-class Mexican-American political organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), and G.I. Forum attempted to facilitate assimilation into “American society,” primarily through the ballot box. 4 Following the Second World War, the Community Service Organization (CSO) was formed in East Los
Angeles-the largest barrio of Mexicans in the Los Angeles area-for the purpose of building a grassroots community organization among the barrio’s working-class Mexi-cans. CSO organizers mobilized a massive voter-registration drive, leading to the election of the first Mexican American, Edward R. Roybal, to the Los Angeles City Council in 1949.5 In 1960, LULAC, CSO, G.I.Forum and MAPA all worked toward the election of John F. Kennedy.(6)Despite a privileged background with which few Mexican Ameri-cans could identify, Kennedy enjoyed a large following among Mexican Americans-because he was Catholic, and because he j oined in protest marches on behalf of the United Farm Workers (UFW) and C6sar Chavez. His picture still hangs on the wall in many Mexican-Ameri-can homes.
In the mid-1960s, militant Mexican-American nationalists introduced the word “Chicano” to the North Ameri-can vocabulary, and, through the Chicano movement, brought class and race consciousness to Mexican-Ameri-can politics. The movement was an informal ideological umbrella for a number of Mexican-American (or primarily Mexican-American) organizations. Among the most influential of these were the United Farm Workers, the Federal Alliance of Land Grants in New Mexico, the Brown Berets, Crusade for Justice in Colorado, and Chicano student organizations, such as Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlhn (MECHA) and United Mexican American Students (UMAS).
Identifying oneself as a Chicano (someone born of Mexican ancestry, but living in the United States) or with “Chicanismo” became a politically significant factor reflecting political mobilization and active participation in social change. (The leading explanation of the origin of the term “Chicano,” is that the Nahuatl or Aztec pronunciation of the word describing people living in Mexico is Mechicano. (7)The term had evolved through various stages of meaning by the time the nationalists appropriated it as a political statement.) A Chicano was one who did not wish to be known as “American” in the U.S. sense, but whose history and experience were somewhat different from those of a Mexican living in Mexico.
Through the Chicano Movement, many Chicanos experienced a heightened consciousness of their Mexican roots. Many young Chicanos and Chicanas renounced their parents’ assimilationist approach, and developed a new sense of binational identity. For them, no borders existed between Mexico and the United States. They were struggling for justice against the establishment here, just as progressive Mexicans were in Mexico.(8)Because its radical nationalist philosophy and its rejection of electoral politics departed from earlier assimi-lationist Mexican-American politics, the Chicano movement was initially shunned by the patriotic members of LULAC, and by other middle-class Mexican-American organizations. Eventually, however, these organizations adopted the political platform developed by the movement.(9)
ESPITE THE CHICANO MOVEMENT’S LOSS of momentum in the mid- 1970s, many reform programs and policies owe their existence to its militant demands. Bilingual education, voting rights, affirmative-action programs, and the establishment of Chicano studies departments and programs at universities and colleges all became reachable goals because of the efforts of the Chicano movement. (10)Another direct product of the Chicano Movement was La Raza Unida Party, a nationalist political party designed to empower Chicanos through the ballot. In the early 1970s, California’s La Raza Unida Party ran candidates statewide-including California State, Northridge Chicano studies professor Radil Ruiz. Ruiz ran against a Chicano Democrat, Richard Alatorre, and an Anglo Republican, Bill Brophy, for a seat in the State Assembly from the 48th assembly district in Los Angeles. As expected, he lost, but he received a respectable 2,778 votes-8% of the total.” Springing from their reformist successes of the 1970s, Chicano organizations sought to create change within the system in various ways. The emphasis by the late 1970s once again became electoral politics. The Mexican Ameri-can Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), for example, founded in 1967, focused its efforts on legal challenges to discriminatory laws and regulations.1(2)With the Chicano community’s access to electoral politics its main goal, MALDEF has effectively utilized, among other strategies, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.1′ Along with the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project (SVREP), MALDEF has opened doors for increased Chicano participation in electoral politics at all levels of government.
Chicano organizations, such as Centro de Acci6n Auto-noma (CASA) and Hermandad General de Trabaiadores, out the 1970s.14 Some Chicanos, influenced by the movement, became immigration lawyers, scholars in the field of immigration, and service providers in immigrant communities. Hence, when successive waves of Central Ameri-cans arrived in the 1980s, these Chicanos were well-positioned to extend their work, and struggle on behalf of Central American immigrants.
