Crafting an Identity
The Office of Resident Commissioner
The position of Resident Commissioner, which Congress created for Puerto Rico, echoed the island’s ambiguous status.61 Like Territorial Delegates, the Resident Commissioner had legislative responsibilities, but unlike Territorial Delegates, the Resident Commissioner was “entitled to official recognition as such by all [executive] Departments.” Also, although the Resident Commissioner was a Member of Congress, he was obligated to present his certificate of election to the State Department as if he were a foreign diplomat.62 The first Resident Commissioner, Federico Degetau, said it was “difficult, from a reading of the law, for many people to determine whether the commissioner was elected by the people to represent them or to represent the government of the island … in other words, whether he is an official of the local or of the Federal Government.”63
The creation of the office of Resident Commissioner was a compromise: While recognizing that the residents of Puerto Rico, and later those of the Philippines, deserved some federal representation, Members of Congress were tacitly precluding the possibility that these overseas territories would ever become states.64 An early Senate Report on the Foraker Act mentioned “the election of a Delegate to the House of Representatives,” and although the suggestion “met with some objection,” a Senate committee concluded, “It is certainly a modest representation for 1,000,000 people.”65 Senator John C. Spooner of Wisconsin reasoned, “No Congress gives a Delegate to a people except upon the theory that the time is come when they shall be admitted to statehood.” He opposed Puerto Rican statehood, saying the island’s residents “know nothing of us, nothing of our ways … nothing of our system, nothing of our institutions.” He later vowed to support the Foraker Act only if Congress granted Puerto Rico “a commissioner, whose status shall enable him to represent their necessities and wants to the Congress.”66
The final version of the Foraker Act provided for the election of a Resident Commissioner, whose position was defined in two sentences.67 The Resident Commissioner served a two-year term and would earn the same salary as any other Member of Congress. Candidates had to be citizens of Puerto Rico and at least 30 years old—which was five years older than the constitutional requirement for Representatives—and literate in English.68 After presenting his credentials to the State Department, the Resident Commissioner was recognized by Congress as the representative for Puerto Rico, who could lobby Members and government officials on the island’s behalf. However, the act’s ambiguity, coupled with Congress’ uncertainty about Puerto Rico’s readiness for democratic government, led it to deny the Resident Commissioner speaking privileges and even access to the House Chamber.
The limits of Degetau’s power were immediately apparent, but Degetau used committee testimony and the aid of sympathetic Members to push legislation beneficial to Puerto Rico. He also employed press interviews and lobbied executive branch officials. Members of Congress and the media realized the frustration Degetau experienced and, in May 1902, a Baltimore Sun editorial noted that John Lacey of Iowa had submitted a resolution to extend floor privileges to Degetau. “Mr. Degetau’s official functions have begun and ended with this designation, and if he succeeds in getting even so far as across the threshold of one of the lobbies at the Capitol, where he may inspire but not exhale the legislative atmosphere, he is doing about all he can reasonably expect to do,” it said. Degetau is “driven to the second-hand method of buttonholing members, just [as] any untitled lobbyist is privileged to do.” Also noted by the Sun was the inconsistency in Degetau’s position relative to that of the Delegate from Hawaii, Robert Wilcox, who could take a seat on the House Floor, make motions, and serve on committees.69 “Both, according to the Supreme Court construction, are United States Territories,” the editorial observed. “So that under this broad yet somewhat flexible ruling Porto Rico ought to have the same rights of representation as are accorded to Hawaii, which does not seem to bear to this country the same commercialist importance as does the island only a few hundred miles off the coast of the United States.”70
On March 18, 1902, Henry Cooper of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Committee on Insular Affairs, inserted the “Resident Commissioner” position into an amendment to the House Rules that would allow various people—from “private secretaries” to “judges of the Supreme Court”—access to the House Floor.71 The House spent little time debating the resolution before adopting the final version on June 28; however, the victory was incomplete. Just before the bill passed, John Dalzell of Pennsylvania, who brought it to the floor, assured his colleagues that the amendments would not give the Resident Commissioner privileges that were equal to those of the Territorial Delegates; although the bill would allow the Resident Commissioner to be present on the House Floor, it would not allow him to speak on record or vote.72 The Resident Commissioner “was put on a par with the clerks of House committees, heads of executive departments, foreign ministers, and the Librarian of Congress in having access to the House Chamber,” notes a scholar.73 Though several measures sought to enhance the privileges of the Puerto Rican Member, they remained unchanged until the passage of the Jones Act, which gave the Resident Commissioner the same rights as the other Members of the House, lengthening his term from two to four years; reducing the minimum age qualification to 25 years; and providing him franking privileges, stationery, and money to hire a clerk.74
