scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Paul Brace

Bio: Paul Brace is an academic researcher from Rice University. The author has contributed to research in topics: State supreme court & Politics. The author has an hindex of 26, co-authored 58 publications receiving 3010 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul Brace include Vanderbilt University & New York University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article developed and rigorously tested specific measures of state-level opinion on tolerance, racial integration, abortion, religiosity, homosexuality, feminism, capital punishment, welfare, and the environment using the General Social Survey (GSS) disaggregated to the state level.
Abstract: General measures of ideology and partisanship derived from national survey data concatenated to the state level have been extremely important in understanding policy and political processes in the states. However, due to the lack of uniform survey data covering a broad array of survey questions, we know little about how specific state-level opinion relates to specific policies or processes. Using the General Social Survey (GSS) disaggregated to the state level, we develop and rigorously test specific measures of state-level opinion on tolerance, racial integration, abortion, religiosity, homosexuality, feminism, capital punishment, welfare, and the environment. To illustrate the utility of these measures, we compare the explanatory power of each to that of a general ideology measure. We use a simulation to clarify conditions under which a national sample frame can produce representative state samples. We offer these measures to advance the study of the role public opinion plays in state politics and policy. The public opinion-policy linkage is a crucial topic for democratic theorists and has preoccupied students of state government and politics for years. Without survey data at the state level, pioneering studies employed surrogates derived from demographic variables or simu? lations to judge the responsiveness of state policymaking to public prefer? ences (Plotnick and Winters 1985; Weber and Shaffer 1972). Some ingenious studies also explore the causes and consequences of public opinion using national survey data disaggregated to subnational units (Gibson 1989,1992,1995; Miller and Stokes 1963; Norrander 2000). Wright, Erikson, and Mclver's research (1985) significantly advanced our understanding of the state public opinion and policy linkage by pooling 1976 through 1988 CBS/New York Times polls and disaggregating them to the state level to create reliable, stable, and valid measures of state ideology and partisanship (Erikson, Wright, and Mclver 1993). A host of influential studies employ these measures (e.g., Hill and Hinton-Anderson 1995) to illustrate fundamental linkages between general mass political at? titudes and the general choices of state policy makers. Yet, they represent only a first step in gauging the effects of opinion on state policy. The gen? eral nature of the ideology measure developed by Erikson, Wright, and Mclver leaves open many remaining questions about how specific attitudes may influence specific political outcomes and processes in the states.

221 citations

Book
19 Oct 1993
TL;DR: A guide to presidents and the polls can be found in this paper, with a focus on popularity and being liked and being president. But it is not a good guide to foreign policy.
Abstract: Being liked and being president the new referendum actions and reactions activity, popularity and success in congress long views and short goals - popularity and American foreign policy the presidents in office broccoli and yellow ribbons a guide to presidents and the polls.

220 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, public support for capital punishment has no measurable effect on nonelective state supreme courts and judge willingness to uphold death sentences, while mass opinion and the institution of electing judges systematically influence court composition and judge behavior.
Abstract: Do state supreme courts act impartially or are they swayed by public opinion? Do judicial elections influence judge behavior? To date these questions have received little direct attention due to the absence of comparable public opinion data in states and obstacles to collecting data necessary for comprehensive analysis of state supreme court outcomes. Advances in measurement, data archiving, and methodology now allow for consideration of the link between public opinion and judicial outcomes in the American states. The analysis presented considers public opinion's influence on the composition of courts (indirect effects) and its influence on judge votes in capital punishment cases (direct effects). In elective state supreme courts, public support for capital punishment influences the ideological composition of those courts and judge willingness to uphold death sentences. Notably, public support for capital punishment has no measurable effect on nonelective state supreme courts. On the highly salient issue of the death penalty, mass opinion and the institution of electing judges systematically influence court composition and judge behavior.

216 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article developed a contextually based, party-adjusted surrogate judge ideology measure (PAJID) and subject this measure to an extensive array of validity tests, and showed that PAJID offers a valid, stable measure of judge preferences in state supreme courts that is demonstrably superior to party affiliation in analyses of judicial decision-making.
Abstract: The premise of this paper is that while the comparative study of courts can address some vitally important questions in judicial politics, these gains will not be secured without a valid and reliable measure of judge preferences that is comparable within and across courts. Party affiliation of judges is a commonly used but weak substitute that suffers from pronounced equivalence problems. We develop a contextually based, party-adjusted surrogate judge ideology measure (PAJID) and subject this measure to an extensive array of validity tests. We also consider the measure's stability in predicting judge behavior over the course of the judicial career. As the results illustrate, PAJID offers a valid, stable measure of judge preferences in state supreme courts that is demonstrably superior to party affiliation in analyses of judicial decision-making across areas of law and across 52 state high courts.

