Response 1: An analysis of Huyser et al.’s research

Response 1: An analysis of Huyser et al.’s research

            “Civic engagement and political participation among American Indians and Alaska natives in the US” by Kimberly R. Huyser, Gabriel R. Sanchez, and Edward D. Vargas seeks to answer the question of what affects American Indian and Alaska Natives’ political participation. More specifically, Huyser et al. examine the factors that influence civic engagement of AI/ANs in order to determine if they vary among other racial and ethnic minorities. The term civic engagement is defined as “one’s level of or involvement in: empowerment and political action; groups and networks; trust and solidarity; information and communication; and social cohesion and inclusion” (Huyser et al. 2016, 5). In addition to civic engagement, Huyser et al. also explore voter registration and voting to analyze a broad range of political participation. By doing so, they are able to determine what factors specifically influence the political engagement of this small minority group. Determining the level of political participation of AI/ANs is important to the broader scope of minority group politics. Analysis of AI/AN political participation is necessary in order to ensure representation of racially distinct communities that have a small population.

Previous research on the political participation of AI/ANs is lacking, despite the steady growth of research regarding other racial and ethnic minorities. Huyser et al. find that the population of AI/ANs is concentrated in specific states with a relatively low overall population, thus making their political influence more important (2). However, their small population size misleads researchers to believe that they have little relevant influence regarding electoral politics. Due to the fact that AI/ANs are often overlooked, “there remains a need for more rich data collection that will allow scholars to address several important questions that are beyond the scope of existing data” (2). In order to improve upon past research, they focus on expanding the data used to establish political participation. Huyser et al. do so by including voter registration and voting of AI/ANs, in addition to their levels of civic engagement.

Huyser et al. believe that AI/ANs share similar factors that influence political participation with other racial and ethnic minorities. In addition, they believe that, despite these similar factors, the political participation of AI/ANs is most heavily influenced by “the nature of sovereign status and high internal variation” (5). Huyser et al. draw upon several pieces of existing literature to support their theoretical expectations, rather than specific theory. They focus heavily on Peterson’s (1957) American Indian Political Participation, which explains the relationship between the United States and AI/ANs as that of two individual governments. Therefore, following Peterson’s (1957) analysis, AI/ANs focus on and act according to the best interests of their tribe, straying from normal voting behavior of Americans (2). Additionally, the work of Corntassel and Witmer (1997) proves that “tribes tend to support those candidates who are more in line with tribal needs and issues rather than lending support based on cultural ties or party affiliation” (3). Huyser et al. also draw upon the works of Peterson (1952), Luna (2000), and McCool, Olson, and Robinson (2007), which explain how historical suppression and discrimination isolates AI/ANs and affects their political participation. Lastly, and very importantly, Huyser et al. draw heavily from Benjamin Kahn’s (2013) A Place Called Home: Native Sovereignty Through Statehood and Political Participation. This piece argues that AI/ANs use political participation to maintain their sovereignty, while other racial and ethnic minority groups utilize political participation in order to increase inclusion (3). Huyser et al. use Kahn’s work (2013) as “the backdrop for a comparison of participation across racial/ethnic groups” (3).

In addition, Huyser et al. have various main theoretical expectations that they developed from the existing literature on AI/ANs but choose not to create specific hypotheses (5). First, they believe that serving in the armed forces significantly influences AI/ANs political participation (4). Their second theoretical expectation is twofold: 1) they predict, as mentioned, that similar influential factors exist among AI/ANs and other racial and ethnic minorities, but 2) AI/AN sovereignty and internal variation suggests that important differences exist among them and other racial/ethnic groups (5).

In order to test their theoretical expectations, which are falsifiable, Huyser et al. use the Current Population Survey’s (CPS) November Civic Engagement and Voting and Registration Supplements, which is conducted by the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Specifically, the survey is conducted in 56,000 households, and the surveys used are from both presidential years and congressional years. Due to the fact that the AI/AN population is concentrated in specific states, Huyser et al. created an Indian State variable, including Arizona, Florida, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota (5). The total number of respondents broken down by race are as follows: 75 percent white, 10 percent Black, 1 percent AI/AN, and 13 percent Hispanic (6). Only ten percent of respondents are veterans, with no data given for active military personnel. These statistics remain constant for all years of surveys used.

