In her book, Karen M. Kaufmann persuasively argues that context shapes the degree to which racial and ethnic factors structure voting in mayoral elections. While this may sound obvious, what is not obvious is determining which contextual factors matter and how they matter to urban voters. Her answer, in part, provides an explanation for how two quintessentially Democratic cities—Los Angeles and New York City—elected (and reelected) Republican mayors during the 1990s, a fact that alarmed local activists and intrigued both urban scholars and political pundits alike.

What makes this study important is the author's careful and skillful use of local electoral context as the lens through which to understand how race and ethnicity, partisanship, and ideology influence the outcomes of urban mayoral elections. Kaufmann's theory, which is informed by a number of different literatures and approaches, is straightforward: During periods of perceived group conflict, traditional voting cues, such as party and ideology, diminish in importance as primary determinants of the vote relative to salient racial- and ethnic-group considerations. The opposite occurs when conflict is absent: Party and ideology reassert themselves as primary voting cues, and racial- and ethnic-group considerations diminish in importance. The theory is tested by using an impressive array of individual-level data (something not often found in studies of urban politics) from Los Angeles and New York City mayoral elections going back to the mid-1960s.

Kaufmann argues, for example, that the Republican mayoral victories in New York City and Los Angeles in 1993, which caught so many by surprise, were actually quite predictable, resulting from the increased salience of racial and ethnic politics in these cities at that moment. In New York, David Dinkins's political career, a historic one given that he was the city's first African American mayor, was cut short by Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican and former federal prosecutor. At the time of the election, the city was struggling under the weight of a slowing economy, fears about rising crime rates, and broad concerns about the state of race relations in the city following several high-profile racial incidents during Dinkins's first and only term. In this context, salient group identities trumped party and ideology as the key determinant of the vote that removed Dinkins from power and inserted Giuliani. More specifically, the model accounts for why white Democrats and white ideological moderates broke ranks with their party to support the more conservative candidate.

A similar albeit less-compelling story played out in the 1993 Los Angeles election. Heightened racial tensions as a result of the 1992 Rodney King riots, a bad economy, and concern over immigration compelled over one-third of white Democrats to vote for the Republican Richard Riordan. But while ideology was the most important predictor of both white and black votes, attitudes regarding race were also significant for white voters, a finding that was particularly striking among moderate white Angelenos who made the difference in the election. Data and analyses from the 1993 election in both cities are supplemented with data and analyses of both preceding and succeeding elections, and strong empirical support is offered for Kaufmann's thesis, especially in the earlier elections. Thus, we see that Riordan's election in Los Angeles and Giuliani's election in New York City were not unpredictable, despite the significant numerical advantage Democrats have over Republicans in both places.

The study of urban electorates is one of the least-developed areas in the urban politics literature, making this an extremely welcome study. Previous research has perhaps paid too much attention to race and not enough attention to context. And previous work also has not incorporated time in the manner seen in this study. While the general political science community may not be all that impressed with a comparative case study of New York City and Los Angeles, despite the interesting differences between these two places with respect to political culture (machine versus reform) and governmental form (strong mayor versus weak mayor), and the over-time component, anybody who does research on urban elections understands the significant empirical contribution that is made here. The theoretical contribution, however, is even more significant given the complicated nature of urban politics. Kaufmann's ability to think through what urban politics is all about—essentially “who gets what” from government—and to relate that struggle to her model of vote choice in two very complicated political environments is especially noteworthy. The core complication, of course, stems from the presence of large, powerful, and active white, black, and Latino constituency groups with different interests, ideologies, and local histories.

The Urban Voter should appeal not only to scholars working in the urban politics subfield as it reinforces the unique and fascinating character of big-city politics, but also to those whose work is centered more generally in political behavior, racial and ethnic politics, and public opinion. And while the research design is methodologically sophisticated, the narrative and discussion of the empirical findings should appeal to nonquantitatively oriented scholars. In addition to being a very interesting read, this book demonstrates Kaufmann's real passion for the subject. (That, of course, is one reason it is so interesting.)

One might criticize this book on the grounds that it examines only two cities, both of which are somewhat unique. This, however, is an obvious and easy case to make. The difficult but all-too-necessary work ahead will be in constructing data sets necessary to the application of group theory to other cases. The payoff will be an improved understanding of the behavior of urban voters, an important goal given that what happens in urban America today happens nationally tomorrow.