390-06 Election Analyses 2004
"Miami Beach Elections of November 2003: Ethnic Precinct Analyses
of Races for Mayor, Commissioners, and a Citizen Bill of Rights. II
Abraham D. Lavender, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Florida International University
Miami, Florida 33139
March 2004
The elections in Miami Beach in November 2003 were relatively mild compared to some
previous elections, including the most recent (2001) elections. Mayor David Dermer ran for his
second two-year term, and was reelected with 85.8% ofthe votes, Three commission seats were
up for four-year terms, and the three incumbents, Matti Herrera Bower, Luis Garcia, and Simon
Cruz, all ran for re-election. All three, despite serious opponents for Garcia and Cruz, and a run-
off for Garcia's seat in a three-way race, were re-elected. For the first time in Miami Beach's
history, all three incumbents running for re-election were Hispanics. After the election, the City
Commission, including the mayor, continued with three Hispanic members, three Jewish
members, and one, Commissioner Jose Smith, who is both Jewish and Hispanic.
Miami Beach Voters
For the November 2003 elections, Miami Beach had 35,624 registered voters, Democrats
numbered 15,734 (44.2%), Republicans numbered 10,782 (30.3%), and "Others" numbered
9,108 (25.6%). Two years earlier, in November 2001, the city had 37,232 registered voters,
showing a decline of 1,608 (4.3%) in the number of registered voters in 2003, The number of
Democrats declined from 45.6% in 2001 to the 44.2% in 2003, the number of Republicans
declined from 30.5% to 30.3%, and the number of "Others" increased from 23.8% to 25.6%.
Previously, the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections classified voters as Hispanic
if they had been born in a Spanish-speaking country, and non-Hispanic if they had been born
anywhere else [1]. Under this system, for example, a child born to Hispanic-American parents in
the United States or any other non-Spanish speaking country would be classified as non-Hispanic
instead of Hispanic. So, in effect the Hispanic percentages would be underestimated. For over a
decade, however, this system had been replaced by a system whereby voters at the time of
registration self-identify themselves ethnically regardless of their place of birth. Hence, there is
less need for adjustments than previously, although some adjustment might still be needed,
especially in precincts with many people who registered before the change in definition. Most
Hispanics identified themselves as white rather than black, and blacks were listed separately. In
2003, Hispanics comprised 14,157 (39.7%) of Miami Beach's registered voters, Blacks
comprised 850 (2.4%), Whites comprised 18,089 (50.8%), and Others comprised 2,528 (7.1 %).
Compared to 2001, Hispanics increased from 39.1 % to 39.7%, Blacks increased from 2.27% to
1
2.39%, and whites decreased from 52.0% to 50.8%.
The age composition ofthe registered voters got only slightly younger from 2001 to 2003.
In 2001, those aged 18-29 comprised 11.9% of the registered voters, and in 2003 this was 12.5%;
those aged 30-64 changed from 55.2% in 2001 to 56.3% in 2003; and those aged 65 and up
changed from 32.8% in 2001 to 31.1 % in 2003. This age distribution was largely a result of the
gentrification of Miami Beach which began in the late 1980s and which led to a decrease in
population as small low-income apartments were combined into or replaced by larger more
expensive units. The voter registration figures represent a drastic change from 1980 when voters
65 and over represented 51.8% of the city's population and 64.8% ofthe registered voters [2].
Voter Turnout in November 2003
On November 4,2003, Miami Beach voters could vote for mayor, three members of the
six-member council, and eight items (including one to amend the city's citizen bill of rights).
Miami Beac~ had 7,026 ballots cast on November 4,2003, representing only 19.7% ofthe
registered voters. Two weeks later, on November 18, in the run-off election for the one
commission seat not decided on November 4, the turnout was 14.7%. Miami Beach was similar
to other locations in Miami-Dade County which voted that same day. For example, Miami, which
was voting on only one commission seat and three policy items, had a turnout of9.5%;
Homestead, which was voting for a vice-mayor and four council members, had a turnout of
18.7%; Hialeah Gardens, which was voting on one council seat, had a turnout of 15.2%; and
Hialeah, despite a heated election for three council seats, had a turnout of only 16.1 %. Two
weeks later, in a run-off for one seat, Hialeah's percentage increased to 19.3%.