To analyze their data Huyser et al. use logistic regression and negative binomial regression models. The logistic regression models are used to determine whether or not respondents are “1) civically or politically engaged, 2) whether a respondent contacted public office, 3) reported boycotting, 4) reported voting or 5) reported not registering to vote because of lack of interest in politics” (6). The negative binomial regression models are used to determine the specific number of groups or organizations that respondents participate in. Furthermore, Huyser et al. use these models for the purpose of “capturing the number of times an individual is civically engaged, which is count data and assumed not to be normally distributed” (6). Overall, their data concludes that AI/ANs have similar rates of political participation to those of other racial and ethnic minority groups. As they predicted, veterans have a higher rate of civic engagement than those who are not veterans. However, they find that personal and demographic factors influence AI/AN political participation less than that of other minority groups (7). Their data also shows that AI/ANs engaged more closely with tribal politics vote in congressional years, and those who are not vote in presidential years.

While Huyser et al. determined that political participation of AI/ANs is similar to that of other ethnic and racial minority groups, there are numerous flaws in their study. First, they fail to directly address their theoretical expectation that the AI/AN population has significant differences to other minority groups due to their sovereignty. The data they collect does not support this claim, nor do they provide further analysis of the data beyond surface level internal variation among AI/ANs.

Second, there are many discrepancies with data collection and the survey used. I understand that resources regarding the AI/AN population are limited, but the survey significantly affects the soundness of Huyser et al.’s data. The survey was only distributed to 56,000 households (5), which would be a large number if it were not supposed to be representative of the entire United States. Additionally, Huyser et al. claim that the main goal of this research was to determine similarities between factors that influence political participation of AI/ANs and other racial and ethnic minorities (9). However, as mentioned, the survey respondents were 75 percent white, 10 percent Black, 1 percent AI/AN, and 13 percent Hispanic (6). The small percentage of racial and ethnic minority respondents from the CPS survey is an insignificant representation of the minority population. In addition, while the AI/AN is considerably smaller than that of Blacks and Hispanics, the sample sizes between these groups vary greatly, possibly contributing to data inaccuracies. Huyser et al. has no way to ensure the equal distribution of the CPS surveys to various areas of the United States and cannot ensure that geographical differences (between AI/ANs and between AI/ANs and non-AI/ANs) do not affect responses.

The second theoretical expectation that Huyser et al. predict is that service in the armed forces significantly influences AI/AN political participation. While they address this subject in their research, and data revealed their predication was correct, I am not fully convinced of their claim. I understand that data was statistically significant regarding AI/AN veterans’ political participation, but both CPS supplement surveys did not account for respondents that were currently active in the armed forces. This discrepancy could have affected the data results if it examined responses beyond that of veterans.

Despite these flaws, this research greatly contributes to the overall understanding of AI/AN political participation. This subject is widely understudied in the political science field, and their research successfully attempts to provide more information on an important group that is vastly ignored. Huyser et al. address the fact that the CPS surveys do not ask respondents for tribal affiliation or collect information on local political activities. In response to the lack of data, they explain, “This is vital, as knowing whether participation in tribal elections influences civic engagement more broadly is a fascinating question that should be addressed when data is available to do so” (10).

Overall, if I conducted the study I would also focus on how differences among tribal groups affect political participation. Huyser et al. discuss internal variation among AI/ANs but are unable to do so on a tribal basis due to lack of existing data (9). As Mae M. Ngai (2014) suggests in her book Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America, race is salient among African Americans due to centuries of oppression and racism. Revealing specifically how oppression and racism affects the AI/AN population would provide additional, useful insight into determining their varying internal levels of political participation. Furthermore, David E. Wilkins and Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark (2011) explain, “Indians on reservations…were not merely fodder for social experimentation but were also, in effect, prisoners on their own lands” (126). I would add to the existing research by Huyser et al. by determining whether or not AI/ANs align politically with other racial and ethnic minority groups due to a sense of linked fate and overall shared experience of oppression by Whites. This would be especially interesting due to the fact that the United States made such strong coercion efforts to assimilate AI/ANs, which ultimately failed among the greater AI/AN population (128).

This research has many implications for the future of AI/AN political participation in the United States because it shows that they are an important part of the electorate. Huyser et al. set important goals for future research, such as analyzing how “felony disenfranchisement laws may impact the voting power of the AI/AN population” (10). The conclusion that specific factors influence their political engagement, and that these factors are shared with other ethnic and racial minority groups, highlights the importance of analyzing the ways in which AI/AN become involved in politics, both on a local level and a national level. Overall, Huyser et al.’s research is essential for increasing the saliency of AI/AN political participation and integral to proving the necessity of future research on an overlooked group.

Work Cited

Huyser, Kimberly R., et al. “Civic Engagement and Political Participation among American Indians and Alaska Natives in the US.” Politics, Groups, and Identities, vol. 5, no. 4, 2016, pp. 1–12.

Ngai, Mae M. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton University Press, 2014.

Wilkins, David E., and Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark. American Indian Politics and the American Political System. Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.