Latino Intermarriage and Party Identification Camden Hoyle, Catherine Richardson, Julia Turner, and Kamryn Yanchick

Abstract:After a period without anti-miscegenation laws, intermarriage and social acceptance of these unions in the United States have seen an increase; however, it is still far from the norm. With this increase, we hypothesize that intermarriage might be a factor when it comes to party identification. Therefore, we look at Latinos who have shifted their party identification over time and if they have a White spouse. We find that there is a significance between having a White spouse and having changed one’s political party. We further test this to see if these people have shifted in a more conservative direction, and find that there is a positive relationship, but it is only marginally significant. The findings suggest that intermarriage may play a factor in shifting party identification. However, it is essential to note that with limitations from our data we cannot conclude this union as the sole reason for a shift. Therefore, intermarriage may not have any effect on party identification, as we do not know when the party change occurred. However, we still believe it is important to note that our findings were significant, which should continue to be analyzed as intermarriage rates increase.INTRODUCTION

As a country with a rich history of immigration that has continued into the present day, a

vast majority of the United States’ population has numerous interactions with interracial and

interethnic people in their daily lives. As these interactions increase, people tend to become more

likely to cross once taboo racial and ethnic boundaries when it comes to more intimate

relationships (Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984) such as marriage. This, along with other

factors, has resulted in a significant increase in intermarriage rates in the United States since

1967. However, this was not always the case, as the United States has a history of anti-

miscegenation laws. Therefore, it is important to analyze why and how rates of intermarriage are

increasing and why people consciously choose to enter into relationships with someone of a

different race or ethnicity. These interactions and relationships could influence political identity,

as the current political climate in the United States polarizes and voters are becoming less

informed. Therefore, people use factors outside of politics to determine party identification. With

this, it is important to understand the history behind intermarriage in order to predict how an

interracial marriage might affect political party identification.

The Supreme Court ruling of “Loving v the Commonwealth of Virginia” in 1967 ruled on

the prevalent anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, making them unconstitutional

(Bratter and O’Connell 2017, 102). Anti-miscegenation laws made it a crime for people to marry

someone who was of a different race. These laws were one of the many ways in which

systematic racism and racial segregation were enforced and created a stigma around

intermarriage. Despite the fact that there are no longer any legal barriers to interracial marriage,

these marriages are still a small minority of total marriages in the United States today, with only

10% of individuals married to a spouse of a different race in 2015 (Bialik 2017). The long and

2

hostile history of anti-miscegenation and segregation legislation has had lasting social impacts on

the state of interracial marriage today, roughly five decades after they were declared

unconstitutional. In fact, most people in America, whether they explicitly state it or not, still

prefer a same-race relationship (Anderson et al. 2014; Feliciano, Lee, and Robnett 2011). While

this is noteworthy, it is also necessary to understand that those who state this preference and

continuously act on it typically carry more conservative values, while those who intermarry tend

to have more moderate or liberal political views (Davenport 2016a).

This preference for racial endogamy ties to Simmel’s sociological concept of cross-

cutting social circles, claiming that people tend to have social preferences for individuals in their

in-group–and particularly for individuals who share multiple in-groups (Simmel 1908; Blau,

Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984). This can be seen in how married partners are not only more likely

to be from the same racial and ethnic backgrounds, but also from similar economic, educational,

or religious backgrounds (Choi and Tienda 2017; Schueths 2015). Therefore, we assume that this

will carry into the shifting of political views for those who intermarry, as married people have

similar values and backgrounds. While this explains why people are continuing to enter into

same-race relationships, it does not explain the recent increases in intermarriage or the reasoning

behind it (Bean and Bradshaw 1970).

Despite the enduring preference for racial endogamy, the overall social acceptance of

interracial relationships has increased–and continues to increase–over time (Bialik 2017).

However, different racial or ethnic couple combinations still face varying degrees of acceptance.

White-Latino couples–in particular–are especially likely to occur, whereas White-Black couples

are the least likely to occur (Choi and Tienda 2017). Although they are more likely to have same-

3

race relationships rather than interracial relationships, Latinos are more likely to intermarry than

Blacks (Blackwell and Lichter 2004). Yet, interracial relationships are still far from the norm in

America, and those who decide to intermarry face a unique set of challenges and prejudices

resulting from their union.