Nonetheless, conflicts between Chicanos and Latino immigrants do exist. An example is the schism during and after the recent uprising in Los Angeles. The violence broke out primarily in South Central L.A. and the Pico-Union area, where African Americans and significant numbers of Mexican and Central American immigrants reside. Many members of these Latino immigrant communities took part in the disturbances. In East L.A., on the other hand, the Chicano residents did not participate at all. Chicano elected officials, with the exception of City Councilman Mike HernAndez, whose district includes Pico-Union, distanced themselves from the Latino immigrant communities, claiming they did not represent the immigrants, who don’t vote.
Geographical dispersion and varying degrees of assimilation have also prompted the diverse political consciousness within the Latino community, which has created difficulties for political organizers.” Geographic dispersion, which hinders the development of a sense of community, is, in part, the result of the geographical expansiveness of Los Angeles itself.(16)Perhaps more fundamentally, it is the result of the movement of middle-class Chicanos up and out of working-class barrios.” In addition, gerrymandering, the use of at-large districting, and the constant harassment of Latinos in Los Angeles-including the periodic massive repatriation of undocumented immigrants-have all deterred political organizing.'(8)tivation for migrating (economic, political or familial), and regardless of when their families arrived (three generations ago or three years ago), many Latinos stay in California for the same reasons: their children were born and attend the schools here; the children identify with this society, and not with the country of origin; jobs are here; and families are settled here in culturally comfortable Latino communities. (19)These common motivations, along with a
I-
commonIIIIII language , alve
forged the beginnings of Latino unity. A more pow-
the various Latino neighborhoods: police harassment, a shortage of affordable housing and overcrowded rentals, cutbacks in inner-city schools, unemployment and underemployment, and underrepre-sentation in the public-policy arena.
OF THE KEY POLITICAL STRUGGLES OF THE past 25 years, political representation has been one of the most important. Despite the substantial growth of the Latino population in the region, Latinos are just now attaining some access to political power. No elected officials were Latino in the Los Angeles city government until 1949, and again none were from 1962 to 1985.20 In part, this lack of representation can be explained by the fact that a large portion of the Latino population in Los Angeles is below voting age, and a substantial number are immigrants who are not citizens. Of the nearly three and a half million Latinos in Los Angeles County, 40% are under 18 years of age. Of the two million of voting age, 50% cannot vote because they are not citizens. This leaves approximately one million eligible voters, of whom 60% are registered to vote.(2)(1)Voter registration is a task Chicano political organizations list as a priority. The increase in registered Latino voters throughout the state since the early 1980s indicates that this strategy has been a moderate success.
The historical lack of political representation has recently formed the basis of several lawsuits pressing for redistricting and voting rights on behalf of Los Angeles’ Chicanos. Chicano activists and organizations, such as MALDEF and East L.A.’s Center for Law and Justice, along with the Department of Justice (after years of prodding), participated in federal lawsuits against the City of Los Angeles in 1985, and the County of Los Angeles in
1988.22 visor district boundaries had deliberately diluted Chicano voting strength and illegally inhibited their complete and equal participation in the political process. (23)The case against the city (U.S. v. City ofLos Angeles) was eventually settled out of court and resulted in the creation of a second “Latino dominant” district which was filled by Gloria Molina in 1987.24 The present incumbent, City Councilman Mike Herndndez, was elected after Molina moved up to a seat on the County Board of Supervisors in 1991.25 In their lawsuit against the county (Garza v. County of Los Angeles), MALDEF presented a strong argument revealing the historical pattern of discrimination against Chicanos.26 A significant piece of that pattern involved the experience of Mexican-American political pioneer Ed-ward Roybal. In 1958, Roybal ran against Ernest Debs for the County Board of Supervisors in the Third District. Roybal was originally declared the winner by a slim margin, but after four recounts and the loss of votes from East Los Angeles (ELA) precincts, the seat was handed to Debs. In 1963, Debs joined forces with Republicans to offset ELA representation by extending his district into the white high-income suburb of Eagle Rock, and then into sections of conservative white middle-class areas of San Fernando Valley. At the same time, the supervisors acted to separate ELA from the working-class Latinos who were moving into the rapidly growing San Gabriel Valley, just east of ELA.(27)The lengthy legal struggle, which cost taxpayers $12 million, resulted in 1990 in the creation of the First County District, which Gloria Molina presently represents.
