Latinas in Politics

As part of CAWP's Research Inventory on Gender & Politics, this overview focuses on current and past research, with particular emphasis on the latest findings, related to Latinas in politics. This overview captures the state of knowledge to increase understanding of current political realities, support research-based interventions, and generate future research questions and agendas.

Latinas in Politics with hub image

Data from the 2020 U.S. Census shows that those identifying as Hispanic or Latino accounted for more than half of the country’s population growth in the previous decade, with the greatest increases in Texas, California, and Florida.1 Latinas are key to that rise. But has representation in elective office kept pace with population growth? What has contributed to the likelihood of Latina candidacy and success, and what difference has it made for more Latinas to hold elective office? Apart from Latina representation among officeholders, what has research shown about Latina political behavior? 

While much scholarship treats “Latinas” as a unified category, recent research increasingly emphasizes the importance of intra-group differences, including differences based on age, immigration status, national origin, and racial identification. For example, Isreal Mallard argues that ethnicity and ‘pigmentocracy’ (skin color) play a role in electing an Afro-Latina/o to political office in Washington, D.C.2 He concludes that skin color creates hierarchies that shape electoral opportunities and political experiences among Latinas/os. Afro-Latinas/os navigate both their Latina/o ethnicity and their Blackness, occupying an intersectional position that may be misunderstood or marginalized by both Latina/o and Black political communities. 

Recent scholarship on Latinas in politics focuses on paths to office, the role of stereotypes on candidate evaluations, how structural conditions influence election to office, legislating at the intersection of gender and race/ethnicity, and deeper understandings of pan-ethnic and intersectional identities in shaping Latina political participation and behavior.

Descriptive Representation of Latinas

As of March 2026, record number of Latinas serve in Congress and state legislatures, but Latina political underrepresentation persists at all levels of office.3

  • Despite being about 9.3% of the population, Latinas are less than 3% of officeholders elected to Congress, statewide elective executive offices, and state legislatures. Four Latinas currently serve as mayors of the top 100 most populous cities in the United States.4
  • Latina representation at the congressional and statewide elective executive levels is concentrated in a small number of states, with Latina officeholders across these offices coming from just 13 states.5
  • A record number of Latinas ran for the U.S. Senate in 2024, but just one Latina has ever served as U.S. senator.
  • Despite reaching a record high, Latinas remain just 3% of state legislators and their representation is concentrated in a small number of states.6

Candidate Emergence 

The literature on Latina politics reveals that persistent underrepresentation stems from intersecting structural, cultural, and behavioral factors that operate differently for Latinas than for Latinos and differently for Latinas from different backgrounds.

 In Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox’s latest research on political ambition, they found that the gender gap in political ambition – whereby men are more likely than women to consider running for office – persists among Latinas/os in their population of potential candidates.7 Latinos were more than twice as likely as Latinas to say that they had been encouraged to run for political office, and Latinas/os were less likely than white respondents to receive encouragement.8 Other studies have similarly found that Latinas have been more likely than non-Hispanic white women to be discouraged from running for office.9 

Scholars have critiqued traditional models of political ambition, however, to better account for the experiences and paths to politics for women from different racial/ethnic communities.10 They have offered more nuanced assessments of what motivates Latinas to run for office, including an emphasis on community-centered goals, and argued for greater attention to distinct conditions that create electoral opportunities for Latinas.11

The geographic distribution of majority-white districts severely constrains opportunities for all candidates of color, but gendered gatekeeping within majority-minority districts concentrates the scarce opportunities that do exist for Latinas/os. Multiple studies show that Latinas – and Latinos – are more likely to emerge as state legislative and congressional candidates in majority-minority districts.12 In Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections, Christian Dyogi Phillips argues that the distribution of majority-white populations across most districts sharply constrains the number of realistic opportunities for Latina/o and Asian American women and men to get on the ballot and win office. In additional research, she extends this analysis specifically to Latina/o representation in majority-minority districts and finds systematic gender disparities: “Key factors often associated with majority-minority districts' capacity as vehicles for minority representation, such as increasingly large Latina/o proportions of district populations and incumbent networks, are more robustly related to the presence of Latinos than Latinas on the ballot.”13 Phillips’ “intersectional model of electoral opportunity” demonstrates how overlapping and simultaneous structural factors play a previously underappreciated role in shaping who runs for office — and who does not.14