The status of Resident Commissioners and Territorial Delegates was decidedly secondary compared with that of their voting colleagues. While Resident Commissioners and Territorial Delegates were eventually allowed to hold committee assignments and introduce legislation as third-party candidates, they did not receive support from the Democratic Caucus or the Republican Conference. However, because statutory representatives lacked official ties to a major party, they could seek the support of both Democrats and Republicans. Many Resident Commissioners used their circumscribed office to the fullest extent possible by participating in committee debate, introducing amendments, testifying before House and Senate panels, and cajoling and lobbying Members from both chambers in private conversations and at social gatherings. Clarence Miller of Minnesota, a high-ranking Republican on the Insular Affairs Committee, recalled that Resident Commissioner Luis Muñoz Rivera was “persistent and solicitous” regarding the creation of a more democratic government in Puerto Rico. “I do not know of anyone who could have been more insistent than he has been during all these years,” he said.75
Puerto Ricans in Washington
Hispanic Americans in Congress regularly experienced racial prejudice. Many white Members subscribed to decades-old beliefs that stereotyped Hispanics, especially Puerto Ricans, as “dark-skinned, childlike, poor, and primitive” and unfit to govern themselves.76 When the United States acquired Puerto Rico in 1899, Secretary of War Elihu Root said, “Before the people of Porto Rico can be fully entrusted with self-government, they must first learn the lesson of self-control and respect for the principles of the constitutional government.”77
Puerto Rico’s first Resident Commissioner, Federico Degetau, challenged these assumptions by engaging those who held them, and he questioned their capacity for citizenship. Degetau discussed Puerto Ricans’ “fitness” and “ability” to embrace a republican form of government in numerous interviews. He also responded to charges from “white supremacist” officeholders, including former Secretary of the Navy Hilary Herbert, who in 1901 classified Puerto Ricans as an “inferior race.” As “a member of an ‘inferior’ race,” Degetau wrote Herbert, “I suppose that your theory is the result of a careful study of the people of Puerto Rico.”78 “Americans think we have savages and Indians in Porto Rico,” Degetau observed. “Why, we have no more Indians than you have in Chicago. People ask me where the natives in the party are. I tell them that I am a typical native.”79 Later Degetau defended an appropriation to maintain a “Porto Rican regiment” in the U.S. Army. When future Speaker James Beauchamp (Champ) Clark of Missouri cited racial stereotypes as a reason for nixing the funding, Degetau noted that after the regiment visited Washington, “the public in the capital expected to see men of an inferior race, of small stature and sallow complexion, and they found that by their physical appearance the Porto Ricans did not differ from the other soldiers.… On account of their military bearing and dexterity, they obtained continuous applause; their moral conduct won them unanimous praise.” Supporting Degetau, Representative Frank Mondell of Wyoming asserted that Puerto Rico should have a regiment for its protection, and the House defeated Clark’s amendment, 89 to 47.80
Luis Muñoz Rivera challenged the assumptions of cantankerous Speaker Joseph Cannon of Illinois. During debate over the Jones Act, Cannon objected to extending Puerto Ricans citizenship because he believed they were unfit for self-rule.81 The cigar-chomping Illinoisan, who noted that Puerto Rico has “great tobacco and makes pretty good cigars,” believed the “racial question” and “climatic conditions” disqualified most of the islanders from governing themselves. Cannon further suggested that the infrastructure improvements and reforms to education and business that had been enacted on the island since the Spanish-American War resulted largely from American “enterprise and capital” and vehemently opposed statehood. “God forbid that in [Muñoz Rivera’s] time or my time, there should be statehood for Puerto Rico as one of the United States,” he said.82
Muñoz Rivera rejected Cannon’s belief that Puerto Ricans should be denied U.S. citizenship. “Mr. Chairman, Porto Rico, deprived of its natural sovereignty, depends upon the generosity and chivalry of American lawmakers,” he said from the well of the House shortly after Cannon’s speech. “I consider it very unfortunate that a Porto Rican is obliged to hear on this floor remarks offensive to the dignity of his native land … it is not our fault that we are compelled to come here and ask for the enactment of legislation, of a constitution, which should be our undeniable right to make, according to American principles, ourselves. I must conclude, declaring emphatically that I am as proud to be a Porto Rican as the gentleman from Illinois is proud of being an Illinoisan, and as every gentleman on this floor is proud of being an American.”83 The House Floor and galleries erupted in applause when Muñoz Rivera finished speaking.