The “Color Line” throughout American History

Anti-miscegenation laws came as a consequence of America’s racist history. Authors and

activists like W.E.B. DuBois highlighted the “color line” that existed in America literally and

metaphorically (DuBois 1946; Snyder 2018, 12). The color line is historically known to be the

dividing line between Whites and Blacks, excluding Blacks from full participation in society

(Snyder 2018, 12). Jim Crow Laws perpetuated the color line in American cities and towns,

especially in the South (Snyder 2018, 12). People of color were excluded from social equality,

opportunities, privileges, and rights reserved for Whites–hindering the progression of Blacks in

America (Clark and Foster 2003, 459, 467; DuBois 1946; Snyder 2018, 12). The color line laid

the foundation for the racial hierarchy that is still present in the United States. The racist

sentiments that continue to linger in America today have an impact on second and third

generation immigrants, as well as new immigrants. The continuous booming growth of the

Latino population in the U.S. proposes a shift in the typical color line (Stokes-Brown 2012, 309).

Though Latinos are not classified as a single race, they occupy a unique position in the context of

the U.S. racial hierarchy which suggests a shift in the way race impacts politics and other

sociological consequences (Stokes-Brown 2012, 309).

Reasons and Decisions to Intermarry

4

The first early theories that developed to explain intermarriage suggested interracial

unions were an exchange of one partner’s social status for the other partner’s racial caste position

(Rosenfeld 2005). Literature by Davis (1941) and Merton (1941) theorized that the status-caste

exchange would influence the partner preferences, particularly for White Americans–the high-

caste group–and Black Americans–the presumed low-caste group (Kalmijn 1998; Rosenfeld

2005). Merton (1941) suggested a Black spouse with a high socioeconomic status, typically the

male, would compensate for the White spouse’s low SES in order to displace his social standing

(Jacobs and Labov 2002; Kalmijn 1998; Rosenfeld 2005). Ethnographic studies have debated

this theory and argued that greater homogamy exists between interracial couples, pointing out

that Black-White marriages are typically educationally homogamous. In addition,this theory also

ignores gender disparities and other minority groups (Jacobs and Labov 2002; Rosenfeld 2005).

Research on intermarriage in the United States now encompasses more co-ethnic

relationships, thus expanding the focus on the study beyond only Black-White marriages. New

literature has focused on the hypothesis that higher educational levels dramatically affect the rate

of out-marriages (Kalmijn 2012). Studies have also shown that obtainment of a higher

educational level positively affects the rate of out-marriages to a non-Latino White American for

African and Latino Americans (Kalmijn 2012). The impact of the educational gradient does not

seem to affect Asian Americans (Kalmijn 2012). It is interesting to notice the difference of

impact of the education gradient in Asian Americans and Latino Americans considering both

groups are replenished by high levels of immigration (Qian and Lichter 2007).

Boundary Crossing through Intermarriage

5

Upon entering an interracial union, significant ethnic and racial social boundaries are

crossed, which opens the door for the exchange of ideas, customs, and beliefs–both political and

non-political (Song 2009; Stoker and Jennings 1995). A great deal of literature on marital status

suggests that marriage changes an individual’s priorities, which then makes them more likely to

vote Republican (Casellas and Ibarra 2012; Urbano 2012). Therefore, in the United States’

highly polarized political environment, crossing partisan lines and engaging in bi-partisan

dialogue seems nearly impossible. What seems even more unlikely is the idea of switching

parties entirely, as a result of the currently highly polarized political climate (Griffin 2017).

Iyengar and Westwood (2015) describe the effects of affective polarization–the tendency of

people identifying with one party to view their co-partisans positively and the opposing partisan

negatively–finding that opposing party identifications can present a substantial hurdle to

romantic unions (691). Overall, Democrat-Republican unions are rare given the trend of

discrimination against opposing partisans and current party polarization (Iyengar and Westwood

2015, 692).

Intermarriage, Latinos, and Party Identification

While there can be many different people who enter into interracial relationships, this

study is focused explicitly on the intermarriage between Latinos and non-Latino Whites. Latinos

can be a complex group to study, seeing as they descend or are from many different countries

with a variety of traditions and values. However, there are similar patterns of Latinos that can be

identified when it comes to politics. Since they express a closer relation to non-Latino Whites

than non-Latino Blacks, they generally have higher rates of intermarriage to non-Latino Whites

(Nicholson, Pantoja, and Segura 2005). One’s identity is made up of many different aspects, but

6

there are general theories for intermarriage–specifically among Latinos. For instance, marriage

affects socioeconomic status and possibly party identification (Blackwell and Lichter 2004). It is

also important to note that informed Latino voters tend to vote for Democratic candidates in

elections, and this trend is continuing as there has been a continuous shift from Latino party

identification with Republican to Democratic in recent years (Nicholson, Pantoja, and Segura

2006; Winneg and Jamieson 2010). Therefore, it is possible that intermarriage has been a

contributor to this shift, which is why it is necessary to focus on Latinos in our study.

