390-09 Political Implications of Demographic Changes in Miami Beach 80-90, 1991
..
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN MIAMI BEACH FRGt 1980 TO
1990: A lOOK AT BLACKS, HISPANICS, JEWS, AND OI'HERS
by
Abraham D. Lavender, Ph.D.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Florida International University
North Miami, Florida 33181
305-940-5859
April 1991
Introduction
The City of Miami Beach, Florida, underwent major demographic changes in
the 1980s, and by 1990 was very different fran what it had been in 1980. The
ethnic and age compositions underwent especially dramatic changes. There was a
large decrease in the number of Jewish residents, while Hispanics and blacks
had major increases (although the black percentage of the total population
remained small). The number of "Others" (defined in this study as non-Jewish,
non-Hispanic, non-black) decreased slightly. The number of elderly residents
decreased dramatically, overlapping heavily with the Jewish decrease. Overall,
the city population decreased from 96,296 in 1980 to 92,639 in 1990. This
represents a decrease of only 3.8%. But, the small overall change does not
reflect the major shuffling of numbers among the major ethnic and age groups
in the city.
The ethnic and age changes in Miami Beach's population led to major
changes from 1980 to 1990 in the profile of registered voters. The elderly,
heavily Jewish, residents of 1980 had a high percentage of registered voters.
To a large degree they were replaced by Hispanic (and, to a lesser degree,
black) residents who had a lower percentage of registered voters because of a
younger overall age and a higher percentage of noncitizens. These ethnic
changes, and their associated voter registration patterns, led to a dramatic
30.9% decrease in the number of registered voters, from 53,163 in 1980 to
36,758 in 1990. A biennial purge in the summer of 1991 probably will decrease
this number more. These changes since 1980 also have led to a major decrease
in the number of Democratic voters, and an increase in the number of
Republican voters. In 1980, Miami Beach was 82.0% Democratic and 12.4%
Republican. By the end of 1990, the city was 62.4% Democratic and 28.3%
Republican. The number of political independents also increased, from 5.6% in
1980 to 9.3% in 1990, and was particularly noticeable among the non-elderly
voters.
This paper analyzes the demographic changes in the voters fran 1980 to
1990, and suggests the consequences for Miami Beach's Democratic and
Republican political affiliations. The city has been divided into three areas
according to political (voting precinct) boundaries. The area from the
northern boundary of the city (next to Surfside) to the 63rd Street bridge at
St. Francis Hospital (including La Gorce and Allison Islands) is referred to
as North Beach, the area fran 63rd Street south to 23rd Street and Dade
Boulevard (including Sunset and Venetian Islands) is referred to as Mid-Beach,
and the area south of 23rd Street and Dade Boulevard (including Star, Palm,
1
and Hisbiscus Islands) is referred to as South Beach. A brief discussion of
the methodology is in Appendix A of this report. This paper is Report Number 2
in a series of papers on the political profile of Miami Beach (see note 1).
Report Number 1, "The Distinctive Hispanic Names (DHN) Technique," is an
academic technical article which describes hCl'll to estimate the number of
United States-born Hispanics by use of distinctive surnames (see note 2).
Report Number 3, "An Ethnic and Age Profile of Miami Beach Voters in 1991" is
forthcoming.
I. The City Population in 1980
In 1980, Miami Beach, Florida, had a population of 96,298. Of this total,
27,570 (28.6%) were 75 years of age and over, and 22,266 (23.1%) were 65 to 74
years of age. People 65 years of age and over ("the elderly") thus canprised
51. 75% of Miami Beach's population. Comparable percentages, for example, were
17.0 in Miami, 11.4 in Hialeah, and 9.0 in Hanestead. The median age was 66.0
years in Miami Beach, compared, for example, to 38.2 years in Miami, 36.6 in
Hialeah, and 25.2 in Hanestead. Only 8.7% of Miami Beach's population was
under the voting age of 18. This compared to 21.4% in Miami, 24.2% in Hialeah,
and 31. 7% in Hanestead.
In her history of Miami Beach, published in 1970, Polly Redford noted
that the number of Senior Citizens already had given Miami Beach, and
especially South Beach (belCl'll Dade Boulevard), "a population profile unmatched
anywhere in the world" (1970: 263). '!he city was widely perceived as a
retirement area, and developed an elderly-oriented lifestyle and set of
priorities that the elderly worked to perpetuate. In fact as Redford noted, as
early as 1967 when Mayor Elliott Roosevelt tried to lure young families into
the area with new housing, his plan was not received very well by the elderly.
Many condaninium boards of directors, largely controlled by elderly owners,
discouraged younger potential residents directly by having age restrictions in
condaninium docu:ments or indirectly thoogh screening and rental policies.
In 1980, Miami Beach also accurately was perceived as a largely-Jewish
city. As sho.vn in Table 1, about 65,026 people were Jewish, canprising 67.5%
of Miami Beach's population. Despite early housing restrictions against Jews
in Miami Beach, the city had becane the most Jewish city of its size in the
United States. '!he second largest ethnic group in 1980 was Hispanics. But, the
Hispanic cannunity was only about one third as large as the Jewish cannunity,
forming 22.2% of Miami Beach's population. Of the 21,408 Hispanics (defined by
the census as persons of Spanish origin), 11,806 were of Cuban origin, 1,707
were of Puerto Rican origin, 325 were of Mexican origin, and 7,570 were of
other Spanish origin. Miami Beach had a long history of discriminating against
blacks and discouraging blacks from moving to the city. In 1970, Redford (p.