The Language Barrier
Many Hispanic Members of this era were bilingual or learned English so they could work with U.S. government officials. Santiago Iglesias was a translator for American forces during the Spanish-American War, and improved his English while working and attending school in New York. He spoke prolifically on the House Floor.84Octaviano Larrazolo, like many New Mexican politicians, and Tulio Larrínaga of Puerto Rico were fluent in both English and Spanish. Larrínaga headed the English department in the cultural center of the Puerto Rican Arts and Sciences Association starting in 1876, and Ladislas Lazaro often used both French and English while campaigning in Louisiana.
Resident Commissioners continued to study English after they assumed office. A brilliant orator in Spanish and a longtime resident of New York City, Muñoz Rivera began to study English at age 50 in preparation for his service in Washington, D.C. “I will go to a mountain or a beach, with my books, practice English without speaking another language,” he confided to a friend in 1911. “When I master it, I will feel better prepared.… I have progressed a lot. I need much more,” he said.85José Pesquera studied English in Pennsylvania from 1901 to 1902, but still had difficulty communicating with President Herbert Hoover’s administration in 1932. In an effort to defend himself against Pesquera’s charge that the War Department neglected Puerto Rico after the 1932 San Cipriano hurricane, Deputy Chief of Staff George Van Horn Moseley said he preferred to communicate with an administration official who often accompanied the Resident Commissioner, since Pesquera “sometimes has a little difficulty communicating in English over the phone.”86
Córdova Dávila spoke for many in Puerto Rico when he noted, “Language is a factor of unquestioned importance. English has not yet reached the heart of the [Puerto Rican] people, nor is it reasonable to expect this ever to come about.” “The language of a people constitutes the voice of its soul, the means of expressing its feelings, and its personality. Love for the vernacular is ingrained in the individual. To deprive him of his native tongue would be heartless and cruel.”87 Nearly two decades later, Bolívar Pagán promoted increased English language instruction in Puerto Rico by supporting a $300 million proposal to rehabilitate the Puerto Rican school system. Pagán, assuaging fears that Puerto Rican children were not learning enough English, testified that English was taught as a separate subject in the early years of primary school but thereafter became the main language of instruction.88
“Porto Rico” to “Puerto Rico”
Maintaining Puerto Rico’s Spanish heritage included changing its official name from “Porto Rico” back to the original Spanish, “Puerto Rico.” The United States used “Puerto Rico” in diplomatic correspondence before the Spanish-American War but used the anglicized spelling “Porto Rico” in the Treaty of Paris, which ended the conflict. Gervasio Luis Garcia traces the origin of the phonetic English spelling to a National Geographic article, published in 1899 by journalist Robert T. Hill. His use of “Porto Rico” went against the wishes of the Geographic’s editors, who printed the following disclaimer: “The form ‘Puerto Rico’ is that commonly used by the people of the island itself and by those of other Spanish-speaking countries, and is good Spanish.… The Editors wish it to be understood that in this trifling matter they are not establishing a precedent.”89 Hill’s decision to use the anglicized name was based on arguments that were entrenched at the turn of the century: that “Porto Rico” had been used internationally for more than 300 years and provided English speakers a way to pronounce the island’s Spanish name and that “Puerto Rico” was “un-American.” Concluding that the change in Puerto Rico’s name was an extension of the United States’ geographical conquest, Gervasio Garcia noted in 2000 that, “Naming was a form of domination; the imperial appetite was not sated until it appropriated every bit of the island, even its name.”90
Puerto Ricans did not consider the name change “trifling.” On December 18, 1931, Félix Córdova Dávila introduced a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 149) that would change “Porto Rico” back to “Puerto Rico,” and submitted a petition from the Puerto Rican senate to the House Committee on Insular Affairs deeming “Porto Rico” an “impure idiomatic compound” and requesting reversion of the territory’s official name so “full justice will thus be done to our history, our language, and our traditions.”91 Resident Commissioner José Pesquera steered the bill after succeeding Córdova Dávila in April 1932, but the seemingly innocuous legislation met with sturdy resistance. On May 11, in a debate that was riddled with interruptions regarding unrelated issues, opponents of the bill maintained that “Porto” was the standard English spelling. Changing the name would create unnecessary “expense of changing dies for postage stamps, for [Puerto Ricans’] currency, for their bonds, and many other things merely to gratify the sentimental whim of the local inhabitants.”92 But most Members defended the change. Ralph Lozier of Missouri noted Puerto Ricans “are now loyal American citizens,” arguing, “There is no reason, either in the history, language or traditions of these Spanish-speaking people to support the legitimacy of the foreign term ‘Porto,’ used in connection with their island habitation.”93 The House eventually passed S.J. Res. 36 (in lieu of H.J. Res. 149) 88 to 31; without debate, the Senate concurred, changing the name in May 1932.94