Jennifer Hayes Clark and Gathoni Kimondo found that legislative term limits increase the likelihood of Latina candidate emergence in state legislatures, while Latinas are less likely to emerge in districts with high median incomes, high levels of religiosity, strong conservatism, and multimember elections.15 An analysis of U.S. House elections showed that the percentage of Latina candidates is greater in open-seat contests.16

Disparities in financial resources – including access to moneyed networks and personal wealth –  can also shape Latinas’ candidacy calculations. For example, a study of congressional candidates spanning several decades through 2022 found that Latinas were less likely than white women to self-fund their campaigns, and they contributed less to their campaigns than Latino, Asian, or white men candidates.17 Targeted support comes in other forms, such as recruitment networks, campaign training, and strategic advice and mentorship. CAWP’s research has shown racial disparities in the robustness of formal political support infrastructures targeted specifically to Latinas in U.S. politics, but it also documents efforts by Latinas to informally provide these supports to each other.18 Christina Bejarano and Wendy Smooth have credited “strategic networks of women of color-centered and women of color-led political/civic organizations and mobilizations working to extend democratic inclusion” as critical to the growth in women candidates and officeholders from diverse racial/ethnic communities over the past two decades.19

Candidate Evaluation and Election to Office 

How do voters respond to Latina candidates? Traditional approaches to studying candidate evaluations have examined gender bias and racial bias as separate phenomena, asking whether voters discriminate against women candidates or against minority candidates. However, such single-axis analyses fail to capture how voters respond to candidates who are both women and racial or ethnic minorities — or who occupy even more complex intersectional positions. For more, see overview of Women Candidates and their Campaigns

Multiple studies have provided insights into how race and gender influence voters’ evaluation of personal characteristics and qualifications of candidates at the intersection of race and gender. Latinas are perceived as more liberal than women candidates presented without a distinct racial identification, which can create both challenges and opportunities.20 Ivy Cargile found that Latinas outperform their male counterparts in perceptions of issue competencies around education, assisting the poor, reproductive health, and health care,21 and, using survey experiments, Sarah Allen Gershon and Jessica Lavariega Monforti found that Latinas were rated as significantly more honest than their opponents.22 However, Gershon and Monforti also found that Latinas’ opponents were seen as superior in both leadership abilities and experience.23 Another study revealed that Latinas suffer – in comparison to Latino men and women generally – in perceptions of competence on masculine-aligned issues such as foreign affairs and national security.24 Relatedly, Cargile documented that Latina candidates were rated lower by white respondents on both stereotypically masculine and feminine traits that are valued in officeholders.25

Christina Bejarano and colleagues find Latinas with higher levels of minority linked fate – a sense of connection to one's racial or ethnic group – have a greater likelihood of expressing a belief that Black and Latina/o candidates of both genders would represent their interests.26 This may contribute to support Latina candidates can attract from those voters with both shared gender and shared racial identities.27 Latinas also express more support than their white counterparts for increasing the number of women of color in office.28

Anna Sampaio’s analysis of Latina congressional candidates exposes hurdles to success, including opposition from other Latinas — what she terms “weaponized intersectionality,” conflict with major parties and civic organizations, and violence and harassment..29 But she also shows that Latina candidates have built networks to support each other and that they have leveraged their intersectional identities in fostering relationships with voters. Sampaio’s study documents Latina success at the congressional level, with notable gains in the past decade. Paru Shah, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke’s analysis of state legislative elections in 2014 and 2016 found that women of color candidates fared better than their white counterparts, including in open-seat and competitive elections.30 Women of color have been more likely to win in majority-minority districts, though the success of Latinas in statewide elections – including the U.S. Senate and governor – challenges doubts about their electability in majority-white electorates.31