Broadly, social distance theory can be defined as how Latinos express a closer relation to

non-Latino Whites (Nicholson, Pantoja, and Segura 2006). This theory, discussed by Nicholson,

Pantoja, and Segura (2006) builds the framework for our hypotheses. They discuss the fact that

historically, the racial hierarchy in the United States has been viewed as a binary, with the social

divide separating Whites and Blacks. In addition, the rapid growth of the Latino population

creates a third tier to the hierarchy and a feeling of distance between Latinos and people who

identify with another race. Social distance theory has led to findings in which Afro-Latinos

express a commonality with Blacks while White Latinos express a commonality with non-Latino

Whites (Qian 2002). This theory could help explain the race the respondents with a White

partner identify with when it comes to intermarriages.

In the United States, it is often found that minorities who marry someone of the majority

White population take on both cultural and social characteristics of their White spouse, which is

referred to as social whitening (Vasquez 2014). Although this has been the case in the past, with

the increasing rate of intermarriage, it has been found that some couples practice a hybrid type

family–in which they share a mutual recognition for the culture of both spouses and sometimes

7

even cases where the minority culture is dominant (Song 2009). Social Browning refers to homes

where the minority culture is dominant, and the White spouse has undertaken the social and

cultural norms of the minority group (Vasquez 2014; Song 2009). When there are kids involved,

social browning also refers to how both parents agree to educate children about another culture.

This has been the case more often than not when it comes to Whites’ desire to understand and

marry into a culture that is different from their own and the majority of the nation (Vasquez

2014).

Concerning the theory that Latinos are “in between” Whites and Blacks, there are also

reported differences of socioeconomic status (Arvizu and Garcia 1996). While an increase in

socioeconomic status leads to a general increase in voter turnout, Latinos are affected by it in

different ways and cannot be grouped as one (Arvizu and Garcia 1996). Socioeconomic status

and a desire to increase it has led to an increase in rates of intermarriage to non-Latino Whites,

especially those who have higher aspects of socioeconomic status compared to their partner

(Qian 2002). Therefore, socioeconomic status might skew findings when it comes to

intermarriage and party identification.

Latina Women and Intermarriage

While Latinos, in general, are necessary to our study, we specify our hypotheses to test

the gender difference since studies show Latina women have certain mobilizing factors that

influence their decisions to marry someone of a different race or ethnicity (Burnside and

Rodriguez 2009; Garcia, Riggio, Palavinelu, and Culpepper 2012). One of the main contributing

factors is the hope that they will escape the patriarchy experienced in their childhood (Vasquez-

Tokos 2017). Interviews have revealed that Latina women marry a White man with the hopes

8

that they will have a less sexist relationship and be able to move out of the “machismo” mindset

that dominates Latino culture (Vasquez-Tokos 2017). Relationships, whether romantic or

platonic, can leave a lasting effect on people and result in negative associations for a specific

type of person. Also, women intermarry in order to escape the status they see themselves as

having and hope to move up in society (Vasquez-Tokos 2017). Therefore, they generally marry

someone who has more education than them or earns higher wages (Vasquez-Tokos 2017). An

increase in socioeconomic status and the belief that they have escaped patriarchy could lead to a

shift in party identification, as socioeconomic status is a large factor when it comes to political

parties. In addition, biracial minority women–especially Latinas–are perceived to have more

permeable racial boundaries which leave them less likely to be categorized as exclusively non-

White compared to men (Davenport 2016b).

Party Polarization in the United States

Party polarization in the United States affects many aspects of American political and

non-political life. Upon interracial unions there is the crossing of ethnic and racial boundaries,

building a bridge for an exchange of beliefs. However, as previously discussed, party

polarization makes it difficult for people to marry someone of another party. In fact, opposing

party identifications can go as far as preventing the union of marriage, as politics becomes more

embedded in society. A 2009 survey of married couples presents the rarity of marriage across the

partisan divide by showing that Democrat-Republican pairs only make up 9% of their survey

(Iyengar and Westwood 2015, 692). Iyengar and Westwood (2015) rationalize this since

measured discrimination based on party affiliation has surpassed measured discrimination based

on race, which is considered one of the most salient social divides (703). In today’s society,

9

racial discrimination appears to be suppressed by social norms, but there are no social norms

built into American history that would solicit for a reluctance to discriminate based on party

affiliation (Iyengar and Westwood 2015, 702). This shows how American party identification

affects behavior in both a political and non-political context (Iyengar and Westwood 2015, 705).