The passage of the resolution was a symbolic victory in the battle to maintain Puerto Rico’s cultural heritage. Speaking for Córdova Dávila after his departure from the House, Resident Commissioner of the Philippines Camilo Osias said to his colleagues, “Never underrate the importance of individual and national sentiment in human affairs.… The change of the spelling of the name of Porto Rico may seem trivial to some, but to the inhabitants of that island it is fundamental, priceless, all important.” By voting for the measure, “you are investing in friendship” and working to “evoke the eternal gratitude” of the Puerto Rican people,” he said.95
Political and Ethnic Shifts in New Mexico
The issue of cultural heritage was also important for New Mexican Hispanics during this era as changing racial demographics shifted New Mexican politics, upsetting traditional political alliances between Anglos and nuevomexicanos.
Since the mid-19th century, three groups of settlers with divergent interests had had an understanding that characterized the territory’s politics. According to a historian of turn-of-the-century New Mexico, “a Spanish-speaking elite, backed by New Mexico’s majority population of [poor Hispanic] voters, shared power with an outnumbered but well-organized and growing Anglo minority.”96 At the root of this arrangement were the state’s demographics. Hispanics, with their shrinking but still large majority, dominated elections at the town and county level, giving them influence over many of the state’s everyday affairs in the territorial legislature. Meanwhile, given their disproportionate wealth and federal connections, Anglos controlled many of New Mexico’s appointed positions, including the office of territorial governor.97 As a result of this arrangement, neither group of New Mexicans sustained influence over the other throughout the 19th century.98 But with the majority of Anglo and Hispanic voters registered as Republicans, this resulted in an era of “Republican domination.”99 Pedro Perea benefited from this agreement; bolstered by the territory’s Republican machine in his 1898 election campaign, he ousted an Anglo incumbent in an election that mirrored the parties’ national platforms but reflected racial stereotypes of the time.
The long-standing political dynamic that dominated New Mexico’s territorial period began to dissolve as Anglo migrants from Texas and Oklahoma flocked to the cheap, oil-rich land in eastern New Mexico. Their arrival upset the demographic structure that had sustained the territory’s balance of power; from 1900 to 1910, New Mexico’s population grew from 195,310 to 327,301.100 Many of the Anglo newcomers were middle-aged, financially secure Democrats who brought their racial and ethnic prejudices to New Mexico. Ignoring the genealogical, class, and regional distinctions among their nuevomexicano neighbors, they labeled many as “Mexican,” a derogatory term. These settlers resuscitated the Democratic Party and subverted the political arrangement between Anglos and Hispanics that had defined the territory for six decades.101 Their predominance in territorial politics led Octaviano Larrazolo in 1911 to leave the Democratic Party, to which he had been loyal since first entering politics in 1885. In a public letter of resignation, he noted this treatment “forced me to the humiliating conviction that in the Democratic party of New Mexico there exists an element of intolerance that should not be countenanced or encouraged.” Moreover, he wrote, that element “is strong enough … to make me apprehensive of the future welfare of a very large number of people in New Mexico.”102
In addition to reinvigorating the Hispanic electorate, scholars generally credit Larrazolo with helping to develop a political arrangement between Anglo and nuevomexicano leaders from both parties.103 A “gentlemen’s agreement” had segregated political contests so that Anglos ran only against Anglos and Hispanic candidates faced only Hispanics at the nominating conventions. As a result, more nuevomexicano politicians ran for local offices in the 1910s and 1920s. Regarding congressional elections, the record is mixed. Benigno Cárdenas Hernández, who belonged to the Republican Old Guard of Rio Arriba County, benefited both from the “native son movement,” which encouraged nuevomexicanos to run for local political office, and from his party connections. He defeated a three-term Anglo incumbent in 1914, lost to an Anglo opponent in 1916, and was re-elected against an Anglo opponent in 1918. Hernández’s successor, Néstor Montoya, ran against a prominent local politician, Antonio Lucero, in 1920, but lost the nomination to nuevomexicana Adelina Otero-Warren in 1922. Larrazolo was elected governor in 1918.104
Dennis Chavez’s political career coincided with a shift in New Mexico’s ethnopolitical culture, following the national trend favoring the Democratic Party and resulting in more-competitive elections; although his father was a Republican, Chavez joined the Democratic Party because of the GOP’s perceived abuse of patronage. After serving one term in the New Mexico state house and working as a loyal party operative, Chavez won a House seat in 1930 and served for two terms. In 1934 Chavez took on progressive Republican Bronson Cutting for a U.S. Senate seat.105
61Though the position of Resident Commissioner was initially created for Puerto Rico, the Philippines also sent Resident Commissioners to Congress from 1902 until it achieved independence in 1946.
