Suchergebnisse

AbstractCharter schools enjoy support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers in states and Congress, but little research has examined their support among the electorate. We take advantage of Washington's 2012 charter school ballot initiative—the first voter-approved charter initiative in the United States—to shed light on the politics of school choice at the mass level. Because in-depth, individual-level voter data are often unavailable in state-level elections, we leverage extensive precinct- and district-level data to examine patterns of support and opposition toward the charter school initiative, focusing on how partisanship, ideology, and demographic factors serve to unify or divide voters. Our analysis reveals that the coalition of supporters cut across usual partisan and demographic cleavages, producing somewhat strange bedfellows. This finding has important implications for the strategies advocacy groups may consider as they seek to expand or limit school choice programs via ballot initiatives as opposed to the statehouse, and provides suggestive evidence regarding the evolving shapers of voter support for school choice and ballot initiatives more generally.

Despite the increased scholarship on sanctuary localities in the United States, there is little research analyzing the factors that lead to the adoption of sanctuary resolutions at the municipal level. Drawing on a new dataset of sanctuary and nonsanctuary cities, we theorize that policy adoption is driven primarily by two factors and their interaction: the size of the foreign-born population and local partisanship. We examine cities that passed sanctuary policies between 2000 and 2018 and compare these localities to nonsanctuaries. Using a novel time series cross-section dataset (TSCS) of all cities and designated places and a Cox proportional hazard model, we find that Democratic-leaning cities with high foreign-born populations predict sanctuary passage, whereas Republican-leaning cities with larger foreign-born populations are unlikely to adopt these policies. We thus find that while partisanship motivates sanctuary policy adoption, at the same time, the size of the foreign-born population also increases the likelihood of passage.

AbstractSignificant research indicates that attitude change is often a product of partisan learning. However, as the party system continues to rearrange around issues of race and immigration, and as new racial policy issues thrust onto the agenda, it is unclear whether voters learn to adopt racial policy attitudes more based on race/ethnicity or on party identification. We evaluate the partisan-learning model versus a racial-learning model with regards to public opinion on sanctuary cities/policies among survey respondents in CA and TX. Given President Trump's public antipathy toward sanctuary cities, we argue and show that negative partisanship is the most plausible vehicle for sanctuary city attitude change between 2015 and 2017. In this particular case, we find no support for a racial/ethnic-learning model.

Sanctuary city policies seek to protect undocumented community members from federal detention or deportation. Debates over sanctuary cities have become increasingly prominent and partisan in American politics. Republicans accuse sanctuary cities of enabling crime, while Democrats laud them for protecting communities from rights violations. Despite partisan salience, we have little information about peoples' substantive knowledge of sanctuary policies or how crucial that knowledge is in shaping partisan attitudes toward those policies. Drawing on a unique survey dataset of sanctuary attitudes, we demonstrate that an absence of political knowledge has asymmetrical effects on sanctuary attitudes along ideological and partisan lines. Knowledge about sanctuary policies increases support for sanctuary cities among liberals/Democrats, whereas conservatives/Republicans do not require substantive knowledge to align their attitudes on sanctuary cities with their ideological predispositions. This finding advances scholarship on the interplay between political knowledge and ideology, and has important immigration‐related policy and advocacy implications.Related Articles
Pearson‐Merkowitz, Shanna. 2012. "." Politics & Policy 40 (): 258‐295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00349.x

Pearson‐Merkowitz, Shanna. 2012. "." Politics & Policy 40 (): 258‐295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00349.x

Butz, Adam M, Jason E. Kehrberg. 2015. "." Politics & Policy 43 (): 256‐286. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12115

Turner, Robert C., William Sharry. 2012. "." Politics & Policy 40 (): 983‐1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00392.x

Traditional vote-choice models include variables such as party identification, assessments of the economy, as well as other demographic characteristics. We argue that variables that tap shared racial/ethnic identity or some such similar dimension can enhance Latino vote-choice models beyond the traditional model. We evaluate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's cross-racial mobilization of Latino voters during the 2012 Presidential election. Using a survey of several thousand Latino voters, we find that these candidates' policy stances vis-à-vis immigration and their ability to convey care and concern to the Latino community are important variables that guide Latino vote choice. Implications are discussed.