Policy Impact

There is evidence that once Latinas reach office, they govern differently.32 Analyzing bill sponsorship by Asian American and Latina/o Democrats serving in state legislatures from 2014-2017 and drawing upon interviews with Latina/o and Asian American legislators, Christian Dyogi Phillips, Paru Shah, and Patrick Vossler found that Latinas sponsor legislation differently than their male counterparts, with particular attention to issues affecting immigrant communities.33 Moreover, their interview data underscores how legislators understand their representational roles, revealing that Latinas view community networks and ties as deeply intertwined with the way they frame their identities and goals differently from the men of color legislators. Latina women state legislators are also especially active in bill sponsorship and policy leadership, perhaps due to their responsiveness to multiple and intersecting group interests.34 Luis Ricardo Fraga and colleagues described Latinas’ “multiple identity advantage” as part of their “strategic intersectionality,” defined as “the distinct, relative to Latino men, set of interests, resources, and strategies available to Latina elected officials to influence legislative policymaking."35 For more, see overview of Women in Elective Office

Recent scholarship challenges conventional metrics of legislative output, revealing that they systematically obscure the work of women and racial/ethnic minority legislators who employ different legislative strategies, communication approaches, and collaborative practices than their white male counterparts. For example, Abigail Matthews and colleagues provide compelling evidence of how measurement choices shape our understanding of legislative effectiveness.36 In their analysis of the Texas House of Representatives from 1993-2019, they found that Democratic white women, Black women, and Latinas collaborated (measured as co-sponsorship of legislative bills) with the broadest groups of people, but were unable to leverage their broad networks to increase legislative success to the degree white men did. This finding suggests that forms of productivity most common among women and minorities – coalition-building, relationship-developing, consensus-seeking – can be either undervalued or actively discounted by institutional norms and power structures. 

If traditional productivity metrics focus narrowly on bill sponsorship, what other forms of legislative work deserve scholarly attention? Daniel Butler, Thad Kousser, and Stan Oklobdzija‘s comprehensive analysis of legislative communication through Twitter reveals that digital constituent engagement represents a substantial and consequential dimension of representative activity. They found that Black women and Latinas are more likely to have Twitter accounts, use them more actively, are more likely to tweet with positive sentiment, and focus more than other legislators on issues like education and health care.37 The authors conclude that Black and Latina women perform substantially more communication labor than other legislators, labor that is politically consequential yet often invisible in traditional productivity metrics.

Analyzing the policy impact of Latina officeholders requires a more nuanced understanding of the concept of "women's issues" — typically encompassing reproductive rights, childcare, healthcare, education, and violence against women. This framing implicitly assumes that women across racial and ethnic groups prioritize the same issues in similar ways. Melody Crowder-Meyer challenges this assumption through systematic analysis of what issues different groups of Americans identify as the most important problems facing the country.38 She concludes, with implications for understanding Latina behavior as officeholders and voters, that “women's issues” need to be disaggregated by race, but “racial issues” tend to have fewer differences between co-ethnoracial gender. In other words, gender shapes the prioritization of traditionally gendered issues (healthcare, poverty, education) substantially differently across racial groups, requiring careful attention to which women prioritize which issues. In contrast, racial issues show more uniformity within racial groups regardless of gender, though the specific racial issues prioritized vary by racial group (criminal justice for Black Americans, immigration for Latinas/os).