Chicanos have heavily dominated Latino electoral politics in Los Angeles, like in most of the Southwest. Chicanos, by and large, are citizens who vote. Because the large Mexican and Central American immigrant populations are not eligible to vote, their interests are usually ignored by politicians-including Chicano politicians. Elected officials usually act on behalf of immigrants only when pressured to do so by their voting constituency. In one such instance, voting rights for undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was raised by the sole Latina/Chicana school board member, Leticia Quesada.(2 8)LAUSD bilingual-education teachers, although very much in accord with the right of non-citizens to vote, were troubled by the fact that the issue had been raised at the board level without the notification of teachers, parents, grassroots organizations, and the community at large for the purpose of coalescing support. The issue remains moot at the time of this writing, but will surely be an important and controversial one in the near future.(29)WITH APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF the congregation Latino, the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles has 3.4 million parishioners, and is grow-congregation in the country. Despite its large Latino membership, the Church in Los Angeles continues to epitomize the unequal relationship between Anglos and Latinos since California shifted from Mexican to U.S. rule.
The Church hierarchy has attempted to repress social activism within the Latino and Chicano communities. In other parts of the Southwest, the hierarchy has been somewhat responsive to the needs and desires of the Chicano community, but the consensus among observers is that this is not the case in Los Angeles.31 In 1969, at the high point of the Chicano movement, the usually tolerant Catholic Mexican community held its first public protest against this state of affairs. On Christmas Eve, Mexican Americans marched from Lafayette Park to the white upper-crust Catholic parish of St. Basil. The protesters expressed their concern over the Church’s priorities, complaining that while funds were spent for St. Basil’s stained-glass windows, the eastside parishioners were denied funds for youth and community programs, and for repairs to dilapitated school buildings.
The protesters presented two demands: first, that more financial support filter down to the barrio parishes; and second, that the archdiocese’s financial books be made public. The peaceful demonstration erupted into a skirmish when off-duty sheriff s patrolmen and the riot squad were called in to arrest the protesters. Despite the incident, protesters reappeared the following Christmas morning, determined to confront the Church’s local hierarchy about the inequity in its practices.(32)
Despite the conservatism of the Church hierarchy, there has been a great deal of parish-based activism, frequently supported by the parish priests. In many parishes, communities are effectively tackling (with the encouragement of their priests) issues of police harassment, poverty among single mothers and their children, gang violence and drive-by shootings, and toxic dumping. In many cases, community organizations have arisen from this activism. Some of the most effective of these are the United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), Mothers of East Los Angeles, and the activist groups from the poorest parish in the Los Angeles area, Dolores Mission Church in Boyle Heights. In all of these grassroots organizations, women have played key roles as mobilizers at the neighborhood level. And in all of them, communities have become empowered by demanding action from local representatives and by establishing alternative institutions.
When discussing progressive Chicano clergy within the Church, the well-known name in this city is Father Luis Olivares. From 1985 to 1990, he was parish priest at La Placita, a long-standing Mexican parish located in El Pueblo Park, the oldest section of Los Angeles, in which the few remnants of Mexican culture and architecture are preserved. Olivares declared the parish a sanctuary and a shelter for Latino immigrants. His high-profile, politically progressive stance throughout his tenure at La Placita was considered an embarrassment to the Church hierarchy. In fact, the superior of Los Angeles’ archdiocese, Roger Mahony (who has since been cardinalized), went so far as to state that behind the church walls at Placita “drug-dealing, homosexual activity, crime, murders…[were] going on…It looked like downtown Kuwait City.”(33)Many individuals familiar with the work of Olivares responded swiftly and publicly, defending him against Mahony’s assault. Among Olivares’ strongest supporters have been the women who play the leading roles in the parish-based community organizations
A S LATINOS HAVE BECOME MORE PROMInent in Los Angeles’ Democratic Party politics, Latina women have become some of the most active political players. While few Chicanas are entrenched in this city’s electoral politics, they are among the most powerful and highly motivated of the politicians on the scene. Led by County Supervisor Gloria Molina, a group of Chicano Democrats has broken with the traditional Democratic Latino power structure, led by Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alatorre and state Assembly-man Art Torres. Molina and her allies-including retiring Congressman Ed Roybal-are in the insurgent position, but have begun to muster the type of machine support usually at the disposal of their adversaries. If Molina allies Esteban Torres, Lucille Roybal-Allard and Xavier Becerra win Congressional seats in November’s elections, the Molina camp will likely dominate the Congressional agenda for Latinos in California, and assume nationwide political status.(34)
Partially as a result of Molina’ s successful challenge to the old-boy network, there has been a break in rank along gender lines, with many new Chicana faces on the political horizon. The increasing visibility of Chicanas was highlighted by the five women who ran for the State Assembly during last June’s Democratic primary, four of whom won: Diane Martinez (49th District), Grace Napolitano (58th), Martha Escutia (50th), and Hilda Solis (57th).