96) said that Miami Beach's exclusionary attitudes against blacks had been
"preserved remarkably unchanged, all things considered, for fifty-five years."
Ten years later, in 1980, only 894 people, 0.9% of the population in Miami
Beach, were black. .
About one-fourth of the blacks (212 out of 894) were also Hispanics. It
is estimated that about 1,000 people were both Hispanic and Jewish, a figure
in general agreement wi th an estimate of the number of Cuban Jews in Dade
County (Sacks, 1980: 2). Because of these overlaps, it is impossible to
canpute the number of "Others" (defined here as non-Jewish, non-Hispanic, non-
2
black) by simply subtracting Jews, Hispanics, and blacks fran the total. But,
assuming the above estimate of overlap between Hispanics and Jews to be
correct, it is estimated that "Others" accounted for about 10,183 residents,
comprising 10.6% of the total population in Miami Beach. Because of the
overlaps, the canbined total for the four ethnic groups--Blacks, Hispanics,
Jews, and Others--is a little over 100% (101.2%).
II. The Voters in 1980
In November 1980, Miami Beach had 53,163 registered voters, representing
55.2% of the city's population (Table 1). This was an unusually high
percentage of voters, and was largely due to the city's age distrirotion. Most
other parts of Dade County had only about 30% to 35% of their populations as
registered votes, partly because of sizeable nwnbers of residents who were not
citizens, rot largely because of younger age distributions.
Because of their age distrirotion and their political awareness, the
elderly were an even higher percentage of the registered voters than they were
of the population. While 51.7% of the population was elderly, 64.8% of the
registered voters were elderly. Tne elderly did not have a monopoly in
political offices, but they clearly were recognized as the major voting group.
Elderly issues were important in local elections, and voting rates were high,
particularly in the primarily-elderly South Beach area. As Redford stated in
1970, "While the rest of the city brings out only 40 percent of its voters on
election day, 90 percent of South Beach marches to the polls to vote as a unit
on any issue that concerns Senior Citizens. Local politicians call it 'the
Solid South'" (p. 264). Redford concluded that the Senior Citizens were "well
aware of their political power, and regularly reinforce[d] it at election
tine. . ." (p. 265). In the early 1970s, when the hane owners' association of
Palm Island filed a suit trying to stop the city from building a two-hundred
unit lCM-cost public housing develcpnent on the bay in South Beach, "senior
citizens circled Palm Island with protest signs and chants" (Horwitz, 1977:
166). Redford was speaking of 1970 when 48.7% of the population was elderly;
by 1980, 51.7% were elderly.
Because of their high percentage of elderly, their political awareness,
and their corrparatively small percentage of noncitizens, Jews were an even
higher percentage of registered voters than they were in the population. While
67.5% of the population was Jewish, 79.2% of the registered voters were
Jewish. Political awareness was high. Speaking primarily of the Jewish
retirees in South Beach, Redford said "Tney are still very tough, very
determined, and passionately political in a way that only Old Country Jewish
radicals and graduates of garment workers' unions can be" (p. 264). After
years of suffering fran discrimination, Jewish voters had gained political
power in Miami Beach by the 1950s, and had reinforced that power by 1980. For
exanple, Elliott Roosevelt had been elected mayor in 1965 largely because of
the Jewish voters' appreciation to his father, Franklin D. Roosevelt, for
initiating Social Security and other liberal programs. But, in 1967 Elliott
Roosevel t was defeated for reelection largely because his opponent was a ''Nice
Jewish Boy" who campaigned in Yiddish and had an Israeli wife who campaigned
in Hebrew (Redford, p. 265). Top city administrators frequently were not
Jewish. But, with a few exceptions such as Elliott Roosevelt, nearly all
3
office holders were Jewish, and the status of Israel was an important factor
in local elections.
Hispanics, comprising 22.2% of the population, comprised even less--a
little over 9.8%--of the registered voters. This was largely because of a
younger age distribution (only about 20% were elderly) and a considerable
nllJlll:er of noncitizens. While blacks comprised only 0.9% of the population, an
even smaller number--0.6%--were registered voters. The Others, canprising
10.6% of the population, comprised 11.8% of the registered voters.
In 1980, Miami Beach was a strongly Democratic city, wi th 82.0% of its
registered voters being Democrats and only 12.4% being Republicans. Another
5.6% were independent (or a very small number who belonged to minority
parties). This Democratic predominance was largely because of the strong
Democratic identities of the elderly Jewish voters, but it also partly
reflected the Democratic strength in Dade County in general. The city had
nonpartisan elections for mayor and camnissioners, but most office holders
were in fact Democratic, and the city was overwhelmingly Democratic and
consistently voted Democratic in local partisan elections. In presidential and
national elections, a fair number of Democrats voted for Republicans. But,
Miami Beach voted more Democratic than Dade County. In the November 1980
presidential election, Dade County voted 50.9% for Republican Ronald Reagan,
39.9% for Democratic JillUllY Carter, and 8.6% for Independent John Anderson.