Angel Saavedra Cisneros and colleagues likewise examined assumptions across racial, ethnic, and gender identities about fundamental political values like authority, equality, limited government, and moral traditionalism.39 Their findings stress the importance of intersectionality when making large claims about a group; scholars cannot simply say "women are more egalitarian" or "minorities support bigger government" without specifying which women and which minorities. For example, as they find, Latino men and women show similar egalitarianism but Latinas show lower authoritarianism. These intersectional patterns demand analytical frameworks that account for race and gender simultaneously rather than treating either as an afterthought or control variable.

Activism, Mobilization, and Political Participation

While much scholarship focuses on electoral representation, understanding Latina politics requires attention to activism, mobilization, and political participation beyond formal officeholding. Celeste Montoya and Mariana Galvez Seminario theorize Latina activism in regard to their intersectional location and the development of a mestiza consciousness, placing “the insights of Chicana feminism in conversation with the growing literature on social movement intersectionality in order to propose indicators of intersectional praxis.”40 Their analysis reveals how Latina-led organizations embody intersectional approaches and how Latina activists and organizers translate intersectional theory into practice, building coalitions across difference while centering multiply-marginalized communities. The organizations led by Latinas tend to adopt intersectional frameworks that connect issues traditionally siloed into separate movements – reproductive justice, immigration, housing, LGBTQ+ rights – recognizing how these issues interconnect in Latina communities’ lived experiences.

Montoya extends this analysis by arguing for intersectional approach to studying U.S. Latina activism that explicitly acknowledges that not all Latinas share the same intersectional locations or political commitments.41 Some Latinas organize primarily around gender, others around ethnicity, still others around class, sexuality, immigration status, or multiple intersections simultaneously. Moreover, Latinas organize in “multiple directions” with some challenging inequality and others upholding it — recognizing, for example, that conservative Latinas engage in activism that may reinforce rather than challenge certain hierarchies.

Álvaro José Corral examined another crucial dimension of intra-group difference: gender gaps in immigration attitudes among Latina/o voters.42 Building on previous research documenting Latinas' greater engagement in solidarity work with immigrants and their greater desire for cultural transmission and the maintenance of pan-ethnic identity, Corral found that Latinas exhibit more liberal attitudes on matters of immigration enforcement relative to Latino men, and Latinas are more likely to rely on their sense of commonality with immigrants in the formation of their immigration enforcement attitudes. He concludes that these gender gaps help explain Trump's surprising level of support among U.S. Latina/o voters in 2016 and his improved performance in the 2020 election — support driven substantially by Latino men rather than Latinas.

Voting is another form of Latina political participation. Latinas have turned out to vote at higher rates than their male counterparts in U.S. elections since 1980.43 The gender gap among Latinas/os – whereby Latinas vote more Democratic than Latinos – has been evident in every election with available data (since 1996).44 Anna Sampaio’s analysis of Latina/o voting in the 2024 election suggests necessary caution in interpreting polling data for this population, who has been historically underrepresented in election exit polls.45 Even with that caution, however, gender differences are both evident and persistent. 

In their analysis of women voters, Jane Junn and Natalie Masuoka identified characteristics that distinguish Latina Republicans from Democrats, including religiosity, age, income, national origin, and immigration status.46 Latinas who perceive greater discrimination against Latinas/os or women are more likely to back Democrats and those Latinas whose families have been in the United States longer more likely to back Republicans. Based on analysis of their beliefs and perceptions of race and gender discrimination, Junn and Masuoka argue that Latina voters are less loyal to the Democratic Party than Black women voters but are “more constrained in their agency to choose than white women voters.”47

Studies on campaign donors show that Latinas have been much less likely to contribute to congressional candidates than other groups and that the total amount of their contributions fall below other groups.48 Kira Sanbonmatsu’s study of Black women’s and Latinas’ perceptions revealed that charitable giving is more socially valued than political giving among those communities.49 For more, see overview of Women, Money, and Politics

Suggested Citation: Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Paru Shah. 2026. CAWP Research Inventory on Gender & Politics. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Endnotes 

1 Jones, Nicholas, Rachel Marks, Roberto Ramirez, Merarys Ríos-Vargas. 2021. “2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country.” U.S. Census, August 12. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html