Although 7,026 voters went to the polls in Miami Beach on November 4, 2003, some
voters did not cast ballots in all races or for the ballot questions and some voters undoubtedly
voided their ballots by incorrectly following voting procedures. Following are the actual number
of votes counted for each candidate or issue:
Table 1: Numbers for Registered Voters, Votes Cast, and Votes Counted
Total Number
Of Valid Votes
Which Were
Counted
Percent of
Registered Voters
Who Voted
(Total=35,624)
Percent of Votes
Actually Counted
of Those Cast
(Total=7,026)
Mayor
(Dermer, Rickey)
6,452
18.1
91.8
Commission Seat IV
(Cruz, Guerra, Sopher)
6,628
18.6
94.3
Commission Seat V
(Garcia, Reed)
6,419
18.0
91.4
Commission Seat VI 6,374
(Bower, Detrick, Vasiliou)
17.9
90.7
Question # 1 6,306
(add guarantee to Citizen Bill of Rights)
17.7
89.8
Question # 2 6,109 17.1 86.9
(increase time between election and runoff from one week to two weeks)
Question # 3 5,950
(remove Commission subpoena power)
16.7
84.7
Question # 4 6,246
(require one year residency for elected office)
17.5
88.9
. Question # 5 5,704
(change Zoning Board of Adjustment)
16.0
81.2
Question # 6 5,893 16.5 83.8
(diversify pension fund investments for firefighters/police officers)
Question # 7 5,954 16.7
(supplemental plans for firefighters/police officers)
84.7
Question # 8 6,152 17.3 87.6
(rename "Island View Park" to "Maurice Gibb Memorial Park")
Commission Seat IV 5,220
(Run-off, November 18,2003,: Cruz, Sopher)
14.7
98.9
Question # 2, increasing the time between the election and the run-off from one week to
two weeks, passed by a vote of 4,057 (66.4%) to 2.052 (33.6%), and took effect immediately, so
the run-off for Commission Group IV took place two weeks after the election, on November 18,
2004. As shown above, in this run-off, between incumbent Commissioner Simon Cruz and
newcomer Jacob "Hank" Sopher, 5,220 voters, 14.7% of the registered voters, went to the polls;
5,162 votes were counted, representing 14.5% of the registered voters and 98.9% of those who
went to the polls.
Ethnic Analysis
Miami Beach's ethnic groups are generally intermixed throughout the city, but there are a
few precincts which are either about two-thirds Hispanic or about three-fourths non-Hispanic.
Six precincts-13, 18, 21, 22, 32, and 44-are largely Hispanic. These six precincts had a
3
combined registration of6,981 voters of whom 57.1 % were classified as Hispanic. But, it is
likely that there are other voters who are Hispanics but who are classified as non-Hispanics
because they were not born in a Spanish-speaking country but registered when birth in a Spanish-
speaking country was the only way to be classified as Hispanic. While it is not possible to
research this possibility with the available data, I suggest that about 63% rather than 57.1 % ofthe
voters in these precincts are Hispanics. There are six precincts-24, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 45-which
are largely non-Hispanic. These six precincts had a combined registration of 6,756 voters of
whom 18.% were classified as Hispanic. But, as above, I suggest that about 22% of these voters
are Hispanic, so about 78% are non-Hispanic. These thirteen precincts together include 13,737
registered voters, representing 38.6% of Miami Beach's registered voters.
However, there is a major caution which must be remembered when interpreting the data
in this paper. While the "non-Hispanic" precincts are estimated to be about 78% non-Hispanic,
the "Hispanic" precincts are estimated to be only about 60% Hispanic. Hence, in elections where
there are distinctly different ethnic voting patterns, strong ethnic patterns would be "diluted" by
the presence of a large number of voters from the other group. This would be especially true of
the "Hispanic" precincts. Hence, when you see a pattern, you usually can assume that the pattern
is stronger than indicted by the data shown [3]. A bivariate ecological regression analysis could
suggest more exact results, but the results here, particularly interpreted with these comments in
mind, can give a good idea of ethnic voting patterns.
Comparisons of voting results from the largely Hispanic precincts and the largely non-
Hispanic precincts allow us to get an idea of differences in ethnic voting patterns which might
exist. Whatever the patterns found here, we know that the patterns would be more distinct if the
two groups of precincts were totally Hispanic or totally non-Hispanic. Unlike many precincts in
Miami-Dade County which was almost entirely of one ethnic group, it is a reflection of Miami
Beach's ethnic and cultural diversity that such precincts do not exist in Miami Beach. While this
makes ethnic analysis more difficult, it also apparently lessens the ethnic divisiveness found in
some other parts of the county [4].