This notion brings to question the possibility of party switching between a Latino homogenous

union and a Latino-White interracial union.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Previous literature on interracial marriage has focused on the classical assimilation

theory, believing that marriage is only one of the several processes by which minorities

transcend distinctive barriers of race and ethnicity and inevitably give up their culture in favor of

the dominant “American” culture (Gordon 1964). There is great debate in the fields of sociology

and political science over the validity of this theory due to its universal one-sided and

Eurocentric narrative that fails to consider the influencing effects of the minority partner’s

culture on the White partner while relying on the assumption that White American culture is

superior and desirable (Lewis and Ford-Roberson 2010; Qian and Lichter 2007; Song 2009).

Alba and Nee (2003) criticize the classical assimilation theory and offer a less ethnocentric

segmented assimilation theory. Their theory recognizes that the assimilation process is not as

streamlined as previous theories assumed and that immigrants and minorities do not strive to

abandon their native culture (Alba and Nee 2003). However, they argue “the cumulative effect of

pragmatic decisions aimed at successful adaptation can give rise to changes in behavior that

nevertheless lead to eventual assimilation” (Alba and Nee 2003, 38). Some of these adaptational

decisions–such as attending institutions of higher education, increasing English proficiency, and

10

living in less racially homogenous neighborhoods–have been associated with increased inter-

ethnic contact between Latinos and non-Latino Whites (Welch and Sigelman 2000). In a study

on Latino and White interethnic contact, Welch and Sigelman (2000) found that having a non-

Latino White spouse was significantly associated with greater social interactions with Whites in

general.

THEORY AND ARGUMENT

Latinos are increasingly becoming a large part of the U.S. demographic. Therefore, they

are an important group to study as their voice in politics is growing to be a distinct one.

However, pan-ethnicity is a widely debated topic because there is such a large variety of cultural

backgrounds they derive from. Therefore, there are many possible reasons a person could choose

to identify with a specific political party, but the factor we are focusing on is marriage. As

previous literature has shown, Latinos intermarry for a plethora of reasons. In addition, they

marry inside their race for specific reasons as well. With the polarizing climate around political

parties, we theorize that it is more likely for married couples to share similar political ideologies

and therefore similar party identification. This brings us to our theory that those who have a non-

Latino White spouse will be more likely to have changed their party identification compared to

those married to another Latino.

The party identification of our respondents is important to analyze, especially if there is a

relationship that creates shifts with intermarriage. If marrying someone of a different race were

to cause a change in party identification, whether it be toward the conservative or liberal

ideology, this would be a significant find as rates of intermarriage are continuing to increase.

With all of this in mind, our hypotheses are as follows:

11

Hypothesis 1: People with a White spouse will be more likely to have changed their party

identification compared to those with a Latino spouse.

Hypothesis 2: Women with a White spouse will be more likely to have changed their

party identification compared to men with a White spouse.

Hypothesis 3: Of those who have changed their party identification, we expect that

people who have a White spouse will be more likely to have become more conservative

compared to people with a Latino spouse.

Hypothesis 4: Of those who have changed their party identification, we expect that

women with a White spouse will be more likely to have become more conservative

compared to men with a White spouse.

DATA AND METHODS

The 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) sought to compile a

diverse, unbiased, and generalizable sample of minorities from which data on political opinions

and attitudes could be collected (Barreto, Frasure-Yokley, Vargas, and Wong 2018). Using this

survey, we were able to measure the race of a Latino respondents’ spouse, their party

identification, any shifts in their party identification, as well as the direction of such shifts. A

total of 10,145 people completed the survey, and 3,003 of those respondents identified as

Hispanic or Latino (Barreto, Frasure-Yokley, Vargas, and Wong 2017). There were a few

specific aspects of this survey that we felt enhanced the quality of our sample through increased

respondent diversity. First, the survey was made available in several languages, including

Spanish, which we felt was important to ensure that we have data from respondents who may

have differing levels of English proficiency. The survey also makes an effort to include those

12

who were not registered to vote as well as those who did not have citizenship status, again

allowing us to have a sample that includes respondents from diverse backgrounds and those who

may be closer to the immigrant experience.

After narrowing down our sample and holding different relevant variables constant, such

as being Latino or having a White spouse, the number of respondents we used in our study

substantially decreased to a total of 1,655. Something important to note is that 70% of the

respondents in our sample were women and the remaining 30% were men. This gender ratio

does, however, closely resemble the gender breakdown of the entire population of Latinos who

had responded to the 2016 CMPS–68% of who were female (Barreto, Frasure-Yokley, Vargas,

and Wong 2018). Therefore, we do not expect our sample to be much different from the larger

sample taken for the 2016 CMPS. However, the entire 2016 CMPS does have a significant

gender imbalance which may have an impact on the data, although this is not unusual or unique

to this survey given the general overrepresentation of women in online research data (Smith,

2008).