Miami Beach went for Carter by 45.3%, against 43.8% for Reagan and 10.4% for
Anderson. In the election for United States Senator in November 1980, Dade
County voted 51.6% for the Democratic candidate (Gunter) and 48.4% for the
Republican candidate (Hawkins). Miami Beach voted 62.1% for the Democrat, and
37.9% for the Republican.
While its age distribution gave Miami Beach a high percentage of
registered voters, it also made the city more vulnerable to a lost of voters
in the 1980s because these elderly voters comprised a high (64.8) percent of
the 1980 registered voters and would be expected to have a high mortality rate
fran advanced age. It also could be predicted that the number of Jewish voters
would decrease drastically in the 1980s because of the high overlap with
elderly voters. Because of the high mortality rate among these two strongly
Democratic groups, the Democratic party was particularly likely to lose voters
on Miami Beach in the 1980s. Unforeseen in 1980, Miami Beach suffered fram a
high crime rate in the early 1980s, particularly in the South pointe area
where a city-imposed moratorium led to a deterioration of housing which was
filled by crime-oriented residents. This led to a significant out migration of
elderly, mostly Jewish, residents (Matsushita, 1990: IB). For years, the
elderly Jewish retirees of Miami Beach had been replaced numberically upon
death by other elderly Jewish retirees, but by the 1980s those retirees were
settling further north in Dade County or in Broward County where larger and
more modern living arrangements were available and affordable to these latter
retirees (Kidwell, 1990: lB).
III. The City Population in 1990
By 1990, Miami Beach's population had decreased to 92,639, a lost of
3,659 people, but a decrease of only 3.8% from 1980. More significant
politically than the loss in numbers, however, was the change in demographic
composition. This study suggests that the Jewish population decreased from
4
65,026 in 1980 to 37,646 in 1990. The Jewish community comprised 67.5% of the
Miami Beach population in 1980, but decreased to 40.6% in 1990. The Hispanic
population increased from 21,408 in 1980 to 43,342 in 1990. In 1980, Hispanics
comprised only 22.2% of the city population, but by 1990 the Hispanics were
46.8% percent, having surpassed Jewish residents as the largest ethnic group
in population. The number of blacks increased from 894 in 1980 to 4,798 in
1990, increasing from 0.9% to 5.2% of the population. The number of Others
decreased slightly in numbers from 10,183 in 1980 to 9,293 in 1990, and their
share of the population decreased slightly from 10.6% to 9.5%. While the
Others had a slight decrease in the 1980s, their decrease was minor compared
to that experienced by Jewish residents. The 1990 census data for the elderly
has not been released yet, but the City of Miami Beach estimated in December
1988 that the elderly population had decreased from 51.75% in 1980 to 32.5% by
1987 (1988: 2).
IV. The Voters in 1990
As predicted by the age distribution of the 1980 base population, while
the population decreased only 3.8% in the 1980s, the number of registered
voters plumrreted (Table 1). By November 1985, only five years after reaching
53,163 voters, the number of registered voters already had dropped to 42,767,
a decrease of 19.1% in five years. From November 1985 to October 1990, there
was another drop of 14.1% to 36,758 voters. This represented a decade decrease
of 30.9% from the 53,163 registered voters in 1980. Tables 2 through 6 present
the changes in voters from 1980 to 1990 fpr three areas of Miami Beach (as
shown in Figure 1). The rate of decrease of registered voters did slow down in
the last half of the decade. Tables 7 and 8 show the number of voters at
selected times. But, the decrease from 1980 to 1990 still was more than eight
tim=s greater than the decrease in population in that same time period.
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, as with population, the ethnic changes among
the voters are even more significant than the loss in numbers. In conjunction
with Table 1, Tables 9 and 10 show that although Jewish residents decreased
from two-thirds of the population in 1980 to only 4 out of 10 in 1990 (by 1990
falling to the second largest ethnic group after Hispanics), they still
comprised slightly over half of the voters. This was because of the older age
and larger citizenship percentage (and an active political identity) of the
Jewish camnunity. Although Hispanic residence did not translate into equal
voter registration, by 1990 Hispanics had alrrost tripled their percentage of
the voters since 1980, and comprised almost 3 out of 10 voters. By 1990, black
voters still comprised a small percentage of Miami Beach voters, but their
rate of increase since 1980 suggests that they might become a significant
minority within the 1990s. The number of other voters increased slightly in
the 1980s, but they comprised a significantly higher percentage of the voters
in 1990 because they basically held their own while the total number of voters
decreased drastically.
As shown in Tables 9 and 10, the ethnic and age changes varied in
different areas of Miami Beach. South Beach had the largest decrease in number
of voters, as well as the greatest percentage decrease, largely because of its
high percentage of elderly Jewish voters in 1980. As seen in Table 11, Jewish
voters are still the plurality in South Beach, but Hispanic voters have their
highest percentage there and probably will equal Jewish voters in a few years.