2 Mallard, Isreal G. 2022. The Politics of Being Afro-Latino/Latina: Ethnicity, Colorism, and Political Representation in Washington, D.C. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

3 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Levels of Office.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/

4 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Levels of Office.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/

5 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Women Elected Officials Database.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/women-elected-officials-database

6 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature?race_ethnicity%5B%5D=Hispanic%2FLatina 

7 Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2025. It Takes More Than a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

8 Lawless and Fox 2025

9 Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

10 Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2023. The Radical Imagination of Black Women: Ambition, Politics, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Silva, Andrea, and Carrie Skulley. 2019. “Always Running: Candidate Emergence among Women of Color over Time.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (2): 342–59.

11 Bejarano, Christina E. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; Phillips 2021; Sampaio, Anna. 2023. “Mujeres y Movidas: Latina Congressional Candidate Emergence and Experiences in California and Texas.” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research-analysis/grants-and-awards/cawp-research-grants/report-mujeres-y-movidas

12 Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Gathoni Kimondo. 2025. “When Women Run: Explaining the Emergence of Women State Legislative Candidates.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 31 (4): 1061–76; Silva and Skulley 2019; Shah, Paru, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2019. “Women of Color Candidates: Examining Emergence and Success in State Legislative Elections.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(2): 429–43. 

13 Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2023. “Intersectional Opportunities: Majority Minority Districts and the Descriptive Representation of Latinas and Latinos.” The Journal of Politics 85 (2): 496. 

14 Phillips 2021

15 Clark and Kimondo 2025

16 Silva and Skulley 2019

17 Plaskon, Savannah, and Danielle Thomsen. 2024. "Self-Rising Candidates: Racial and Gender Disparities in Self-Funding." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

18 Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.  https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/; Sampaio 2023

19 Bejarano, Christina, and Wendy Smooth. 2022. “Women of Color Mobilizing: Sistahs Are Doing It for Themselves from GOTV to Running Candidates for Political Office.” In Women of Color Political Elites in the US, eds. Nadia E. Brown, Christopher J. Clark, and Anna Mitchell Mahoney, 8–24. New York, NY: Routledge.

20 Cargile, Ivy A. M. 2023. "Stereotyping Latinas: Candidate Gender and Ethnicity on the Political Stage." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 207–25; Cargile, Ivy A. M., Jennifer L. Merolla, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2016. “Intersectionality and Latino/a Candidate Evaluation.” In Latinas in American Politics: Changing and Embracing Political Tradition, eds. Sharon A. Navarro, Samantha L. Hernandez, and Leslie A. Navarro, 39–60. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

21 Cargile, Ivy A. M. 2016. “Latina Issues: An Analysis of the Policy Issue Competencies of Latina Candidates.” In Distinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, eds. Nadia E. Brown and Sarah A. Gershon. New York, NY: Routledge, 134–50.

22 Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavarriega Monforti. 2021. "Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 439–63.

23 Gershon and Monforti 2021

24 Cargile et al. 2016

25 Cargile 2023

26 Bejarano, Christina, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, and Celeste Montoya. 2021. "Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 970–85.

27 Bejarano 2013; Cargile 2023

28 Matos, Yalidy, Stacey Greene, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2021. "Trends: Do Women Seek ‘Women of Color’ for Public Office? Exploring Women’s Support for Electing Women of Color." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 259–73.

29 Sampaio 2023

30 Shah, Scott, and Juenke 2019

31 Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pei-te Lien, Dianne M. Pinderhughes, and Christine M. Sierra. 2006. “Gender, Race, and Descriptive Representation in the United States: Findings from the Gender and Multicultural Leadership Project.” Journal of Women Politics & Policy 28 (3-4): 7–41; Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Paru Shah. 2016. “Demand and Supply: Racial and Ethnic Minority Candidates in White Districts.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1: 60–90; Monforti, Jessica Lavariega, and Sarah Allen Gershon. 2016. “Una Ventaja? A Survey Experiment of the Viability of Latina Candidates.” In Latinas in American Politics: Changing and Embracing Political Tradition, eds. Sharon A. Navarro, Samantha L. Hernandez, and Leslie A. Navarro, 23–38. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; Swain, Katie E. O., and Pei-te Lien. 2017. “Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (2): 128–50.