Independent Variable

Since entering a relationship with a partner of the same race still feels like an

unconscious decision for many people, it is necessary to note that people who intermarry are

making a conscious decision to cross racial boundaries (Anderson et al. 2014). Our primary

independent variable is the race of the respondent’s spouse. In our study, we are looking

specifically at respondents who identify as Hispanic or Latino because of the idea that they are a

“middle race” and therefore have higher rates of intermarriage to Whites than Blacks (Qian

2002). Also, our study is limited in its ability to gather more information about other racial or

13

ethnic groups because questions regarding changing party affiliation were only asked of Latino

respondents. In our data, we narrowed the results down to only those who listed their spouse as

being White. We decided to avoid including those who listed other non-Latino ethnicities and

focus only on exogamy to non-Latino Whites since the social implications of intermarriage with

another minority group are far different from those of marriage to a White spouse (Choi and

Tienda 2017). In addition, Latinos and other minorities are more likely to identify with a more

liberal political party than Whites, who on average tend to be more conservative (Davenport

2016a; Juenke 2016).

One question asked respondents to list the race/ethnicity of their spouse or partner. Table

1 displays a simple breakdown of information regarding the race of respondents’ spouses. The

survey shows that 32% of respondents reported having a non-Latino White spouse while the

other 68% had a Latino spouse. We coded this data as a binary variable where having a White

spouse is 1 and having a Latino spouse is 0. It is important to note that not all of the respondents

were married at the time of the survey, and many of those who listed their spouse’s race also

listed their relationship status as being widowed, divorced, or unmarried but living with

someone. It is also important to note that this survey did not include any indication of the

duration of the relationship.

Since there have been studies regarding the fact that Latina women are more likely to

marry outside of their own race (Vasquez-Tokos 2017), we wanted to test another independent

variable to see if the respondent’s gender had any impact on changes in partisanship. Gender was

coded as a binary variable where women were coded as 1 and men were coded as 0.

14

Dependent Variable

In our study, we are interested in two dependent variables. We will first be looking at any

change in the respondent’s political party identification. We were able to measure this due to a

few questions in the CMPS which asked if the respondents had always considered themselves to

be a member of their current political party, or if they used to consider themselves part of a

different political party. Regardless of the specific political party one had shifted to, we created a

binary variable to measure any change in party identification. Those who had changed their party

were coded as a 1, whereas those who had never had a shift in party affiliation were coded as a 0.

Additionally, we will be assessing the shifting ideological direction of those who had

reported changing parties. We created another binary variable that measured if the respondent

had changed their political affiliation in a more conservative or liberal direction. We created this

variable by taking the respondents who had reported changing their party in the past and

analyzed the direction in which they shifted. It is important to note that these changes were not

only from Republican to Democrat, or vice versa, but also included a shift toward Independent.

Respondents who moved anywhere to the right–Democrat to Independent, Independent to

Republican, or Democrat to Republican–were coded as 1. Respondents who moved anywhere to

the left–Republican to Independent, Independent to Democrat, or Republican to Democrat–were

coded as 0. While it is important to note shifts, it is also necessary to recognize that there is no

15

time period related to these shifts, meaning that the shifts in party identification could have

occurred at any time before or after a marriage occurred.

Controls

As previously stated, we are interested in looking at Latino respondents, not the general

public, meaning that the race of the respondent will be held constant and we will only look at this

specific group. This takes out several respondents, including other minority groups as well as

non-Latino Whites. Also, since we are investigating the role of a spouse’s race, we only want to

measure respondents who are married to a non-Latino White spouse. This also condenses the

number of respondents, removing anyone who either listed no spouse or a spouse of any race that

was not White.

Since many scholars have previously argued that intermarriage is one aspect of

assimilation, we want to control for other factors that have been associated with assimilation as

well as partisanship in order to best isolate the relationship between spouse’s race and changing

partisanship (Alba and Nee 2003; Gordon 1964; Lichter, Qian, and Tumin 2015). Socioeconomic

factors in general lead to different identities in people and are therefore meaningful to research in

relation to intermarriage (Blau, Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984). Another necessary factor to

include is education since the CMPS has respondents from many different backgrounds. This is

important to consider as more education generally creates a more informed voter, therefore

allowing people to confidently identify with a party that embodies their values (Arvizu and

Garcia 1996). The more education one has typically correlates with higher rates of intermarriage,

as an intersection of in-groups and crossing of social boundaries occurs with marriage (Blau,

Beeker, and Fitzpatrick 1984). Combining education with income creates a notion of

16

intersectionality that is becoming present in more Americans as higher education habitually

correlates with a higher income. Therefore, controlling for income becomes an obvious step in

order to better understand the results and patterns that may occur from marriage to a White

spouse (Furtado and Song 2015). While this narrows our responses, it will create a testable data

set and allow for statistical analysis.