Analyses of Elections
The major issue facing the voters in Miami Beach in November 2003 was whether or not
a Miami-Dade County multi-year rail construction project (variously referred to as Bay Link,
electric trolleys, streetcars, trains, or light rail) should be extended from downtown Miami to
Miami Beach. At the City Commission meeting on September 8, 2003, Mayor David Dermer,
Commissioner Matti Herrera Bower, and Commissioner Jose Smith had voted to let Miami
Beach voters decide, on November 4, 2003, whether or not Miami Beach should participate in
the Bay Link system. Commissioners Luis Garcia, Saul Gross, Richard Steinberg, and Simon
Cruz voted on September 8 that they, the majority of the Commission, would, on September 8,
make the decision to join with the county in extending the lines to Miami Beach, and not put the
issue to a popular vote, because "they were elected to make those though decisions" [5]. As the
Miami Herald noted the day before the election, "In Miami Beach, the most polarizing issue is
Bay Link. Each of the nine commission candidates has lined up for or against the plan to build a
light-rail system that would link the Beach and mainline" [6].
4
In the mayor's election of November 4,2003, incumbent Mayor David Dermer received
5,539 votes (85.8%) to Ronald C. Rickey's 913 votes (14.2%). This was the highest percentage
any major candidate ever received in a popular election for mayor in Miami Beach. The lack of a
strong opponent indicated Dermer's strong popularity in the city, and the general belief that he
was undefeatable. Dermer, a 40-year old native of Miami Beach, was "particularly popular with
the city's vocal community of activists" [7]. Dermer's only opponent was Ronald Rickey, 67,
who previously had run unsuccessfully for public office, was a prolific writer of letters to the
editor, and whose only major issue was the legalization of casino gambling in Miami Beach (an
act that would have to be approved by the voters of the state of Florida). The election was in
strong contrast to the bitterly fought 2001 mayoral election when Dermer won his first term by
defeating a well-known long-serving member of the Florida legislature.
As shown in Table 2 below, in the Hispanic precincts Dermer received 82.8% to Rickey's
17.2%, and in the non-Hispanic precincts Dermer received 88.2% to Rickey's 11.8%. Thus,
Dermer did somewhat better in the non-Hispanic precincts, but his overwhelming percentages
among both Hispanics and non-Hispanics decreases the analytical significance of any ethnic
differences. Much of the non-Hispanic vote (and some of the Hispanic vote) is Jewish, and the
two most distinct ethnic groups in the city, both with some tendency to vote for candidates from
their ethnic groups, are Jews and Hispanics. Thus, there could be an ethnic vote for Jewish
candidates just as there could be an ethnic vote for Hispanic candidates. In view ofthe fact that
Rickey is neither Hispanic or Jewish (although he might have benefitted from a small "Anglo"
ethnic vote, with "Anglo" meaning non-Hispanic, non-Jewish, non-Black), Dermer's slightly
higher vote among non-Hispanics than among Hispanics probably is a result of "positive" ethnic
votes from Jewish voters rather than "negative" ethnic votes from Hispanics.
Table 2: PercentagesofEthnic Votes for Mayor: David Dermer and Ronald C. Rickey*
Total Votes Hispanic Precincts Non-Hispanic Precincts
David Dermer
85.8
82.8
88.2
Ronald C. Rickey
14.2
17.2
11.8
*Bivariate Ecological Regression Analysis suggests that the Hispanic vote went 74.7% for
Dermer and 25.3% for Rickey, and that the non-Hispanic vote went 90.9% for Dermer and 9.1 %
for Rickey.
In Commission Seat IV, incumbent Commissioner Simon Cruz was challenged by two
newcomers, Tony Guerra and Jacob "Hank" Sopher. Cruz received 3,153 votes (47.6%). Guerra
5
received 1,710 votes (25.8%), and Sopherreceived 1,765 votes (26.6%). Because no candidate
received over fifty percent of the votes counted, a runoff would be held two weeks later between
Cruz and Sopher, the two highest candidates. Cruz, 46, had "spent the campaign season
defending his support of Bay Link" in a heated battle with Sopher and Guerra. Sopher, 71, a
wealthy local businessman with an involvement in public parking, attacked Cruz' vote on Bay
Link, spending close to $310,000 (much of it his own money) into the campaign against Cruz.