Abstract
Various polls suggest that Donald Trump has enjoyed the support of a sizable minority of the Latinx electorate despite his racially offensive rhetoric and support for some of the most restrictive immigration policies in recent memory. Building on Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory, we contend that some Latinxs harbor negative stereotypes about immigrants, blame them for the status devaluation of the Latinx community, and cognitively distinguish themselves from Latinx immigrants. Rather than viewing anti-immigrant policies, rhetoric, and politicians as a direct status threat, those exhibiting this "Latinx Immigrant Resentment (LIR)" may regard them as a means to enhance the status and interests of "prototypical" Latinxs by signaling their distinction from "atypical" Latinxs. To evaluate this theory, we use the 2020 American National Election Study (ANES) and 2016 Collaborative MultiRacial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) as a proof-of-concept to first confirm that negative immigrant stereotypes and cognitive intragroup distinctions are associated with increased support for Donald Trump and restrictive immigration policies. We then introduce a more refined measure of LIR by fielding online surveys of US Latinxs administered through Lucid in 2020–2021 (N = 1,164) and 2021/22 (N = 1,017). We demonstrate the validity of this measure and its predictive power for attitudes toward Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and restrictive immigration policies after accounting for a range of rival explanations.

Building upon existing literature, we offer a particular model of network policy diffusion—which we call sustained organizational influence. Sustained organizational influence necessitates an institutional focus across a broad range of issues and across a long period of time. Sustaining organizations are well‐financed, and exert their influence on legislators through benefits, shared ideological interests, and time‐saving opportunities. Sustaining organizations' centralized nature makes legislators' jobs easier by providing legislators with ready‐made model legislation. We argue that sustaining organizations uniquely contribute to policy diffusion in the U.S. states. We evaluate this model with a case study of state‐level immigration sanctuary policy making and the role that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) played in disseminating model legislation. Through quantitative text analysis and several negative binomial state‐level regression models, we demonstrate that ALEC has exerted an overwhelming influence on the introduction of anti‐sanctuary legislative proposals in the U.S. states over the past 7 years consistent with our particular model of network policy diffusion. Implications are discussed.

This article assesses the claim that sanctuary cities—defined as cities that expressly forbid city officials or police departments from inquiring into an individual's immigration status—are associated with post hoc increases in crime. We employ a causal inference matching strategy to compare similarly situated cities where key variables are the same across the cities except the sanctuary status of the city. We find no statistically discernible difference in violent crime, rape, or property crime rates across the cities. Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary. The potential benefits of sanctuary cities, such as better incorporation of the undocumented community and cooperation with police, thus have little cost for the cities in question in terms of crime.

Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals are motivated to support/oppose policies and politicians that benefit/harm members of their ingroup as a means of protecting their social status. Since the Republican Party's rhetoric against immigrants in recent decades has often been viewed as an assault upon those of Latinx descent, it is not surprising that strong majorities oppose restrictionist immigration policies and support the Democratic Party. However, the existing literature has overlooked why a sizeable minority of Latinx voters express support for restrictionist immigration policies and the politicians who espouse them. Our analysis of Latinx voters with the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Studies (ANES) demonstrates that the degree to which individuals prioritize their US American identity over their Latinx identity has a significant influence over support for conservative immigration policies and GOP candidates. This relationship emerges above and beyond partisanship, ideology, and other key explanatory factors. Such attitudes likely represent an individual social mobility strategy in which members of a social group attempt to "pass" as a member of a higher-status group. Prioritizing a US American identity, supporting the Republican Party, and expressing hostility toward the interests of undocumented immigrants are a means of distinguishing themselves from a social group that has become increasingly associated with negative stereotypes. In contrast, those who are unwilling or unable to make this transition are likely pursuing a collective social mobility strategy (e.g., linked fate) whereby they attempt to enhance their individual status by elevating that of the entire social group.

ObjectiveThis article examines the impact that reducing the distance to a voter's nearest ballot drop box has on turnout.MethodsThe placement of five new ballot drop boxes was randomized among six potential sites identified based on similar criteria. The randomization of the five boxes across the six sites created natural Treatment (those sites that received a new box) and Placebo (the site that did not receive a new box) groups. We then employed a difference‐in‐difference design to determine whether voters in the Treatment group were more likely to vote in the 2017 general election compared to those in the Placebo group.ResultsWe find that a decrease of one mile to the nearest drop box increased the probability of voting by 0.64 percent.ConclusionOur finding indicates that drop boxes have a positive effect on voter turnout and that decreasing the distance to these boxes can lead to an increased likelihood of voting.