32 Fraga, Luis Ricardo, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Linda Lopez, and Ricardo Ramirez. 2008. “Representing Gender and Ethnicity: Strategic Intersectionality.” In Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. Beth Reingold, 157–74. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; Phillips, Dyogi Christian, Paru Shah, and Patrick Vossler. 2022. "Immigrants, Intersectionality and the Politics of Substantive Representation." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (1): 64–81; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Caroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33 Phillips, Shah, and Vossler 2022

34 Reingold, Beth, Kerry L. Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

35 Fraga et al. 2008, 163

36 Matthews, Abigail A., Tracy Osborn, Emily U. Schilling, and Rebecca Kreitzer. 2025. "Legislative Success and Collaboration in the Texas State House." Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (1): 159–81.

37 Butler, Daniel M., Thad Kousser, and Stan Oklobdzija. 2023. "Do Male and Female Legislators Have Different Twitter Communication Styles?" State Politics & Policy Quarterly 23 (2): 117–39.

38 Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2022. "How Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Their Intersections Shape Americans’ Issue Priorities." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (2): 169–83.

39 Cisneros, Saavedra Angel, Tony E. Carey Jr., Darrin L. Rogers, and Joshua M. Johnson. 2023. "One Size Does Not Fit All: Core Political Values and Principles across Race, Ethnicity, and Gender." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (4): 793–812.

40 Montoya, Celeste, and Mariana Galvez Seminario. 2022. "Guerreras y Puentes: The Theory and Praxis of Latina(x) Activism." Politics, Groups, and Identities 10 (2): 171–88, 171.

41 Montoya, Celeste. 2023. "Studying Latina Mobilization Intersectionally, Studying Latinas Mobilizing Intersectionality." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 44 (4): 405–21.

42 Corral, José Álvaro. 2024. "The Wall between Latinas and Latinos? Gender and Immigration Enforcement Attitudes among U.S. Latina/o Voters." Politics & Gender 20 (1): 29–53.

43 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Gender Differences in Voter Registration and Turnout.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/voters/gender-differences-voter-registration-and-turnout

44 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Gender Gaps in Vote Choice and Party Identification.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/voters/gender-gaps-vote-choice-and-party-identification#LatinxVoters 

45 Sampaio, Anna. 2026. “Fracturing Latinidad: Examining Racialized and Gendered Divisions in Voting, Mobilization, Messaging, and Outcomes among the Latiné/x Electorate.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 6th edition, eds. Richard L. Fox, Kelly Dittmar, and Susan J. Carroll, 141–69. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

46 Junn, Jane, and Natalie Masuoka. 2024. Women Voters: Race, Gender, and Dynamism in American Elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

47 Junn and Masuoka 2024, 40

48 Grumbach, Jacob M., Alexander Sahn, and Sarah Staszak. 2022. "Gender, Race, and Intersectionality in Campaign Finance." Political Behavior 44 (1): 319–40; CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024. “Men Vastly Outgiving Women in 2024 Congressional Elections,” September 16. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/news-media/press-releases/men-vastly-outgiving-women-2024-congressional-elections

49 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025. "Understanding Black Women’s and Latinas’ Perspectives about Political Giving." PS: Political Science & Politics 58 (1): 31–6.

