Today’s Washington Post piece on Democratic candidate Bill Richardson’s efforts in Nevada is a fascinating read on a brave new election frontier – the former dusty backwaters of the Southwest and their Hispanic constituents. Richardson, the lone Hispanic presidential candidate, is eager to claim this frontier for himself, starting with the Nevada state caucus next January. But the article points out some obstacles to capturing the Hispanic vote, including that there is no Spanish equivalent for “caucus” and that party officials in Nevada are trying to “figure out terms they would use to explain the voting process.” But Democrats, at least, seem to be trying more in reaching Hispanics. Many Republican candidates, excepting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), appear to be generating resentment among Hispanics more than anything else with their tough stance on immigration.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has moved skillfully to ply the Hispanic base. Last week, for example, she picked Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) as co-chair of her presidential campaign and has won the endorsement of another prominent Hispanic office-holder, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL), trailing her in opinion surveys, has joined Clinton in pressing for family-friendly language in the ongoing congressional debate over an immigration reform package.

Another Democratic contender, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, is also backing modifications to the reform bill that are backed by immigrant groups. Dodd and Richardson, the only fluent Spanish speakers running for the presidency, also protested recently at calls by the Spanish-language broadcaster Univision to require the candidates to speak in English only in a debate planned for September. 

 Such eagerness would seem natural given the size of the growing Hispanic majority in the United States, currently at 15 percent, and indications Hispanics played a role in tipping the midterm elections in 2006 (Pew Hispanic Center). Democrats are seizing on the immigration debate to raise their appeal. Conversely, non-McCain Republicans have mostly condemned any moves to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants as “amnesty” and have focused on security measures in immigrations legislation, as this CFR Issue Tracker notes.

But Republicans would be wise to take a more pragmatic view of the immigration reform under debate, writes Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Clint Bolick wrote recently. He worries that Republicans, who have much in common with the large bloc of conservative, voting Hispanic-Americans, are going to lose their vote by showing “a face of hostility” on immigration.