Guerra, 32, a club impresario, also "made Cruz' vote on Bay Link the linchpin of his campaign,"
and was praised by Sopher for running a "grass-roots campaign" [6,7].
Cruz and Guerra are Hispanic, and Sopher is Jewish. The ethnic percentages are shown in
Table 3. Cruz received almost half of the votes. His votes came almost equally from Hispanics
and non-Hispanics although, as with Dermer, then seems to be a small advantage from Cruz'
ethnic group. The big ethnic differences were between Guerra and Sopher. In the Hispanic
precincts, Guerra received 28.9% of the votes while Sopher received 20.2%. But, in non-
Hispanic precincts, Guerra received 17.4% of the votes while Sopher received 33.8%. These
results add credence to the idea that in Miami Beach today well-known candidates who do well
do roughly equally well among both Hispanics and non-Hispanics, whereas less well-known
candidates who do not have a history of political involvement are more likely to be affected by
some ethnic voting from both of the two major ethnic groups, Hispanics and Jews. In other
words, this probably illustrates the pattern: "If you know the candidates well, vote mostly on the
issues. If you don't know the candidates well, put more emphasis on the candidates' ethnicity."
Previous analyzes by this author have shown that judicial elections in Miami-Dade County,
where candidates are not allowed to discuss the issues, are very heavily influenced by ethnicity.
In the Hispanic precincts, the two Hispanic candidates combined, Cruz and Guerra,
received 79.8% of the votes, while they received 66.2% of the votes in the non-Hispanic
precincts. But, as shown, most of this ethnic difference was accounted for by Guerra. Likewise,
Sopher, the non-Hispanic and Jewish candidate, received 20.2% of the votes in the Hispanic
precincts but 33.8% ofthe votes in non-Hispanic precincts. The point remains, however, that
while Sopher outpolled Guerra in the largely non-Hispanic precincts, the two Hispanic
candidates still received about two-thirds of the votes in the non-Hispanic precincts. These
results do show that knowledge Of and/or agreement on issues with Cruz were more important
than ethnicity in these non-Hispanic precincts.
Table 3: Percentages of Ethnic Votes for Commission Seat IV: Cruz, Guerra, and Sopher*
Total Votes Hispanic Precincts Non-Hispanic Precincts
Simon Cruz 47.6 50.4 48.8
Tony Guerra 25.8 29.4 17.4
Jacob "Hank" Sopher 26.6 20.2 33.8
Cruz and Guerra 73.4 79.8 66.2
*Bivariate Ecological Regression Analysis suggests that the Hispanic vote went 46.8% for Cruz,
46.2% for Guerra, and 7.0% for Sopher, and that the non-Hispanic vote went 46.0% for Cruz,
15.7% for Guerra, and 38.3% for Sopher.
In Commission Seat V, incumbent Commissioner Luis Garcia was challenged by
newcomer Stuart Reed. Garcia received 3,926 votes (61.2%), and Reed received 2,493 votes
(38.8%) in what the Miami Herald described as a contentious race with Bay Link as the defining
issue [6]. Garcia, 58, the retired fire chief of Miami Beach before being elected to the
commission in 1999, was a main proponent of Bay Link. Reed, 37, was a local attorney active in
local and other environmental causes, and was making his first run for elective office. [7]
Garcia is Hispanic, and Reed is Jewish. The ethnic percentages are shown in Table 4.
In the Hispanic precincts, Garcia received 67.0% of the votes and Reed received 33.0%. In the
non-Hispanic precincts, Garcia received 55.0% of the votes, and Reed received 45.0%. Garcia
won in both Hispanic and non-Hispanic precincts, but did much better in Hispanic precincts.
Reed did much better in non-Hispanic precincts.
Table 4: Percentages of Ethnic Votes for Commission Seat V: Garcia and Reed*
Total Votes Hispanic Precincts Non-Hispanic Precincts
Luis Garcia
61.2
67.0
55.0
Stuart Reed
38.8
33.0
45.0
*Bivariate Ecological Regression Analysis suggests that the Hispanic vote went 76.1 % for Garcia
and 23.9% for Reed, and that the non-Hispanic vote went 52.1 % for Garcia and 47.9% for Reed.