RESULTSRegression Analysis

We conducted a linear regression model for our first hypothesis, testing the relationship

between spouse race and any change in party affiliation in either the left or right direction on the

political spectrum. Based on the results, we were able to reject the null hypothesis due to our p-

value being statistically significant at 0.041. The regression coefficient was 0.047, indicating that

a positive relationship exists between the race of one’s spouse and whether or not they have ever

changed their party affiliation. This shows that on average, having a White spouse was

associated with being 4.7% more likely to have ever considered themselves a different party.

For our second hypothesis, which seeks to determine if there was a gender difference in

the relationship between the race of one’s spouse and their likelihood of changing their party

affiliation in any direction, we did the same thing except with an added variable on gender. Our

results proved not to be statistically significant, indicating that there is no evidence of any gender

difference between changing one’s party identification and having a White spouse.

For our third hypothesis, we also used a linear regression model but looked specifically at

the ideological direction of any changes in party identification. We set up our model to find the

relationship between spouse race and a shift to a more conservative political affiliation. Our

results were marginally significant, with a p-value of 0.0501. The regression coefficient was

17

small at 0.035, indicating a weak but positive relationship between the two variables. This shows

that having a White spouse is associated with a 3.5% increase in the likelihood of shifting to a

more conservative political ideology.

For our last hypothesis, which sought to determine any gender differences in the

relationship between marriage to a White spouse and becoming more conservative, we replicated

the regression model from hypothesis three with an additional variable for gender. The data

failed to determine any significant gender difference regarding the relationship between

changing one’s party identification in a conservative direction and having a White spouse. All of

the values from our statistical analysis can be found in Table 2 below.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our analysis proves to be mixed. We seem to have a reasonable amount of data to

support the idea that the act of marrying out of the Latino minority ethnic group and into the

18

White majority has a positive relationship with having ever changed one’s political party

affiliation. Additionally, our regression shows marginal significance regarding the direction of

the partisan shift for those who do experience a change. Our data shows that when respondents

did change parties, there was a positive relationship between having a White spouse and shifting

more towards the ideological right than the ideological left. However, we found insufficient

evidence to support the existence of any significant gender differences in shifting party alliances.

The data also failed to indicate any significant gender difference in the ideological direction of

partisan shift when it did occur. It is important to note that by testing for gender differences, we

are not suggesting that women are weak-minded and follow the direction of their husband when

it comes to politics. Rather, we came up with our hypotheses regarding women based on

literature suggesting Latina women are more likely to intermarry (Garcia, Riggio, Palavinelu,

and Culpepper 2012; Vasquez-Tokos 2017), and therefore might be affected by party

identification more if they did, in fact, have higher rates of intermarriage.

While our data did end up producing interesting and enlightening results, there are

several shortcomings in our brief study that we wish could have been elaborated on and should

be looked at in future research. First–and most importantly–is the fact that the survey we used

failed to include any questions that allowed the respondents to indicate how long it had been

since they had changed their political affiliation, as well as how long they had been in a

relationship with their spouse. Due to this lack of available data, we have no way of knowing if

the respondents who had changed their party affiliation had done so before or after their marriage

had occurred. An idea for future research could involve a longitudinal study that tracks the party

19

identification of Latino respondents over time and compares any changes in partisanship in

context to marriage.

Another gap in the data that could have been useful would have been information on the

spouse’s political affiliation and their history of changes. This would allow us to check to see if

the Latino’s spouse’s political affiliation had come closer to resembling that of the White spouse

and vice versa. It is possible that having a Latino spouse could be associated with changes in

political party affiliation on the White spouse’s part as well, and studies in the future could

investigate this possibility. Future research could also investigate this same question in regard to

other racial and ethnic minority groups since we were limited to only Latino respondents due to

the organization of the CMPS. We would expect the results to be different about other racial or

ethnic groups due to the uniqueness of Latinos as a middle race in the color line (Nicholson,

Pantoja, and Segura 2006; Qian 2002).

An additional aspect that we believe would be necessary for further research to address is

immigration status. Some Latinos immigrate to the United States from another country while

some are born here. Therefore, there are different periods of time in which they become citizens.

