Showing papers in "Political Research Quarterly in 2005"

Beliefs and Perceived Influence in a Natural Resource Conflict: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks:

Abstract: To what extent do stakeholders in a conflict over natural resources interact with actors of congruent policy core beliefs or with actors who have perceived influence? The response to this question is structured principally by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) using questionnaire and interview data collected from stakeholders involved in California Marine Protected Area policy. The findings indicate that shared beliefs are the best predictor for policy network relationships, supporting the ACF. Perceived influence, while less important than shared beliefs, is another significant predictor.

Why Do People Accept Public Policies They Oppose? Testing Legitimacy Theory with a Survey-Based Experiment

Abstract: The orthodox answer to the question posed in the title of this article is that the legitimacy of institutions has something to do with acquiescence to unwelcome public policy decisions. We investigate that conventional wisdom using an experiment embedded within a representative national sample in the United States. We test hypotheses concerning not only the effect of institutional legitimacy on acquiescence, but also the influence of partisanship, the rule of law, and simple instrumentalism on willingness to accept an objectionable policy decision. Our analyses reveal that legitimacy does matter for acquiescence, and that the Supreme Court is more effective at converting its legitimacy into acceptance than is Congress. Yet, many important puzzles emerge from the data (e.g., partisanship is not influential), so we conclude that Legitimacy Theory still requires much additional empirical inquiry.

Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and the Demand for Advocacy

Abstract: Using an agenda-setting approach, we show the interaction between the growth of groups and the growth of government. A pooled time-series analysis of more than 45,000 lobby registration reports from 1996 to 2000 and measures of government activity from the Policy Agendas Project indicates that groups become active in Washington, D.C., in large part because of pre-existing levels of government activity in the issue-areas that concern them. The growth in the range and number of activities of government has created incentives for organizations of all kinds to mobilize, whether they are supporters or opponents of new government programs. We find that levels of government attention in an issue-area explain the level of interest-group lobbying more consistently than does government spending or the number of business firms in that area. We conclude with a discussion of the need for theories of group mobilization to include attention to the demand-creating actions of government itself.

Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites

Abstract: While previous research indicates that voters hold gender-based stereotypes of women and men candidates for elected office, the degree to which candidate actions contribute to these views is less w...

Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens' Ambivalence about Gay Rights

Abstract: Recent research has recognized that many people simultaneously hold positive and negative attitudes about important political issues. In this article, we review the concept of attitudinal ambivalence and propose a survey-based measure of ambivalence adapted from the experimental literature. Extending our earlier work on abortion, analysis of a statewide telephone survey of Florida residents reveals that (1) many people have ambivalent attitudes about issues related to gay and lesbian rights; (2) the amount of ambivalence varies according to the specific rights in question (military service, gay marriage and adoption, membership in youth organizations such as Boy Scouts, and others); (3) ambivalence on gay rights is to some extent a function of conflict among citizens’ underlying core values; and (4) under certain circumstances, ambivalence appears to mediate the relationship between a person’s issue preferences with regard to gay rights and his or her evaluation of political leaders and institutions.

The Rise of Partisanship and the Expansion of Partisan Conflict within the American Electorate

Abstract: Recent research has outlined important changes in partisanship among political elites in the United States. Specifically, the effect of partisanship on politicians’ vote choice and other political behavior has risen, and the number of issue areas where partisan conflict is present has increased. This article examines whether similar changes have taken place among the general electorate. Using data from the NES Cumulative Datafile, the findings presented here do point to changes in partisanship among the mass public. Once thought to be in decline, mass partisanship has rebounded significantly in recent years. In a related development that is perhaps more important, partisanship has become more pervasive within the electorate, with partisan conflict now penetrating into a greater number of issue areas. Partisanship has become relevant in the areas of racial and cultural issues while retaining its importance for issues involving economic equality.

Racial/Ethnic Group Attitudes Toward Environmental Protection in California: Is “Environmentalism” Still a White Phenomenon?

Abstract: One view of minority opinion on environmental issues suggests that minority voters are focused on less esoteric concerns such as education, jobs, and crime. An alternative argument is that minoriti...

The Cambridge School and Leo Strauss: Texts and Context of American Political Science

Abstract: Over the past quarter century, the Cambridge School of Intellectual History has had a profound influence on the study of political theory in the U.S. The scholarship of historians such as John Dunn, Quentin Skinner, and John Pocock has almost single-handedly defined the terms with which political scientists understand early modern thought, and consequently liberalism and its alternatives. In this essay I analyze Quentin Skinner's “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas” as the seminal argument for the Cambridge School's interpretive strategy. In particular, I note the degree to which Skinner attacked the scholarship of Leo Strauss in order to establish the Cambridge approach. Contrary to Skinner, I argue Strauss too has a concern for genuine historical understanding. I conclude with a re-reading of Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing in order to show that Strauss' interpretive strategy ultimately comes much closer to the “historicity” claimed by Skinner and others.