5
North Beach has a similar pattern, but changes are not yet as strong. Mid-
Beach is still the most Jewish, and least Hispanic, area. Others have their
highest percentage in North Beach, but are dispersed fairly evenly throughout
the city. Blacks still have a small percentage of voters in Miami Beach. South
Beach has the highest percentage, but the most change is in North Beach.
v. Political Implications of Demographic Changes
A decrease in registered voters of 30.9% in one decade could have
significant political implications in any area, wt the implications are
particularly inportant when we recall the 1980 base fran which we began in
Miami Beach. Not only were 82.0% of the registered voters Democratic in 1980,
wt these Democrats CaIre largely fran the strongly Democratic elderly Jewish
ccmmunity. Because of this demographic profile, most of the decrease in voters
in Miami Beach in the 1980s was found in the Democratic party.
The number of Democrats decreased from 82.0% in 1980 to 71.8% in 1985,
and further decreased to 62.4% in 1990. The number of Republicans increased
from 12.4% in 1980 to 20.3% in 1985 to 28.3% in 1990. In 1980, there were 6.6
times as many Democrats as Republicans. By 1985, there were 3.5 times as many
Democrats as Republicans, and by 1990, there were 2.2 tines as many Democrats
as Republicans. While the Republicans actually increased their number of
registered voters by 3,801 in the 1980s (from 6,607 in 1980 to 10,408 in
1990), their major increase in the percentage of total voters was a result of
the loss of 20,643 Democrats (from 43,572 in 1980 to 22,929 in 1990). In 1980,
5.6% of the voters had no party affiliation or belonged to minor parties
(nearly all of this 5,6% had no party affiliation, and will be identified
hereafter as Independents). By 1985, Independents had increased to 7.9%, and
increased again to 9.3% by 1990.
As of 1990, most office holders in Miami Beach still were Democratic, and
the city still voted Democratic in most state and national elections. In 1988,
Miami Beach voted for the Democratic presidential candidate (Dukakis) by 56.2%
conpared to IAlkakis' 44.3% in Dade County, and voted for the Democratic
candidate for the United States Senate (MacKay) by 62.9% ccmpared to MacKay's
52.8% in Dade County. In 1990, Miami Beach voted for the Democratic candidate
for governor (Chiles) by 69.2%, ccmpared to Chiles' 62.7% in Dade County. But,
although officially nonpartisan, two out of seven city-wide offices were held
by Republicans, and Democratic margins of victory were saretimes less than in
the past. Election results suggested that about 40% to 45% of the vote was
still primarily a loyal Democratic party vote, but it was this bloc of loyal
Democrats who were expected to continue to decrease rapidly in the 1990s
because of mortality fran advanced age.
While in most cases political parties would be pleased to have 2.2 times
as many voters as their opponents, the pattern of decrease for Democrats
obviously leads to a Democratic concern and a Republican optimism for the
future. Because the elderly are still largely Jewish and Democratic, the
decrease of this group in the 1990s will continue to have a major impact on
the Democratic party. The iinpact will be less in absolute numbers than it was
in the 1980s, wt it will be significant. The remaining Jewish voters are
younger, and Democratic, but less so than the elderly. The number of Hispanics
of mixed ages is expected to continue to increase in the 1990s. The younger
and increasingly United States-born Cuban voters will continue to have ethnic
6
identity, and issues such as freedan for Cuba and feelings of prejudice or
insensitivity toward one's ethnic group will continue to have political
importance. But, these younger Cuban voters will tend to vote more on
nonethnic issues than the older Cuban voters have. As a result, they will be
more open to changing political affiliations away fran the heavily Republican
affiliations of their older ethnic members (Perez, 1990: 7). In the 1990s, the
number of blacks might becane large enough to be an important voting group.
'!he number of younger nonethnic voters and younger voters of mixed ethnicity
and mixed political identity is expected to continue at least as long as Miami
Beach continues its economic and residential improvement and its reputation as
a diverse and cosmopolitan canmmity. The increasing number of these nonethnic
and diverse ethnic young voters probably will respond largely to local issues.
Because of the Democratic party's numerical superiority over the
Republican party, it can lose large numbers of voters and still maintain a
numerical superiorty for the near future. If it responds correctly to the
other patterns of demographic change, it can maintain a numerical superiority
for an indefinite time period. The Republican party begins with a numerical
disadvantage, but time is on its side if it can oppose Democratic intrusion
into its large base in the Hispanic canrrt.lni ty and if it can appeal to
ethnically and politically mixed groups. '!he increase in Hispanic voters has
given Hispanics hope that their exclusion fran the City Canmission is about to
end ~eston, 1991: 22). A number of activist civic groups, comprised largely
of young professionals of multiethnic backgrounds, are concerned with local
issues such as good goverrunent, zoning, historic preservation, and
neighborhood facilities. Jewish retirees, despite their decline, remain a
major group, but no longer the only major group. Politics on Miami Beach is
not as simple as it has been in recent decades. The city is nCM much more
diverse ethnically, ideologically, and by age. How the two political parties
respond to the increase in the number of the ethnically and politically
diverse younger voters, to the increase in the number of Hispanic voters, and
to the increased ideological canplexity will largely determine the political
future of Miami Beach. Success no longer means appealing to one major
political group. The party that best responds to the canplexity will have the
best chance of determining the future of Miami Beach. From a political party
perspective, the 1990s will be the decade of decision for Miami Beach.