Immigrants who marry a native of the United States generally earn higher wages than

immigrants who marry immigrants (Furtado and Song 2015). This jump in socioeconomic status

could very likely be a contributing factor to party identification as those who choose to

intermarry have higher wages (Furtado and Song 2015), whether that be because of where they

live or the job they are able to get. However, it is generally difficult for immigrants to rise in

socioeconomic status or to intermarry because there are certain barriers present (Bacigalupe

2003). Socioeconomic status is typically a factor for this, and people generally, desire upward

20

mobility in life. Therefore, they look for a partner who has higher education or higher earnings,

contributing to an upward movement in society (Vasquez-Tokos 2017). Previous literature points

to differences between non-immigrants and immigrants, which could possibly affect decisions to

intermarry and also party identification. Therefore, we believe it is important for future research

to consider immigration and citizen status as well.

Our research adds to the conversation regarding the effects of intermarriage as well as

how these unions possibly change party affiliation. Something important to note is the fact that it

is possible these respondents who consciously enter into traditional marriage already have

conservative ideals. Therefore, if they are already more conservative, the change in party

identification may not be as significant as we have found. While there were limitations to our

data, we have ample suggestions regarding what other research could do based on our findings,

including longitudinal quantitative and qualitative studies. While one of our findings were

significant, we believe there are further aspects to study and consider in order to be able to make

a broad generalization regarding intermarriage and party identification.

ReferencesAlba, Richard D. and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and

Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Anderson, Ashton et al. 2014. “Political Ideology and Racial Preferences in Online Dating.”

Sociological Science: 28–40. Arvizu, John R. and Chris F. Garcia. 1996. “Latino Voting Participation: Explaining and

Differentiating Latino Voter Turnout.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18(2):104-28.

Bacigalupe, Gonzalo. 2003. “Intercultural Therapy with Latino Immigrants and White Partners:Crossing Borders Coupling.” Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 2(2/3): 131.

Barreto, Matt, Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, Edward Vargas, and Janelle Wong. 2017. The

21

Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), 2016. Los Angeles, CA. Barreto, M. A., Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, Edward D. Vargas, and Janelle Wong. 2018. “Best

practices in collecting online data with Asian, Black, Latino, and White respondents: evidence from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey” Politics, Groups, and Identities 6(1): 171-180.

Bean, Frank D. and Benjamin S. Bradshaw. 1970. “Intermarriage between Persons of Spanishand Non-Spanish Surname: Changes from the Mid-Nineteenth to the Mid-TwentiethCentury.” Social Science Quarterly (Southwestern Social Sciences Association 51(2):389–395.

Bialik, Kristen. 2017. “Key Facts about Race and Marriage in the U.S.” Pew Research Center.https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/12/key-facts-about-race-and-marriage50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/.

Blackwell, Debra L. and Daniel T. Lichter. 2004. “Homogamy among Dating, Cohabiting and

Married Couples.” The Sociological Quarterly 45(4): 719-737. Blau, Peter M., Carolyn Beeker, and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 1984. “Intersecting Social

Affiliations and Intermarriage.” Social Forces 62(3): 585–606. Bratter, Jenifer L. and Heather A. O’Connell. 2017. “Multiracial Identities, Single Race History:

Contemporary Consequences of Historical Race and Marriage Laws for RacialClassification.” Social Science Research 68(November): 102–16.

Burnside, R. and Rodriguez, A. 2009. “Up Close and Personal: The Effect of InterracialMarriage on Latino Link-Fate.” Conference Papers -- Midwestern Political ScienceAssociation 1.

Casellas, Jason P. and Joanne D. Ibarra. 2012. “Changing Political Landscapes for Latinos inAmerica.” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 11(3): 234–258.

Choi, Kate H. and Marta Tienda. 2017. “Boundary Crossing in First Marriage and Remarriage.”Social Science Research 62: 305-316.

Clark, B. and J. Foster. 2003. “Land, the color line, and the quest of the golden fleece: An introduction to W.E.B. Du Bois's The Souls of Black Folk and the Quest of the Silver Fleece (selections).” Organization & Environment 16(4): 459-469.

Davenport, Lauren. 2016a. “Beyond Black and White: Biracial Attitudes in Contemporary U.S.Politics.” American Political Science Review 110(1): 52-67.

22

Davenport, Lauren. 2016b. “The Role of Gender, Class, and Religion in Biracial Americans’ Racial Labeling Decisions.” American Sociological Review 81(1): 57-84.

Davis, Kingsley. 1941. “Intermarriage in Caste Societies.” American Anthropologist 43: 388–95.

DuBois, William Edward Burghardt. 1946. “Bound by the Color Line.” New Masses 7(8): 1.

