Candidate ethnicity often influences voters’ choices in elections but the mechanisms underlying this correlation are not fully understood. The predominant explanation focuses on beliefs about distributional favoritism of co-ethnics by politicians. Other plausible causal mechanisms include a belief that co-ethnics are of higher quality, either more morally sound or competent, than those from other groups; and a belief that co-ethnic candidates are more accessible (and thus easier to monitor and sanction) than non co-ethnics because they are situated in shared social networks. We explore these mechanisms through a single profile conjoint experiment administered to 19,202 respondents in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia. The experiment randomized candidate attributes, including ethnicity, asking a series of questions that tap into the voters’ expectations of distributional favoritism, quality, and accessibility. Layered on the core experiment was a second randomization involving informational treatments about the MP's record aimed at unpacking types of information ethnicity signals. We find that voters strongly prefer co-ethnic candidates, but the reasons they do so go far beyond expectations of distributional favoritism. Voters also see co-ethnic candidates as more competent, moral, and accessible, although they do not seem to believe that accessibility translates into greater ability to sanction or hold candidates accountable.