Notwithstanding Richard Nixon’s strategy of Republicanizing California’s Latinos, it was during the Reagan/ Bush era that the Republican Party began to seriously court the “Hispanic vote.”(3 5)Of the registered Chicano voters in California, 20% on average vote Republican, with the highest percentage-25%-turning out in the 1984 presidential elections. Nevertheless, the Republican Party has made few overtures to California’s Chicano voters this year. Perhaps this is because they have little hope of winning the state, or perhaps because Chicanos in California don’t vote in a sufficiently large bloc to warrant attention from either party and its candidate. In contrast to Chicanos in Texas, California Chicanos still do not vote in the numbers that would give them greater political power.
One of the few times that Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton has addressed California Chicano voters, it was inadvertent. True to his pattern of appealing to conservative Democrats, Clinton, on his recent tour through the state, addressed minority business leaders. Amid the crowd in the sweltering San Gabriel Valley heat were members of the Latin Business Association. So, in fact he wasn’t speaking to Latinos or Latino issues, but to business people’s concerns, a few of whom happened to be “Latin.” (36)The Democratic Party may want Chicano votes, but the party does not appear to take Latino/Chicano issues seriously. Latino issues have been addressed only indirectly, through Clinton’ s economic message which is meant to pull together voters from diverse racial and economic backgrounds. The Democrats and Clinton are courting Chicano voters by handing the campaign over to powerful surrogates within the Chicano community. Clinton has won public endorsement of popular Chicano politicians like Gloria Molina and Henry Cisneros, former mayor of San Antonio. Now Molina is a vice chair of Clinton’s national campaign. Clinton also has a National Latino Leadership Committee made up of prominent Latinos, which speaks to Latino issues in an effort to drum up Latino votes.
The race is on to see who can deliver California’s Chicano voters. Where is the crucial political money coming from? Is the national Democratic Party going to relinquish control over the funds? If so, to whom? To which camp? Can “the leadership” deliver the Chicano community to Clinton in exchange for money and the opportunity to fulfill political aspirations? Will the Republicans mount a California-Chicano campaign? Who is looking out for the true interests of Latinos-voters and non-voters-in the Southwest? S
Los Angeles: Ascendant Chicano Power
1. The author thanks Mary Pardo, David Diaz and Victor Carillo for their
helpful comments on this article. Population figures are from U.S. Bureau of
Latino Politics
the Census, 1990 Census: The One Hundred Percent Data; Richard Simon,
“Representation to Switch forThousands,” Los Angeles Times, Metro Section,
May6. 1991.
2. Cristine M. Sierra. “Chicano Political Development: Historical Consid-
erations,” in Eugene E. Gariefa. Francisco Lomeli, and Isidro D. Ortiz (eds.),
Chicano Studies: A Multidisciplinary Approach (New York: Teachers College
Press, 1984), p. 80.
3. Of course, social mobility for Los Angeles Mexicans did not compare
to that of members of the dominant society.
4. The birth of LULAC occurred in Texas during the 1920s, but it became
a prominent Mexican-American organization in California only afterWorld
War II. The G.I. Forum was organized in 1948 on behalfof Mexican-American
veterans after the parents of a Mexican-American veteran were refused a plot
for their son in a Corpus Christi. Texas cemetery. See. for example, Olga
Rodriguez (ed.), The Politics of Chicano Liberation (New York: Pathfinder
Press, 1977), p. 26. MAPA was established in the late 1950s.
5. Carlos Navarro and Rodolfo Acuna, “In Search of Community: A
Comparative Essay on Mexicans in Los Angeles and San Antonio,” in Norman
M. Klein and Martin J. Schiesl (eds.), 20th Century Los Angeles: Power.
Promotion and Social Conflict (Clarement, Ca.: Regina Books, 1990), p. 203.
6. Rodolfo Acuna. OccupiedAmerica: A History of Chicanos 3rd edition
(New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 203.
7. F. Clhris Gariefa and Rudolph O. de la Garza, The Chicano Political
Experience: Three Perspectives (North Scituate, Mass: Duxbury Press, 1977),
pp. 14-16.
8. Recall the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, when thousands of dissident
students and workers demonstrated in the streets. The Mexican government
and military attempted to quash the uprising; hundreds were killed and jailed.,
and hundredsnmore “disappeared.”
9. Acuna, Occupied America, p. 259.
10. Carlos Mulioz Jr., “Chicano Politics: The Current Conjuncture.” in
Mike Davis, Manning Marable, Fred Pfeil, and Michael Sprinker (eds.). The
YearLeft 2: AnAmerican Socialist Yearbook (London: Verso Press, 1987), pp.