Feliciano, Cynthia, Rennie Lee, and Belinda Robnett. 2011. “Racial Boundaries among Latinos:Evidence from Internet Daters' Racial Preferences.” Social Problems 58(2): 189–212.

Furtado Delia, and Tao Song. 2015. “Intermarriage and Socioeconomic Integration.” TheANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 662(1): 207-22.

Garcia, Amber L., Heidi R. Riggio, Subha Palavinelu, and Lane L. Culpepper. 2012. “Latinos’Perceptions of Interethnic Couples.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 34(2):349–362.

Griffin, Robert. 2017. “Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation.” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group: Washington D.C. rep.

Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and

National Origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Iyengar, Shanto and Sean J. Westwood. 2015. "Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New

Evidence on Group Polarization." American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 690-707.

Jacobs, Jerry A. and Teresa G. Labov. 2002. "Gender Differentials in Intermarriage among Sixteen Race and Ethnic Groups." Sociological Forum 17(4): 621-46.

Juenke, Eric Gonzalez. 2016. “Viable Republicans or Fool’s Gold? The Consequences ofConfusing Latino Respondents with Latino Voters.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4(4):598-617.

Kalmijn, Matthijs 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24(1): 395-421.

Kalmijn, Matthijs 2012. “The Educational Gradient in Intermarriage: A Comparative Analysis of Immigrant Groups in the United States.” Social Forces 91(2): 453-76.

Lewis, Richard Jr. and Joanne Ford-Robertson. 2010. “Understanding the Occurrence ofInterracial Marriage in the United States Through Differential Assimilation.” Journal ofBlack Studies 41(2): 405–420.

23

Lichter, Daniel T., Zhenchao Qian, and Dmitry Tumin. 2015. “Who Do Immigrants Marry?Race, Intermarriage, and Integration.” Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association January: 1–31.

Merton, Robert K. 1941. “Intermarriage and the Social Structure.” Psychiatry 4: 361–74.

Nicholson, Stephen P., Adrian Pantoja, and Gary M. Segura. 2006. “Political Knowledge andIssue Voting Among the Latino Electorate.” Political Research Quarterly 59(2): 259-71.

Nicholson, Stephen P., Adrian D. Pantoja, & Gary M. Segura. 2005. “Race Matters: LatinoRacial Identities and Political Beliefs.” UC Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies: 1-33.

Qian, Zhenchao. 2002. “Race and Social Distance: Intermarriage with Non-Latino Whites.” Race

and Society 5(1): 33-47.

Qian, Zhenchao and Daniel T. Lichter. 2007. “Social Boundaries and MaritalAssimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage” AmericanSociological Review 72(1): 68-94.

Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2005. "A Critique of Exchange Theory in Mate Selection." AmericanJournal of Sociology 110(5).

Schueths, A. M. 2015. “Barriers to Interracial Marriage? Examining Policy Issues Concerning

U.S. Citizens Married to Undocumented Latino/a Immigrants.” Journal of Social Issues71(4): 804–820.

Simmel, George. 1908. Conflict and The Web of Group Affiliations. Free Press. Smith, W. G. 2008. “Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage

analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior.” Dissertation from San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

Snyder, Jeffrey Aaron. 2018. “Making Black History: The Color Line, Culture, and Race in the Age of Jim Crow /. Athens, Georgia” University of Georgia Press.

Song, Miri. 2009. “Is Intermarriage a Good Indicator of Integration?” Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies 35(2): 331-348.

Stoker, Laura and M. Kent Jennings. 1995. “Life-Cycle Transitions and Political Participation: The Case of Marriage.” American Political Science Review 89(2): 421–433.

24

Stokes-Brown, A. 2012. “America's Shifting Color Line? Reexamining Determinants of Latino Racial Self-Identification.” Social Science Quarterly 93(2): 309-332.

Urbano, Juan. 2012. “Mom and Dad this is Walter: Latino Interracial Marriage and Partisanship”. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association: 1–25.

Vasquez, Jessica M. 2014. “The Whitening Hypothesis Challenged: Biculturalism in Latino andNon-Hispanic White Intermarriage.” Sociological Forum 29(2): 386–407.

Vasquez, Jessica M. 2014. “RACE COGNIZANCE AND COLORBLINDNESS: Effects ofLatino/Non-Hispanic White Intermarriage.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 11(2): 273–93.

Vasquez-Tokos, Jessica. 2017. Marriage Vows and Racial Choices. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Welch, Susan and Lee Sigelman. 2000. “Getting to Know You? Latino-Anglo Social Contact.”Social Sciences Quarterly 81(1): 67-83.

Winneg, Kenneth and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2010. “Party Identification in the 2008

Presidential Election.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 40(2): 247-63.

25