62Foraker Act, 31 Stat. 77, 86.
63R. B. Horton, ed., Committee on Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Committee Reports, Hearings, and Acts of Congress Corresponding Thereto (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1903): 34.
64Tansill, “The Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico”: 69.
65Senate Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, Temporary Civil Government for Porto Rico, 56th Cong., 1st sess. (5 February 1900), S. Rep, 249: 14–15.
66Congressional Record, House, 56th Cong., 1st sess. (2 April 1900): 3632.
67According to the Foraker Act, “qualified voters” in Puerto Rico were those “who have been bona fide residents for one year and who possess the other qualifications of voters under the laws and military orders in force on the first day of March, nineteen hundred.” Such qualifications were subject to change per executive council restrictions. (31 Stat. 77, 83).
68Foraker Act, 31 Stat. 77–86.
69Starting in 1850, Territorial Delegates were first allowed to make motions, except for the motion to reconsider, which is dependent on the right to vote on the House Floor. See XLIII Hinds’ Precedents § 1292 (pp. 862–863); Congressional Globe, House, 31st Cong., 1st sess. (20 August 1850): 1607.
70“Commissioner in Name Only,” 17 May 1902, Baltimore Sun: 4.
71H. Res. 169, amending House Rule XXIV, 57th Cong., 1st sess.; Tansill, “The Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico”: 72.
72Congressional Record, House, 57th Cong., 1st sess. (28 June 1902): 7608.
73Tansill, “The Resident Commissioner to the United States from Puerto Rico”: 72–73.
75Congressional Record, House, 64th Cong., 2nd sess. (5 May 1916): 7473.
76Jorge Duany, “Race and Racialization,” in Oboler and González, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States, vol. 3: 535. See pp. 537–538 for a detailed discussion of racial stereotypes about Puerto Ricans.
77Elihu Root, The Military and Colonial Policy of the United States: Addresses and Reports (Cambridge, MA, 1916). Quoted in Gervasio Luis Garcia, “I Am The Other: Puerto Rico in the Eyes of North Americans, 1898,” Journal of American History 87, no. 1 (June 2000): 39–40.
78“Not an Inferior People,” 30 June 1901, Washington Post: 5.
79“Seek Statehood for Porto Rico,” 31 October 1901, Chicago Daily Tribune: 2.
80Congressional Record, 58th Cong., 3rd sess. (19 January 1905): 1088–1090; “Porto Rican Heard in House,” 20 January 1905, San Francisco Chronicle: 13.
81For more on the relationship between Cannon and Muñoz Rivera, see Hon. Luis Muñoz Rivera, “Are the Porto Rican People Prepared for Self-Government,” extract from remarks of Hon. Tulio Larrínaga in the House of Representatives, 8 May 1908 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1908): 7.
82Congressional Record, Appendix, 64th Cong., 1st sess. (5 May 1916): 1036–1037.
83Congressional Record, House, 64th Cong., 1st sess. (5 May 1916): 7484.
84“Memorial Services Held in the House of Representatives of the United States, Together with Remarks Presented in Eulogy of Santiago Iglesias, Late a Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico,” (Government Printing Office, 1941): 32.