210 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore linkages between electoral politics and judicial voting behavior in the context of models that take into account personal, contextual, institutional, and case-related influences on courts.
Abstract: In this paper, we explore linkages between electoral politics and judicial voting behavior in the context of models that take into account personal, contextual, institutional, and case-related influences on courts. Using probit (ordered and binary), we examine the votes cast in death penalty decisions by supreme court justices in eight American states from 1983 through 1988 We anticipate and find evidence that institutional features are prominent in shaping the distribution of institutional preferences Fundamentally, justices have predispositions that are consistent with the states' electoral and ideological environments Moreover, these institutional arrangements subsequently enhance or restrict opportunities for individual members, once selected, to exhibit their predispositions Personal preferences notwithstanding, individual justices' support for the death penalty is affected by competitive electoral conditions and institutional arrangements that create linkages with the political environment Finally, ...

200 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine why people violate rationality and take part in their communities, differentiating by types of participation, particularly political versus other, more communal types of participations.
Abstract: This article examines why people violate rationality and take part in their communities, differentiating by types of participation, particularly political versus other, more communal types of participation. The authors argue that trust plays an important role in participation levels, but contrary to more traditional models, the causal relationship runs from trust to participation. In addition, the authors posit that trust is strongly affected by economic inequality. Using aggregated American state-level data for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the authors present a series of two-stage least squares models on the effects of inequality and trust on participation, controlling for other related factors. Findings indicate that inequality is the strongest determinant of trust and that trust has a greater effect on communal participation than on political participation.

691 citations

01 Jan 2004
TL;DR: Leithwood et al. as discussed by the authors presented a review of research on how leadership influences student learning, focusing on the role of the teacher in the student's learning process and the teacher's role as a role model.
Abstract: Kenneth Leithwood, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Walstrom. Review of Research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning. Published by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 2004. 87 pages. Both this report and an executive summary can be downloaded at www.wallacefoundation.org/WF/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/EducationLeadership/ HowLeadershipInfluencesStudentLearning.htm

609 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The rights of gays and lesbians lie at the heart of recent political conflict in the United States, perhaps even affecting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election as discussed by the authors, and significant controversy has arisen over the role of public opinion and how well opinion majorities are respected.
Abstract: The rights of gays and lesbians, as part of the socalled “culture wars,” lie at the heart of recent political conflict in the United States, perhaps even affecting the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Battles over gay rights have been fought most intensely at the subnational level—in legislatures, courtrooms, and direct democracy campaigns—yielding a complex policy mosaic. Some states have adopted numerous progay policies; others have few or none. What explains this variation? In particular, significant controversy has arisen over the role of public opinion and how well opinion majorities are respected. This evokes a basic tension in democratic theory. Functioning democracy requires some minimal matching of government choice to citizen preference. However, normative concerns quickly arise. Too little responsiveness calls democracy into question, whereas complete popular sovereignty raises the spectre of “tyranny of the majority.” This is particularly true for civil rights because minorities might be unable to rectify grievances through electoral processes. A strong relationship between public opinion and policy may suggest successful representative democracy, but still be troubling if it leads to fewer protections or rights for minorities. Struggles over minority rights have played a large role in U.S. history and are among the core conflicts in any diverse democracy. Such struggles have perhaps moved from race to sexual orientation, but basic

568 citations

01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The price of federalism is the complexity of the federal system as discussed by the authors, which results in governmental interconnections that are too complex, creates overlapping responsibilities, perpetuates social inequalities, and stifles economic growth.
Abstract: What is the price of federalism? Does it result in governmental interconnections that are too complex? Does it create overlapping responsibilities? Does it perpetuate social inequalities? Does it stifle economic growth? To answer these questions, Paul Peterson sets forth two theories of federalism: functional and legislative. Functional theory is optimistic. It says that each level of the federal system is well designed to carry out the tasks for which it is mainly responsible. State and local governments assume responsibility for their area's physical and social development; the national government cares for the needy and reduces economic inequities. Legislative theory, in contrast, is pessimistic: it says that national political leaders, responding to electoral pressures, misuse their power. They shift unpopular burdens to lower levels of government while spending national dollars on popular government programs for which they can claim credit. Both theories are used to explain different aspects of American federalism. Legislative theory explains why federal grants have never been used to equalize public services. Elected officials cannot easily justify to their constituents a vote to shift funds away from the geographic area they represent. The overall direction that American federalism has taken in recent years is better explained by functional theory. As the costs of transportation and communication have declined, labor and capital have become increasingly mobile, placing states and localities in greater competition with one another. State and local governments are responding to these changes by overlooking the needs of the poor, focusing instead on economic development. As a further consequence, older, big cities of the Rust Belt, inefficient in their operations and burdened by social responsibilities, are losing jobs and population to the suburban communities that surround them. Peterson recommends that the national government adopt policies that take into account the economic realities identified by functional theory. The national government should give states and localities responsibility for most transportation, education, crime control, and other basic governmental programs. Welfare, food stamps, the delivery of medical services, and other social policies should become the primary responsibility of the national government.

523 citations