In Commission Seat VI, incumbent Commissioner Matti Herrera Bower was challenged
by two newcomers, Brian Detrick and Basil Vasil iou, in what the Miami Herald accurately
described as the "most amicable Beach race" [6]. Bower received 4,738 votes (74.3%), Detrick
received 780 votes (12.2%), and Vasiliou received 856 votes (13.4%). Bower, 64, retired and the
incumbent, Vasiliou, 55, an investment banker and attorney, and Detrick, 26, a university
teaching assistant (who did not campaign or participate in candidate debates), had a basically
7
amicable race. Both Bower and Vasiliou "advocated a public referendum on Bay Link and a
reexamination of how the city's tourism industry is presented" [6,7].
Bower is Hispanic, while Detrick and Vasiliou are neither Hispanic nor Jewish, generally
referred to in Miami-Dade as "Anglos" (although, as noted, the highly inaccurate term actually
includes everyone except Hispanics and Blacks in Miami-Dade County). The ethnic percentages
are shown in Table 5. In the Hispanic precincts, Bower received 76.7%, Detrick received 13.4%,
and Vasiliou received 9.9%. In the non-Hispanic precincts, Bower received 71.8%, Detrick
received 12.2%, and Vasiliou received 16.0%. The two non-Hispanic candidates together thus
received 23.3% of the votes in the Hispanic precincts, and 28.2% of the votes in the non-
Hispanic precincts. Bower won overwhelmingly in both Hispanic and non-Hispanic precincts,
again suggesting that for a well-known candidate there is little ethnic voting.
Table 5: Percentages of Ethnic Votes for Commission Seat VI: Bower, Detrick, and Vasiliou*
Total Votes Hispanic Precincts Non-Hispanic Precincts
Matti Herrera Bower 74.3 76.7 71.8
Brian Detrick 12.2 13.4 12.2
Basil Vasiliou 13.4 9.9 16.0
Detrick and Vasiliou 25.7 23.3 28.2
*Bivariate Ecological Regression Analysis suggests that the Hispanic vote went 79.9% for
Bower, 14.6% for Detrick, and 5.5% for Vasiliou, and that the non-Hispanic vote went 69.3% for
Bower, 11.5% for Detrick, and 19.2% for Vasiliou.
Is There A Non-Ethnic "Anglo" Vote?
Most candidates for electoral office in Miami Beach are either Hispanic or Jewish (or
both), but three of the ten candidates in November 2004 apparently are in the non-Hispanic non-
Jewish category-Ronald C. Rickey for mayor, and Brian Detrick and Basil Vasiliou for the
Group VI commission seat. Let's see if we see any differences there. For comparison purposes to
see ifthere are any suggestions of a non-Hispanic, non-Jewish "Anglo" vote, I picked three
precincts in the middle of South Beach which are known for having a very cosmopolitan
8
composition including a considerable percentage of "Anglos." These are precinct 36, which
includes the Flamingo Park area, precinct 39, located between Alton Road and Biscayne Bay and
between 10th Street and 14th Street, an area which includes a number of new large condominiums
with large numbers of relatively young newer voters, and precinct 41, in the middle of South
Beach south of Flamingo Park.
Interestingly, in the mayor's race, while Rickey received 17.2% of the vote in the
Hispanic precincts, and 11.8% ofthe vote in Non-Hispanic precincts, he received 19.5% ofthe
vote in these three selected precincts. In the race for Group VI, Detrick (14.6%) and Vasiliou
(15.2%) together received 29.8% ofthe vote in these three precincts, while they received 23.3%
in the Hispanic precincts and 28.2% in the non-Hispanic precincts. Based on these results, there
seems that there might be a small "Anglo" factor in the elections. This possibility is particularly
relevant concerning the candidacy of Brian Detrick, with an apparent "Anglo"name and who
according to the Miami Herald on the day before the election "has not campaigned or debated."
[6] Nevertheless, Detrick received almost as many votes overall as V asiliou.
It also is noted that in the race between Cruz, Guerra, and Sopher, Guerra did much better
(33.4%) in these three precincts than he did in the non-Hispanic precincts and even somewhat
better than he did in the Hispanic precincts. This suggests that there is an "Anglo"
vote that might split differently than do other voters even when there is not an "Anglo"
candidate. In the race between Garcia and Reed, it is also noted that these three precincts gave
Reed a higher percentage ofthe votes (37.5%) than he received in the Hispanic precincts
(33.0%), but not as high as he received in the Non-Hispanic precincts (45.0%). This also suggests
that there might be a small "Anglo" or "non-ethnic" vote that differs somewhat from the
Hispanic or Jewish vote. It also is possible that the Hispanic and Jewish voters who live in this
very ethnically mixed and cosmopolitan area of the city are likely to emphasize issues over
ethnicity more than Hispanic and Jewish voters in other areas of the city.