Report Number 3 ("An Ethnic and Age Profile of Miami Beach Voters in
1991") will be published in the near future, and will discuss the interaction
of ethnic and age differences in more detail with particular attention to
political affiliation and voter turnout by ethnicity and age.
NarES
1. Sane of the tables in this report were distributed at a presentation given
by the author to the South Beach New Democrats Club, Miami Beach, Florida, on
February 12, 1991. This report includes all of those tables except one table
(original Table 6). The other original tables are renumbered. Tables 9 and 10
in this report use early 1991 rather than late 1990 data. The data in Tables 9
and 10 have been refined to divide NLWH (non-Latin white) voters into Jewish
and nolhJewish. In addi tion, these two tables for 1991 have been adjusted to
add United States-born Hispanics to the Hispanic totals and substract these
7
Hispanics fram the NLWH totals. Tables 1, 7, 8, and 11 of this report were not
in the original handout. Appreciation is expressed to Mehran Basiratmand and
Jose Prendes (Computer Services) and Lisandro Perez (Department of Sociology)
at Florida International University, Ben Wesley, Executive Director of the
Dade County Democratic Party, and Graciela Catasus of the Cuban-American
Democratic Association for their assistance in or support of this research.
2. Report Number 1, "The Distinctive Hispanic Names (DHN) Technique: A Method
for Selecting a Semple or Estimating Population Size," is available for a
limited tirre fram the author: 345 Ocean Drive, H01, Miami Beach, FL 33139.
APPENDIX A
METHOOOLOGY
'!he United States Censuses for 1980 and for 1990 were used for population
figures for Hispanics and blacks. '!he 1980 census was used for the elderly
figures, and a 1988 report by the City of Miami Beach was used ~or more recent
elderly figures (Miami Beach, 1988: 2). Census figures for 1990 for age
distriootions have not been released yet.
Religion is not included in the United States Census, and hence
population figures for Jews have to be estimated by specific techniques. For
the Jewish population figures, the Distinctive Jewish Names (DUN) technique
was used. This technique has been used since 1942 for Jewish demographic
studies, usually utilizing about 35 surnames. To determine the number of
people with DUNs for population estimates, telephone listings generally have
been used because nearly all households have telephones (Shin and Yu, 1984:
356; Lake, 1987: 16). Telephone listings have a long and extensive usage in
social science studies (Lavender, 1988). Suggestions are that the percentage
of nonpublished telephone numbers increased in the 1980s. Accordingly, this
author compared listings of DUNs in Bresser' s Directory for Miami Beach for
1980 and 1990, and concluded that the number of telephone DUNs for 1990 should
be increased to adjust for an increase of nonpublished numbers which in fact
did occur (Bresser's, 1980, 1990). Researchers counting the number of DUN
telephone listings have then used multipliers based on estimates of household
size to obtain population estimates (Ri tterband and Cohen, 1979). For Miami
Beach for 1980, the Jewish household size was estimated to be 1.9; and for
1990, 2.0. Same researchers have adjusted the DUN totals down 10% on the
assllIlption that 10% of the DUNs are not Jewish. Recent research by Rosenwaike
(1990) suggests that same previous studies using the DUN technique frequently
have not adjusted sufficiently for non-Jews having DUNs. Rosenwaike indicates
that about half of the 35 surnaJreS had large percentages of non-Jews, with the
35 surnames together being about 25% non-Jewish. Accordingly, this study used
the 17 DUNs which have the highest percentages of Jews, together averaging
89.8% Jewish, and adjusted down for 10.2%.
To obtain the population number of Others in this report, the census
numbers for Hispanics and blacks, and the DUN estimates for the number of
Jews, have been substracted fram the totals. There is a small overlap between
Hispanics and Jews and between Hispanic and blacks, and the numbers have been
adjusted for these overlaps. In effect, all people who are not black,
8
Hispanic, or Jewish have been classified as Other in this report. This is a
potpourri category with tremendous diversity, but the ethnic composition on
Miami Beach suggests that the three ethnic groups of blacks, Hispanics, and
Jews should be analyzed separately, and space limitations (and methodologcal
problems) limit further subclassifications within the limited scope of this
research project. This researcher has used Other in order to refrain from
using the very inaccurate term Anglo, and because thus far he has been unable
to coin an acronym which accurately describes the potpourri Other category.
The local Board of Elections defines Hispanics as people born in a
Spanish-speaking country or Puerto Rico. Election officials recognize that
this definition "will get 'more and more out of whack' as children of
innnigrants reach voting age" (Tanfani, 1991: 30). Voters are also classified
according to race and age fran information on voter registration forms. Voters
not classified as Hispanic by place of birth, black, or other are classified
as NIWH (non-Latin white). The other category, canprising a little over 1% on
Miami Beach, consists of people of Asian ancestry, Native Americans, possibly
same people of mixed black and white ancestry not wanting to classify
themselves as either black or white, and a few others. This category is
included in the larger Other potpourri category in this study, and is not to
be viewed as synonymous with the total Other category used in this study.
On the asslUTlption that people of Hispanic ancestry born in the United
States still identify as Hispanic (certainly in Miami Beach where most such
people would have been born not many years after their parents migrated to the
United States and were raised in Spanish- or bilingual-speaking homes), this
study reclassifies those individuals as Hispanic rather than non-Hispanic.