48-49.
II . AcUona, Occupied America, p. 367.
12. As an organization of primarily Chicano lawyers, MALDEF received
its initial support under Pete Tijerina’s leadership. See Matt S. Meier and
Feliciano Rivera, Dictionary of Mexican American History (Westport, Ct:
Greenwood Press, 1981).
13. Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act states that any practice or
procedure that denies the right to vote on the basis of race, color or membership
in class is illegal, including Poll Tax, at-large elections and gerrymandering.
The Act was initially implemented in the South on behalf of African Ameri-
cans. Amendments to and extensions of the Act in 1975 and again in 1982
broadened the act by extending it to other “minority” groups and creating a set
of criteria (see endnote #26) to establish grounds for suit. The application of
this legislatively.amended law in Los Angeles stemmed from Thornburgh r.
Gingles (106 S. Ct. 2752 [1986]).
14. Whereas CASA no longer exists. Hermandad continues its straggle for
immigrant rights.
15. Mulltoz, “Chicano Politics,” p. 40.
16. The Los Angeles metropolitan area covers 4.080 square miles, and
encompasses 84 incorporated cities with a total of 8.6 million individuals.
17. Navarro and Acuna, “In Search of Community,” p. 197.
18. Navarro and Acuna. “In Search of Community”, pp. 199-200; Jaime
A. Regalado, “Latino Representation in Los Angeles.” in Roberto Villarreal,
et al (eds.). Latino Empowermnent: Progress. Problems, and Prospects (New
York: Greenwood Press, 1988), p. 93.
19. Leo ChAvez, Estevan Flores, and Marsta L6pez-Garza. “Here Today,
Gone Tomorrow? Undocumented Settlers and Immigration Reform,” Human
Organization, Vol. 49, No. 3 (1990).
20. Jaime A. Regalado, Minority Political Empowerment: the Changing
FaceofCalifornia,Occasional Paper #3 (Los Angeles: The Edmund G. Brown
Institute of Public Affairs, California State University, 1991), p. 3.
21. Phone interview with Antonio GonzAlez, Southwest Voter Registra-
tion and Education Program (July 16, 1992).
22. The largest county in the United States, the County of Los Angeles,
contains one-third of the state’s residents. The County’s Board of Supervisors
represents over 8.5 million people and controls a $9 billion budget.
23. Regalado. Latino Representation, 1988: Political Battles Over LA.
County Board Seats: A Minority Perspective Occasional Paper #1 (Los
Angeles: The Edmund G. Brown Institute of Public Affairs. California State
University, 1989); and Regalado, Minority Political Empowerment.
24. Richard Alatorre, Councilman for the 14th District, attained his seat in
a 1986 special election, replacing the embattled Art Snyder.
25. Jaime A. Regalado, Political Battles. p.3.
26. By 1985 Latinos met all the tests to prove intentional discrimination:
1. compactness; that is, the Latinocommunity is concentrated to the extent that
a district with more than 50% Latinos could be created. 2. political cohesive-
ness, and 3. racial bloc voting, that is racially polarized voting.
27. Presentation of Richard Fajardo (senior MALDEF attorney for Garza
v. County of Los Angeles) to my Urban Sociology Class. Fall 1990.
28. Quesada has since been elected president of the Board.
29. In Chicago and New York City, citizens have approved measures to
extend the right to vote in school-board elections to non-citizens; in a parallel
victory for immigrant rights, the Takoma Park. Maryland populace voted to
allow non-citizens to take part in municipal elections. See Robenrto Rodriguez,
“Non-citizens’ Voting for School Board Indicates Hispanic Clout,” Black
Issues in Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 20 (Dec. 6. 1990); Jamin B. Raskin,
“Votes for All. Citizens of Not,” Los Angeles Times, November 13, 1991,
30. Mike Davis, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles
(London: Verso Press, 1990). p. 326 & 328.
31. Acuna. Occupied America. p. 431-433.
32. Navarro and Acuna. In Search of Community. p. 209; Davis, City of
Quartz, pp. 334-335.
33. Russell Chandler. “Mahony Sees Success in Meeting Latino’s Needs,”
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1991.
34. David Dfaz, “Eastside Outcomes: Molina’s Up. Alatorre’s Down and
the Big Winner is Willie Brown (Willie Brown?),” LI.A Weekly, June 19-25
1992, David Diaz, unpublished mins.
35. Navarro and Acuna, In Search of Community. p. 209.