  • 1

    Jones, Nicholas, Rachel Marks, Roberto Ramirez, Merarys Ríos-Vargas. 2021. “2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country.” U.S. Census, August 12. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html

  • 2

    Mallard, Isreal G. 2022. The Politics of Being Afro-Latino/Latina: Ethnicity, Colorism, and Political Representation in Washington, D.C. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

  • 3

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Levels of Office.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/

  • 4

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Levels of Office.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/

  • 5

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Women Elected Officials Database.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/women-elected-officials-database

  • 6

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature.”  https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature?race_ethnicity%5B%5D=Hispanic%2FLatina

  • 7

    Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2025. It Takes More Than a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

  • 8

    Lawless and Fox 2025

  • 9

    Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 10

    Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2023. The Radical Imagination of Black Women: Ambition, Politics, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Silva, Andrea, and Carrie Skulley. 2019. “Always Running: Candidate Emergence among Women of Color over Time.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (2): 342–59.

  • 11

    Bejarano, Christina E. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; Phillips 2021; Sampaio, Anna. 2023. “Mujeres y Movidas: Latina Congressional Candidate Emergence and Experiences in California and Texas.” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research-analysis/grants-and-awards/cawp-research-grants/report-mujeres-y-movidas

  • 12

    Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Gathoni Kimondo. 2025. “When Women Run: Explaining the Emergence of Women State Legislative Candidates.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 31 (4): 1061–76; Silva and Skulley 2019; Shah, Paru, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2019. “Women of Color Candidates: Examining Emergence and Success in State Legislative Elections.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(2): 429–43. 

  • 13

    Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2023. “Intersectional Opportunities: Majority Minority Districts and the Descriptive Representation of Latinas and Latinos.” The Journal of Politics 85 (2): 496.

  • 14

    Phillips 2021

  • 15

    Clark and Kimondo 2025

  • 16

    Silva and Skulley 2019

  • 17

    Plaskon, Savannah, and Danielle Thomsen. 2024. "Self-Rising Candidates: Racial and Gender Disparities in Self-Funding." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • 18

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/; Sampaio 2023

  • 19

    Bejarano, Christina, and Wendy Smooth. 2022. “Women of Color Mobilizing: Sistahs Are Doing It for Themselves from GOTV to Running Candidates for Political Office.” In Women of Color Political Elites in the US, eds. Nadia E. Brown, Christopher J. Clark, and Anna Mitchell Mahoney, 8–24. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • 20

    Cargile, Ivy A. M. 2023. "Stereotyping Latinas: Candidate Gender and Ethnicity on the Political Stage." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (2): 207–25; Cargile, Ivy A. M., Jennifer L. Merolla, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2016. “Intersectionality and Latino/a Candidate Evaluation.” In Latinas in American Politics: Changing and Embracing Political Tradition, eds. Sharon A. Navarro, Samantha L. Hernandez, and Leslie A. Navarro, 39–60. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

  • 21

    Cargile, Ivy A. M. 2016. “Latina Issues: An Analysis of the Policy Issue Competencies of Latina Candidates.” In Distinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, eds. Nadia E. Brown and Sarah A. Gershon. New York, NY: Routledge, 134–50.

  • 22

    Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavarriega Monforti. 2021. "Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 439–63.

  • 23

    Gershon and Monforti 2021

  • 24

    Cargile et al. 2016

  • 25

    Cargile 2023

  • 26

    Bejarano, Christina, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, and Celeste Montoya. 2021. "Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 970–85.

  • 27

    Bejarano 2013; Cargile 2023

  • 28

    Matos, Yalidy, Stacey Greene, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2021. "Trends: Do Women Seek ‘Women of Color’ for Public Office? Exploring Women’s Support for Electing Women of Color." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 259–73.