When Primary Campaigns Go Negative: The Determinants of Campaign Negativity

Abstract: Standard investigations of both campaign negativity and primary elections focus on either the electoral institutions or the primary voters. In this article, we begin to explore the factors affecting the content of the information environment voters face by examining the effects of timing and electoral context on which primary races are likely to become negative and when. Using a content analysis of newspaper coverage of every contested Senate primary in 1998, and binary time-series cross-sectional methods, we demonstrate that negativity is an interdependent function of the timing of the race, the status of the Senate seat, and the number and quality of the challengers in the primary.

Elite Cues and Citizen Disagreement with Expert Opinion

Abstract: Though scholars have long been concerned about the quality of citizens’ political decision making, we still know little about why citizens disagree with the best-informed opinion in society, that of public policy experts. In this article, I examine the factors that lead citizens to disagree with expert opinion on questions of public policy. I find that both elite cues and individual-level attributes of citizens lead individuals to disagree with experts. In contrast to the expectations of many recent studies of cue taking, I find that citizens are more likely to disagree with expert opinion when political elites they favor challenge this opinion. Citizens also disagree with experts as a consequence of low levels of knowledge, existing policy preferences, and life experiences. The study’s results challenge the optimistic conclusions of many recent studies of cue taking and argue that there is significant value in the conventional wisdom that preceded these studies. Elite cues are not a consistent means to e...

Beyond the Roll-Call Arena: The Determinants of Position Taking in Congress:

Abstract: Most analyses of position taking in Congress focus on roll-call voting, where members of Congress (MCs) regularly cast votes, thereby regularly taking positions. Left largely unstudied has been position taking beyond the domain of rollcall voting. However, analyzing non-roll-call position taking raises interesting theoretical questions. Whereas most members cannot avoid taking positions (casting votes) on roll calls, outside the roll-call arena MCs have more discretion; they must decide whether or not to take a position at all. And, while roll-call voting is directly tied to policy consequences, the connection is weaker in non-roll-call position taking. These two distinguishing features of non-roll-call position taking motivate a variety of hypotheses about who takes positions and what positions they take. Our results reveal strong constituency links to both phenomena. The results also imply that party influence is greater on roll-call position taking. We interpret these findings in the context of leading...

Latino Immigrants at the Polls: Foreign-born Voter Turnout in the 2002 Election

Abstract: Research on voting and elections has generally found that Latino foreign-born citizens turnout to vote at lower rates than native-born Latinos as well as non-Latinos. Primarily as the result of lower levels of education, income, and English language skills, immigrant voters have demonstrated low levels of political participation. In addition, naturalized Latinos are rarely, if ever, the target of voter mobilization drives, further decreasing their likelihood to turnout. However, with extensive mobilization drives targeting naturalized voters in California in 2002, and low levels of political interest among the general electorate, higher rates of turnout among the foreign-born are anticipated. Probit models predicting turnout are explored here and the results reveal that in California in 2002, for the first time, Latino immigrant voters were significantly more likely to vote than were the native-born Latinos.

Presidents and the Economic Agenda

Abstract: The president’s ability to influence the national policy agenda is an important component of presidential power. Although some maintain that presidents are favorably situated to set agendas, others demonstrate that the president’s agenda-setting skills vary considerably by policy area. What is more, scholars have yet to examine the impact presidents have had focusing attention on the economy, an issue of vital importance to their political success. Extending previous research on presidential agenda setting that did not address economic policy (Edwards and Wood 1999; Wood and Peake 1998), we test the impact that the president’s public statements on the economy have on media and congressional attention to the economy. Using Vector Autoregression (VAR), we demonstrate that although presidents have some influence over the economic agenda, presidents are primarily responsive to media coverage of the economy.

The Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups: Explaining Patterns of PAC Contributions to Candidates for Congress:

Abstract: Interest groups are policy maximizers, while political parties are focused on maximizing the number of seats they win in Congress. These competing goals have important implications for the relation...

Religion and Latino Partisanship in the United States

Abstract: This article examines the interplay among religion, ethnicity, and the partisanship of Latinos in the U.S. Using pooled data from the 1990-2000 National Election Studies, we assess denominational affiliation and religious commitment as explanations of partisanship. We show that there is more religious diversity among Latinos than is usually acknowledged in studies of Latino politics and that the political importance of religion among Latinos has not been adequately assessed because variation beyond a Catholic/non-Catholic dichotomy has been ignored. We demonstrate that variation in Latino religious affiliation has important political implications.

A Natural Experiment of Race-Based and Issue Voting: The 2001 City of Los Angeles Elections:

Abstract: The theory of racially polarized voting suggests that race is a primary determinant of vote choice in elections where a minority candidate is pitted against a white candidate. The spatial model of voting suggests that voters consider the issue positions of candidates and choose the candidate closest to their own positions. The unique context of the 2001 Los Angeles city election allows us to test these two theories. In each of two races in this election, a Latino candidate competed against a white candidate. In one race the white candidate was considered more liberal, while in the other race the Latino candidate was seen as more liberal. This particular ethnic and ideological composition provides us with a natural experimenting which to test the two competing theories. While voter ethnicity mattered, we show that consistent with the spatial model, voters also relied on issues and ideology as factors in their voting choices. By considering the choices voters are making in two different elections, we argue ...