85Maldonado, Luis Muñoz Marín: 32.
86George Van Horn Moseley to Walter H. Newton, 19 October 1932; Presidential States File; Puerto Rico, General Correspondence; Herbert Hoover Papers; Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, IA.
87Hearings before the House Committee on Insular Affairs, Popular Election of the Governor of Porto Rico, 70th Cong., 1st sess. (16 May 1928): 23.
88“Ickes Assails School Policy in Puerto Rico,” 8 April 1943, Christian Science Monitor: 13.
89Robert T. Hill, “Porto Rico,” National Geographic 10, no. 3 (March 1899): 112n.
90Garcia, “I Am the Other:” 49–51.
91House Committee on Insular Affairs, Correct the Spelling of the Name of the Island of Porto Rico, 72nd Cong., 1st sess., 1932, H. Rep. 585, 2.
92Congressional Record, House, 72nd Cong., 1st sess. (11 May 1932): 10031.
94Congressional Record, House, 72nd Cong., 1st sess. (13 May 1932): 10074.
95Congressional Record, House, 72nd Cong., 1st sess. (11 May 1932): 10030.
96As quoted in Charles Montgomery, “Becoming ‘Spanish-American’: Race and Rhetoric in New Mexico Politics, 1880–1928,” Journal of American Ethnic History 20, no. 4 (Summer 2001): 60.
97Carolyn Zeleny, Relations between Spanish-Americans and Anglo-Americans in New Mexico (New York: Arno Press, 1974; reprint of 1966 edition): 203–207; Ernest B. Fincher, Spanish Americans as a Political Factor in New Mexico, 1912–1950 (New York: Arno Press, 1974): 101–109.
98Charles Montgomery, “The Trap of Race and Memory: The Language of Spanish Civility on the Upper Rio Grande,” American Quarterly 52, no. 3 (September 2000): 490.
99Regarding the Republican voting base, see Jack E. Holmes, Politics in New Mexico (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1967): 148–153; Fincher, Spanish-Americans as a Political Factor in New Mexico: 101, 103.
100Holmes, Politics in New Mexico: 9; Montgomery, “The Trap of Race and Memory: The Language of Spanish Civility on the Upper Rio Grande”: 480–481.
101Phillip B. Gonzales, “The Political Construction of Latino Nomenclatures,” Journal of the Southwest 35, no. 2 (Summer 1993): 161. Regarding the new settlers, see Gerald D. Nash, “New Mexico in the Otero Era: Some Historical Perspectives,” New Mexico Historical Review 67, no. 1 (January 1992): 4. Regarding the changing definition of “Mexican,” see Montgomery, “The Trap of Race and Memory”: 491–493. See especially, Montgomery, “Becoming ‘Spanish-American’”: 59–84. Fincher describes the period from 1911 to 1930 as a “Republican-Democrat balance of power.” See Fincher, Spanish-Americans as a Political Factor in New Mexico: 101.
102As quoted in Paul F. Larrazolo, Octaviano A. Larrazolo (New York: Carlton Press, Inc., 1986): 76–77.
103Montgomery, “The Trap of Race and Memory”: 481, 488.
104Holmes, Politics in New Mexico: 227–231. There is still debate as to whether a “gentlemen’s agreement” existed from 1911 to the end of New Mexico’s nominating convention system in 1938. Political scientist Jack Holmes attempts to quantify convention nominations issued to nuevomexicano candidates for both the Democratic and Republican parties. More important, he has estimated the number of interparty matches that resulted in these nominations. Holmes surmises that out of the “thirteen state conventions of each party from 1911 through 1938, the Democrats allotted fifty-one nominations to candidates of Hispanic surname, and the Republicans, fifty-nine.… Just short of 63 percent of the fifty-nine Republican Hispanic nominations went to candidates for congress, secretary of state, auditor, and corporation commissioner; 75 percent of the fifty-one Democratic Hispanic nominations were for the same offices; and most of the occurrences of matching in the convention era are found in those nominations.” He also estimates that out of a possible “fifty-one matched or Hispanic versus Hispanic candidacies … a total of thirty-five matches did occur.”
105Juan Gómez-Quiñones, Roots of Chicano Politics, 1600–1940 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994): 331–333; For a detailed discussion of the effects of the Democratic-Republican realignment on the 1934 U.S. Senate race, see Holmes, Politics in New Mexico: 170–174.