8
action in Department of Transportation contracting (1). Thus, the two groups’ agendas appear
similar to only a limited degree. On the other hand, groups took the same position on each of the
4 votes, which was to oppose proposed reversals of existing policies. (In all 4 votes the outcome
in the House of Representatives was to reject the proposed changes; that is, the outcomes were
the ones preferred by the NHLA and NAACP.) But why there is little similarity on salience or
issue concerns, and what the absence of overlap on issues such as education and immigration
means is unclear. Are these signs of conflict, and possibly negotiation not to publicly air those
conflicts, independence, indifference, some of these, none of these? This suggests a complex
picture of group relations and political influence. Are these initial findings on salience and
congruence on congressional scorecards typical – for these and other groups; do they vary over
time? More germane for present purposes, what patterns of salience and congruence might
appear in other phases of policy making? Congressional testimony and attempts to influence
court decisions are appropriate avenues for pursuing these questions. Delineating the frequency
and the substantive policies or issue areas of the groups’ involvement – essentially, elaborating
on the meaning and variation of components of the dependent variable -- suggest ostensible
coalition(s) and networks and provide a starting point for understanding how ideology and
interests affect cooperation and/or other forms of inter-group relations.
Analysis
Do minority advocacy groups share the basic sets of issues, or find the same types of
policies salient, to their agendas? If so, to what extent do the salient issues spur cooperation,
competition, or non-cooperation between groups representing major minority constituencies?
These two questions guide the following empirical analysis which provides basic preliminary
Convention