Is There A Jewish Vote Separate from the General Non-Hispanic Vote?
Precinct 30, including Belle Isle, is the largest precinct in Miami Beach and is generally
considered the most Jewish precinct, at least ofthe major precincts. While this is only one
precinct, and comparisons must be used with extra caution, let us look at some results from this
precinct concerning the three candidates who were Jewish. While David Dermer received 88.2%
in all non-Hispanic precincts, he received 91.0% in this precinct. However, while Jacob "Hank"
Sopher received 33.8% in all non-Hispanic precincts, he received only 27.4% in this precinct.
The other two candidates, both Hispanics, received 73.6%. Simon Cruz, the incumbent who two
weeks later would be reelected in a run-off against Sopher, received 55.0% and the other
candidate, Tony Guerra, received 17.7%. .
In the run-off, Sopher apparently received the majority of the Guerra vote, but Sopher still
received 37.8% in this precinct while Cruz received a strong majority of62.2%. Overall, in the
city, Sopher received 41.6% in the run-off. While Stuart Reed received 45.0% in all non-
Hispanic precincts, he received 43.8% in this precinct. This preliminary analysis suggests that
when there is a strong candidate who does well throughout the city, then he or she also does well
in this heavily Jewish precinct. This further suggests that there is little of a specifically "Jewish
9
vote" at least when there is a well-known non-Jewish candidate. Data from the 2001 election,
,
reported elsewhere, has suggested that there is a "Jewish vote" similar to a "Hispanic vote" when
major issues or well-known persons are not involved.
The Citizens' Bill of Rights
In November 1993, Miami Beach voters added a "Citizens' Bill of Rights" to the city
charter, became one ofthe first areas in Florida to pass a Citizen's Bill of Rights, one item (and
the potentially most controversial) of which was to add sexual orientation to the list of categories
for which discrimination is illegal. This has been a heated political issue in Miami-Dade County,
and as late as September 10, 2002, county voters again decided the issue. On that date, following
a bitter controversy, by a vote of 155,003 (53.0 %) to 137,526 (47.0 %), county voters refused to
repeal the county's gay rights amendment which protected gay people from discrimination. In
effect, by a small majority, county voters decided that gay people should continue to be protected
from discrimination based on their gender orientation. The Miami Herald reported, however, that
there had been very strong ethnic differences on the issue. A sample of precincts which were
85% African-American supported "gay rights" by 55.5% to 44.5%, a sample of precincts which
were 85% Hispanic opposed gay rights by a vote of 62.9% to 37.1 %, and a sample of precincts
which were 85% "Anglo" (non-Latin/non-Black) supported gay rights at a vote of73.7% to
26.3%.[8]
In contrast to the fairly close election in the county, on September 10, 2002, Miami Beach
supported gay rights by a vote of 72.7% to 27.3%, similar to the "Anglo" (non-Latin/non-Black)
precincts in the county. The Hispanic precincts in Miami Beach supported gay rights by 59.7% to
40.3%, the non-Hispanic precincts supported gay rights by 81.8% to 18.2%, and the three
selected "Anglo" precincts supported gay rights by 79.9% to 20.1 %. Precinct 30, the city's
largest precinct, and generally considered to be the city's most-Jewish precinct, supported gay
rights by 87.1 % to 12.9%. As in the county, there were ethnic differences in Miami Beach, but
the differences were not nearly as strong as they were in the county as a whole.
Contrary to the bitter September 10, 2002, county vote, and the narrow margin by which
"Gay Rights" passed countywide on that date, on November 4,2003, the Citizens' Bill of Rights
passed overwhelmingly in Miami Beach, receiving 5,189 (82.3%) positive votes to 1,117
(17.7%) negative votes. The ballot issue amended Miami Beach's Bill of Rights by adding a
guarantee that ''No person shall be deprived of any rights and privileges conferred by law because
of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, marital status,
familial status, or age" [9].