  • 29

    Sampaio 2023

  • 30

    Shah, Scott, and Juenke 2019

  • 31

    Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pei-te Lien, Dianne M. Pinderhughes, and Christine M. Sierra. 2006. “Gender, Race, and Descriptive Representation in the United States: Findings from the Gender and Multicultural Leadership Project.” Journal of Women Politics & Policy 28 (3-4): 7–41; Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Paru Shah. 2016. “Demand and Supply: Racial and Ethnic Minority Candidates in White Districts.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1: 60–90; Monforti, Jessica Lavariega, and Sarah Allen Gershon. 2016. “Una Ventaja? A Survey Experiment of the Viability of Latina Candidates.” In Latinas in American Politics: Changing and Embracing Political Tradition, eds. Sharon A. Navarro, Samantha L. Hernandez, and Leslie A. Navarro, 23–38. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; Swain, Katie E. O., and Pei-te Lien. 2017. “Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (2): 128–50.

  • 32

    Fraga, Luis Ricardo, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Linda Lopez, and Ricardo Ramirez. 2008. “Representing Gender and Ethnicity: Strategic Intersectionality.” In Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. Beth Reingold, 157–74. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner; Phillips, Dyogi Christian, Paru Shah, and Patrick Vossler. 2022. "Immigrants, Intersectionality and the Politics of Substantive Representation." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (1): 64–81; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Caroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 33

    Phillips, Shah, and Vossler 2022

  • 34

    Reingold, Beth, Kerry L. Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2020. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 35

    Fraga et al. 2008, 163

  • 36

    Matthews, Abigail A., Tracy Osborn, Emily U. Schilling, and Rebecca Kreitzer. 2025. "Legislative Success and Collaboration in the Texas State House." Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (1): 159–81.

  • 37

    Butler, Daniel M., Thad Kousser, and Stan Oklobdzija. 2023. "Do Male and Female Legislators Have Different Twitter Communication Styles?" State Politics & Policy Quarterly 23 (2): 117–39.

  • 38

    Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2022. "How Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Their Intersections Shape Americans’ Issue Priorities." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (2): 169–83.

  • 39

    Cisneros, Saavedra Angel, Tony E. Carey Jr., Darrin L. Rogers, and Joshua M. Johnson. 2023. "One Size Does Not Fit All: Core Political Values and Principles across Race, Ethnicity, and Gender." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (4): 793–812.

  • 40

    Montoya, Celeste, and Mariana Galvez Seminario. 2022. "Guerreras y Puentes: The Theory and Praxis of Latina(x) Activism." Politics, Groups, and Identities 10 (2): 171–88, 171.

  • 41

    Montoya, Celeste. 2023. "Studying Latina Mobilization Intersectionally, Studying Latinas Mobilizing Intersectionality." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 44 (4): 405–21.

  • 42

    Corral, José Álvaro. 2024. "The Wall between Latinas and Latinos? Gender and Immigration Enforcement Attitudes among U.S. Latina/o Voters." Politics & Gender 20 (1): 29–53.

  • 43

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Gender Differences in Voter Registration and Turnout.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/voters/gender-differences-voter-registration-and-turnout

  • 44

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Gender Gaps in Vote Choice and Party Identification.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/voters/gender-gaps-vote-choice-and-party-identification#LatinxVoters 

  • 45

    Sampaio, Anna. 2026. “Fracturing Latinidad: Examining Racialized and Gendered Divisions in Voting, Mobilization, Messaging, and Outcomes among the Latiné/x Electorate.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 6th edition, eds. Richard L. Fox, Kelly Dittmar, and Susan J. Carroll, 141–69. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • 46

    Junn, Jane, and Natalie Masuoka. 2024. Women Voters: Race, Gender, and Dynamism in American Elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • 47

    Junn and Masuoka 2024, 40

  • 48

    Grumbach, Jacob M., Alexander Sahn, and Sarah Staszak. 2022. "Gender, Race, and Intersectionality in Campaign Finance." Political Behavior 44 (1): 319–40; CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024. “Men Vastly Outgiving Women in 2024 Congressional Elections,” September 16. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/news-media/press-releases/men-vastly-outgiving-women-2024-congressional-elections

  • 49

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025. "Understanding Black Women’s and Latinas’ Perspectives about Political Giving." PS: Political Science & Politics 58 (1): 31–6.