Many researchers have used distinctive Hispanic surnames to obtain samples and
estimate population size, but a specific technique was not available. To
accomplish the reclassification desired in this study, this author developed a
Distinctive Hispanic Names (DHN) Technique similar to the IlJN Technique. This
technique is described in detail in Report..Number 1 of this series.
Essentially, the technique used ten Hispanic surnames which are nearly always
used only by people who identify as Hispanic, determined the number and
percentage of Hispanics as defined by place of birth (i.e., born in a Spanish-
speaking country or Puerto Rico) having one of these surnames, determined the
number of voters born in the United States having one of these surnames, and
developed a multiplier based on the assumption that United States-born
Hispanics have these surnames to the same extent as foreign-born Hispanics.
Adjustments were made for some small differences in surname frequencies among
Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Other Hispanic backgrounds.
The number of Jewish voters was estimated by using the IlJN technique in
the same manner in which it was used to estimate the POPUlation except that no
adjustment was necessary for household size. The number of black voters was
obtained fran the voter registration lists. The canputer system was used to
obtain the number of voters who were classified as both black and Hispanic,
and the IlJN Technique was used in canbination with the list of foreign-born
Hispanics and the DHN Technique to obtain an estimate of the number of voters
who were both Jewish and Hispanic. As with the population figures, all other
voters were classified as Others. The reader is reminded that social science
can not put people in control boxes and measure whether they are telling the
truth. For the information on the voter registration files, we are dependent
on the accuracy and honesty of voters and voter registrars, and we must
remember that the DJN and DHN techniques are estimates.
9
REFEREOCES
Bresser's Cross-Index Directory Company. Bresser's. Detroit: 1980 and 1990.
Hinure If arb, Harold S., R. Michael Loar, and Susan H. Mott. "Sempling by Ethnic
SurnaJres: The Case of American Jews." Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, SllITIIler
1983, 247-260.
Horwitz, Elinor. "Jewish Poverty Hurts in South Beach" in Abraham D. Lavender
(ed.), A Coat of Many Colors: Jewish Subcamnunities in the United States.
Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1977.
Kidwell, David. "Jewish Presence in Dade Shrinks Fran 20% to 10%." The Miami
Herald, October 29, 1990, lB.
Lake, Celinda C. Public Opinion Polling. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1987.
Lavender, Abraham D. '''Ihe Distinctive Hispanic NaJres (DHN) Technique: A Method
for Selecting a Semple or Estimating Population Size." Submitted.
Lavender, Abraham D. "Hispanic Given Names in Five United States Cities."
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 10, June 1988, 105-125.
Matsushita, Elaine. "Jews Move North of South Beach." The Miami Herald,
January 22, 1990, lB.
Miami Beach, City of. Miami Beach Statisticl AbstraCt. Miami Beach: Departm:mt
of Economic and Community Development, 1988.
Perez, Lisandro. "The 1990s: Cuban Miami at the Crossroads." Cuban Studies,
20, 1990, 3-9.
Redford, Polly. Billion-Dollar Sandbar: A Biography of Miami Beach. New York:
E. P. Dutton & Co., 1970.
Ritterband, Paul, and Steven Martin Cohen. "Study Design to Demographic Study
of New York's Jews." Queens College, CONY, DepartIrent of Sociology, 1979.
Rosenwaike, Ira. "Leading SurnaJres Among American Jews." NaJres, 38, March-June
1990, 31-38.
Sacks, Jonathan. "Judios Cubanos Hallan Nuevo Hogar en Dade." El Miami Herald,
17 de Agosto de 1980, 2.
Shin, E. and E. Yu. "Use of SurnaJres in Ethnic Research: The Case of Kims in
the Korean-American Population." Demography, 21, 3, August 1984, 347-360.
Tanfani, Joseph. "Hispanics Undercounted, Study Says." '!he Miami Herald (Miami
Beach Neighbors), March 28,1991,30.
Weston, Bonnie. "Hispanics' Hopes Rising on the Beach." The Miami Herald
(Miami Beach Neighbors), April 14, 1991, 22-23.
10
Table 1. Ethnic Composition of population and Voters for Miami Beach,
1980 and 1991
1980 1991*
Numbe r Percent Number Percent
POPUIATION
Jewish 65,026 67.5 37,646 40.6
Hispanic 21,4D8 22.2 43,342 46.8
Black 894 0.9 4,798 5.2
Others 10,183 10.6 9,293 9.5
Total 96,298 100.0 92,639 100.0
Adjusted Total** +1,212 101.2 +2,440 102.6
VOTERS
Jewish 42,101 79.2 19,687 53.2
Hispanic 5,210 9.8 10,334 27.9
Black 311 0.6 947 2.6
Others 6,291 11.8 6,712 18.1
Total 53,163 100.0 37,014 100.0
Adjusted Total** 53,913 101.4 37,680 101.8
*Figures are used for February 1991 instead of late 1990 because of availability of
data.
**Adjusted Totals include overlap fran dooble coonting those who are both Hispanic and
Black or both Hispanic and Jewish.
11
Table 2. Ntnnber of Registered Voters, 1980, 1985, and 1990,
for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach.
1980
% of
M.B.
1985
% of
M.B.
1990
% of
M.B.