The ethnic percentages are shown in Table 6. In the Hispanic precincts, 80.5% ofthe
votes were in favor of the amendment, and 19.5% were opposed. In non-Hispanic precincts,
83.2% of the voters were in favor, and 16.8% were opposed. The three sampled "Anglo non-
ethnic" precincts (36, 39, 41) voted for the amendment by 87.9% (only 12.1 % opposed), higher
than either Hispanic precincts or non-Hispanic precincts. Precinct 30, the heavily Jewish
precinct, supported the amendment by 90.1 %. The issue did not attract the negative publicity that
had occurred in the county in September 2002, there was no contentious opposition to the
measure in Miami Beach, and Miami Beach Hispanic voters differed little from other ethnic
10
groups. Once again, Miami Beach voters, absent ethnically and ideologically divisive campaigns
that frequently characterized other areas ofthe county, had shown that they lived in a multi ethnic,
cosmopolitan city.
Table 6: Percentages of Ethnic Votes for Citizens' Bill ofRights*
Total Votes Hispanic Precincts Non-Hispanic Precincts'
In Favor of Amendment
82.3
80.5
83.2
Opposed to Amendment
17.7
19.5
16.8
*Bivariate Ecological Regression Analysis suggests that the Hispanic vote was 78.2% for the Bill
of Rights and 21.8% against, and that the non-Hispanic vote was 85.1 % for the Bill of Rights and
14.9% against.
Conclusion
In the Epilogue to my 2002 book on earlier Miami Beach history, I concluded that "the
mayor and commissioners strongly support diversity and tolerance. Governmental corruption has
been common in the county, but Miami Beach is the comparative model of good government
with strong laws for open government. The city has taken a progressive stand on historical
preservation, first with Art Deco and now with Miami Modernism, MiMo. In recent years, strong
efforts have been made to preserve open space and limit the height offuture buildings. The
building of recreational facilities to improve the quality of life has a high priority. The city is one
ofthe most active special events communities in the nation and strongly supports cultural arts"
[10]. There is ethnic voting in Miami Beach, especially as shown by the regression analyzes, but
the election in 2003 indicated that an overall balancing of influence still holds.
References
[1] "Hispanic" is generally used instead of "Latin" in Miami-Dade County, although Latin is
more likely to be used in some areas of the United States. The Supervisor o[Elections used Latin
instead of Hispanic until recent years when it changed to Hispanic.
11
[2] Abraham D. Lavender, "Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, and Others in Miami Beach: An Ethnically
Divided City or a Cosmopolitan Multiethnic City?" The Institute for Public Policy and
Citizenship Studies, Florida International University, Occasional Paper Series on Ethnic and
National Identity, Number 1, 1992,62 pages, p. 8.
[3] Abraham D. Lavender, with the assistance of Chris Girard, Ph.D., "Ethnic Voting in Miami
Beach rom 1983 Through 1993: Homogeneous Precinct Analysis and Bivariate Ecological
Regression Analysis as Measures of Ethnically Polarized Voting." Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Florida International University, September 1994, 141 pages.
[4] In 1992 in "Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, and Others in Miami Beach" (see footnote 2 above) I
suggested that Miami Beach was the model of "Anglo-Hispanic" ethnic interaction in Miami-
Dade County. For a history of Jewish-Hispanic political interaction in Miami-Dade County, see
Abraham D. Lavender, "A History of Jewish and Hispanic Interaction in Miami-Dade County,
Florida." Pages 69-10 1 in Latins and Jews: Old Luggage, New Itineraries, edited by The
American Jewish Committee. New York: The AJC, May 2002.
[5] The quotation is from A.c. Weinstein, "Let the Readers Decide," The Sun post, February 19,
2004, p. 8. As a disclaimer, I note that in a letter-to-the-editor, "Trainspotting: The Electric
Trolley is History...And It Should Remain That Way," The Sunpost, August 21, 2003, p. 29, I
recommended against the trolley, basing my conclusion on (and quoting) statements from
William H. Whyte, a famous urban and regional planning expert.
[6] Nicole White, Michael Vasquez, and Carolyn Salazar, "Dade Expects to Avoid Chaos of
2002," Miami Herald, November 3, 2003, pp. IB and 2B.
[7] Nicole White and Casey Woods," Mayor Dermer Cruises to a Win," Miami Herald,
November 5, 2003, p. 6B.
[8] The Miami Herald, "Gay Rights Repeal: Neighborhood and Ethnic Voting," September 12,
2002,p.6B.
[9] City of Miami Beach. "Voter's Election Guide 2003." 2003.
[10] Abraham D. Lavender, Miami Beach in 1920: The Making of a Winter Resort. Charleston,
S.C.: Arcadia, 2002.
12