Mid-Beach
31.7
9,580
12,493
14,685
26.1
45.2
11,126
13,555
18,086
26.0
South Beach
13,717
15,433
24,013
25.8
North Beach
29.0
34.0
42.3
39.9
MIAMI BEACH
53,163
100.0
42,767
100.0
36,758
100.0
Table 3. Percent of Change in Ntnnber of Registered Voters,
1980 to 1985, 1985 to 1990, and 1980 to 1990,
for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach.
1980- 1985- 1980-
1985 1990 1990
North Beach -18.9% -13.9% -30.2%
Mid-Beach -12.6 -7.8 -19.1
South Beach -24.7 -18.8 -38.8
MIAMI BEACH -19.6 -14.1 -30.9
12
Table 4. Number of Registered Voters, by Political Party,
1980, 1985, and 1990,
for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach.
1980 1985 1990
'IDrAL (53,163) (42,767) (36,758)
Dem. Rep. Ind. Dem. Rep. Ind. Dem. Rep. Ind.
North Beach 11,130 1,650 937 8,068 2,128 930 5,968 2,711 901
Mid-Beach 11,895 2,381 1,157 9,610 2,749 1,196 8,051 3,240 1,202
South Beach 20,547 2,576 890 13,029 3,811 1,246 8,910 4,457 1,318
MIAMI BEACH 43,572 6,607 2,984 30,707 8,688 3,372 22,929 10,408 3,421
Table 5. Percent of Registered Voters, by Political Party,
1980, 1985, and 1990,
for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach.
1980 1985 1990
Dem. Rep. Ind. Dem. Rep. Ind. Dem. Rep. Ind.
North Beach 81.1% 12.0% 6.8% 72.5% 19.1% 8.4% 62.3% 28.3% 9.4%
Mid-Beach 77.1 15.4 7.5 70.9 20.3 8.8 64.4 25.9 9.6
South Beach 85.6 10.7 3.7 72.0 21.1 6.9 60.7 30.3 9.0
MIAMI BEACH 82.0 12.4 5.6 71.8 20.3 7.9 62.4 28.3 9.3
13
Table 6a. Percent of Change in Number of Registered Democrats,
1980 to 1985, 1985 to 1990, and 1980 to 1990,
for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach.
1980- 1985- 1980-
1985 1990 1990
North Beach -27.5% -26.0% -46.4%
Mid-Beach -19.2 -16.2 -32.3
South Beach -36.6 -31.6 -56.6
MIAMI BEACH -29.6 -25.3 -47.4
Table 6b. Percent of Change in Number of Registered Republicans,
1980 to 1985, 1985 to 1990, and 1980 to 1990,
for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach.
1980- 1985- 1980-
1985 1990 1990
North Beach +29.0% +27.4% +64.3%
Mid-Beach +15.5 +17.9 +36.1
South Beach +47.9 +17.0 +73.0
MIAMI BEACH +31.5 +19.8 +57.5
14
Table 7. Changes in Number of Miami Beach Voters fran 1980 to 1990
Showing Before and Mer Biennial Purges (1981, 83, 85, 87, 89)
With Canparisons to Dade County
Date of Miami Remainder of Total
Number Beach Dade County Dade County
November 1980 53,563 653,948 707,511
May 1981 52,739 660,637 713,376
August 1981 49,179 614,971 664,150
May 1983 49,009 659,449 708,458
July 1983 41,306 551,653 592,959
June 1985 45,752 681,413 727,165
August 1985 42,260 633,193 675,453
June 1987 43,810 667,758 711,568
August 1987 36,936 556,172 593,108
September 1989 41,199 672,152 713,351
October 1989 36,767 615,116 651,883
October 1990 36,669 637,169 673,838
15
Table 8. Party Registrations for Miami Beach for 1989 to 1991
Date of Number Total Democrat Republican Independent
January 1, 1989 40,945 26,965 10,283 3,697
February 1, 1989 41,066 27,002 10,350 3,714
March 1, 1989 41,076 26,957 10,390 3,729
Apr il 1, 1989 41,325 27,047 10,523 3,755
May 1, 1989 41,037 26,769 10,518 3,750
June 1, 1989 40,856 26,646 10,467 3,743
July 24, 1989 40,851 26,556 10,551 3,744
August 1, 1989 40,830 26,524 10,550 3,756
September 1, 1989 41,199 26,666 10,769 3,764
October 1, 1989 (PURGE) 36,767 23,591 9,890 3,286
November 1, 1989 36,941 23,643 10,000 3,298
December 1, 1989 37,152 23,739 10,073 3,340
1989 'lOI'AL # CHANGE -3,793 -3,226 -210 -357
1989 TOl'AL % CHANGE* -9.26% -11. 96% -2.04% -9.66%
January 1, 1990 37,142 23,719 10,082 3,341
February 1, 1990 36,825 23,418 10,068 3,339
March 1, 1990 36,907 23,408 10,139 3,360
Apr il 1, 1990 36,808 23,290 10,159 3,359
May 1, 1990 36,400 23,013 10,066 3,321
June 1, 1990 36,451 23,000 10,119 3,332
July 1, 1990 36,001 22,660 10,036 3,305
August 1, 1990 35,977 22,623 10,049 3,305
October 15, 1990 36,669 22,891 10,365 3,413
December 3, 1990 36,816 22,952 10,432 3,432
1990 'lOI'AL # CHANGE -326 -767 +350 +91
1990 TOl'AL % CHANGE* -0.9% -3.23% +3.47% + 2.72%
January 3, 1991 36,902 22,981 10,486 3,435
February 6, 1991 36,932 22,954 10,531 3,447
March 5, 1991 36,842 22,876 10,527 3,439
January 1, 1989 % 65.86% 25.11% 9.03%
January 1, 1990 % 63.86% 27.14% 9.00%
January 3, 1991 % 62.28% 28.42% 9.30%
*Note that there was a biennial purge in 1989, but not in 1990, accounting for most of
the difference in these two years. There will be a purge in 1991.
16
Table 9. Number of Registered Voters, Ethnic Group by Political Party,
1985 and early 1991, for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach*
1985 1991
NIWH Hisp. Black Jewish Hisp. Black Other
NORl'H BEACH
Democrats 7,368 611 89 3,780 1,082 203 1,121
Republicans 1,330 788 10 488 1,530 46 785
Independents 740 158 32 393 265 22 289
9,438 1,557 131 4,661 2,877 271 2,195
MIIrBEACH
Democrats 9,169 371 70 6,666 616 81 800
Republicans 1,989 754 6 1,328 1,381 15 622
Independents 1,042 144 10 488 238 7 505
12,200 1,269 86 8,482 2,235 103 1,927
SOOTH BEACH
Democrats 11,533 1,103 393 5,690 1,529 419 1,350
Republicans 1,545 2,228 38 556 3,213 102 717
Independents 833 327 86 298 480 52 523
13,911 3,658 517 6,544 5,222 573 2,590
MIAMI BEACH
DEMOCRATS 28,070 2,085 552 16,136 3,227 703 3,271
REPUBLICANS 4,864 3,770 54 2,372 6,124 163 2,124
INDEPENDENTS 2,615 629 128 1,179 '983 81 1,317
MIAMI BEACH TOTAL 35,549 6,484 734 19,687 10,334 947 6,712
*February 1991 data is used instead of data from late 1990 because of
availability. Data is not available for 1980. For 1985, NIWH (Non-Latin White)
includes Jewish and non-Jewish. This category is divided for 1991; data is not
available to divide the number for 1985. In 1985, 157 Asian-Americans, Native-
Americans, etc., are not included in the figures. For 1991, these are included
in the Other category. Hispanics for 1991 were increased 22.44% to include
United States-born, according to the DHN Technique. For 1985, data is not
available to adjust the Hispanic figures.
17
Table 10. Percent of Registered Voters, Ethnic Group by Political Party,
1985 and early 1991, for North Beach, Mid-Beach, South Beach, and Miami Beach*
1985 1991
NIWH Hisp. Black Jewish Hisp. Black Others
NORl'H BEACH
Democrats 78.1 39.2 67.9 81.1 37.6 74.9 51.1
Republicans 14.1 50.6 7.6 10.5 53.2 17.0 35..8
Independents 7.8 10.2 24.4 8.4 9.2 8,1 13.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
MID-BEACH
Democrats 75.2 29.2 81.4 78.6 27.6 78.6 41.5
Republicans 16.3 59.4 7.0 15.7 61.8 14.6 32.3
Independents 8.5 11.4 11.6 5.7 10.6 6.8 26.2
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
SOOTH BEACH
Democrats 82.9 30.2 76.0 87.0 29.3 73.1 52.1
Republicans 11.1 60.9 7.4 4.5 61.5 17.8 27.7
Independents 6.0 8.9 16.6 8.5 9.2 9.1 20.2
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
MIAMI BEACH
DEMOCRATS . 79.0 32.2 75.2 82.0 31.2 74.2 48.7
REPUBLICANS 13.7 58.1 7.4 6.0 59.3 17.2 31.7
INDEPENDENTS 7.3 9.7 17.4 12.0 9.5 8.6 19.6
MIAMI BEACH TarAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
*February 1991 data is used instead of data from late 1990 because of
availability. Data is not available for 1980. For'1985, NIWH (Non-Latin White)
includes Jewish and non-Jewish. '!his category is divided for 1991; data is not
available to divide the number for 1985. In 1985, 157 Asian-Americans, Native-
Americans, etc., are not included in the figures. For 1991, these are included
in the Other category. Hispanics for 1991 were increased 22.44% to include
United States-born, according to the DHN Technique. For 1985, data is not
available to adjust the Hispanic figures.
18
Table 11. Percentage of Voters by Ethnic Groups
for No,rth Beach, Mid-Beach, and South Beach, February 1991
Jewish Hispanic
Black
Other
Total *
Overlap*
North Beach
48.4
29.9
2.8
22.8
15.3
103.9%
380
South Beach
35.4
0.8
3.9
101.0%
127
Mid-Beach
67.2
17.7
44.3
17.5
101.1%
159
MIAMI BEACH
53.2
27.9
2.6
18.1
101.8%
666
*'!he total percentages include the voters counted twice because of being either
Hispanic-Black or Hispanic-Jewish. The number of overlaps are shOtlIl for each area
in the Overlap column. .
19