The Politics of Presidential Agendas

Abstract: Past research holds that if presidents are to increase their success in Congress, they must set the policy agenda in their favor. But what determines the propensity of presidents to propose or supp...

Bias in Newspaper Photograph Selection

Abstract: Previous research has shown that visual images of political candidates can influence voter perceptions. This study examines newspaper photographs of candidates to determine whether the favorableness of these pictures is related to the “political atmosphere” of individual newspapers. In particular, we examine 435 candidate photographs from several races covered by seven newspapers during the 1998 and 2002 general election seasons. Based on our analysis, we conclude that candidates endorsed by a particular newspaper—or whose political leanings match the political atmosphere of a given paper—generally have more favorable photographs of them published than their opponents.

Political Legitimacy and Participation in Costa Rica: Evidence of Arena Shopping

Abstract: Considerable research has failed to establish a link between political legitimacy and system breakdown. This does not mean, however, that researchers should abandon the concept of legitimacy altoge...

Sources of Variation in the Frequency of Statewide Initiatives: The Role of Interest Group Populations:

Abstract: In this article I study the factors that determine the number of initiatives that appear on statewide ballots, with an emphasis on the characteristics of state interest group populations. In particular, I test whether the size of state citizen or economic group populations influences the frequency of initiative use. The relationship between these two categories of groups and initiative use is important in light of recent claims that the initiative process no longer benefits citizen groups and is now dominated by economic interests. In addition, I consider the role of other factors, including initiative regulations, state political characteristics, state economic performance and state demographic characteristics. My results indicate that states with more citizen groups have more initiatives overall and in specific issue areas and that the number of economic groups has a negative or negligible effect.

Gubernatorial Coattail Effects in State Legislative Elections

Abstract: This work explores the influence of gubernatorial coattails in state legislative elections. Through a district-level analysis conducted in nine states, I measure how party support for the governor affects the percentage of the vote received by candidates running for the legislature. Findings indicate that gubernatorial coattails do influence candidate vote margins, even when factors such as campaign spending, past party performance, and other district-level conditions are controlled. However, the magnitude of this effect is mitigated by candidacy status and the closeness of the gubernatorial election. Specifically, coattail effects are dampened by the presence of an incumbent, while their influence is enhanced in states with competitive gubernatorial elections.

The Supreme Court and Opinion Content: The Use of the Federalist Papers

Abstract: Many scholars of the Supreme Court and many justices assert the importance of the Federalist Papers. They provide important evidence of original meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and there is evidence that there is an increase in citations to the Federalist Papers in Supreme Court opinions. While some may view this increased citation use as a positive development because it demonstrates reliance on legal authority in judicial decisions, we provide evidence that in a period marked by dissensus and controversy, the use of the Federalist Papers represents externally and internally oriented strategic attempts by the justices to add legitimacy to constitutional interpretation, and to sway colleagues. We use a combination of descriptive and multivariate techniques to examine Federalist citations from 1953 to 1995 to demonstrate our interpretation.

Bill Sponsorship and Congressional Support for Policy Proposals, from Introduction to Enactment or Disappearance:

Abstract: Research on policy change tends to focus on legislative successes (bills that are enacted), policies that are especially important or controversial, and the final stages of the policy process. This...

The Impact of Political Advertising in the 2001 U.K. General Election

Abstract: This article explores the extent to which advocacy and attack Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) affected voters' party preferences during the British general election campaign of 2001. The analysis uses an experimental design that involved conducting "media exposure" tests on a representative sample of Greater London voters (N = 919) during the final weeks of the June 2001 election campaign. Respondents completed a pre-test questionnaire before being exposed to a variety of different media stimuli. Their political attitudes were then measured again in a post-test questionnaire. The empirical findings suggest that, in general, PEBs exerted little direct effect on voters' images of the main political parties in 2001. However, there were a series of "partial" exposure effects confined to particular sub-groups of voters. For example, for non-partisan voters, "attack" advertising appears to have been less effective than "advocacy" advertising. Indeed, in the U.K. in 2001 there were contexts in which negative campaigning was explicitly counter-productive in the sense that it appears to have actively stimulated sympathy for the target of the attack rather than strengthened the relative position of the sponsor. In recent years scholars and practitioners have turned increasing attention towards understanding the impact of political advertising. One aspect of the debate has revolved around the issue of how far there are significant electoral rewards from either "advocacy" broadcasts, which offer a positive vision of the advertised party, or "attack" broadcasts which concentrate on criticising the opposition. In this article, we explore the extent to which advocacy and attack Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs) affected voters' party preferences during the British general election campaign of 2001. Our analysis uses an experimental design that involved conducting media exposure tests on a representative sample of Greater London voters (N = 919) during the final weeks of the June 2001 election campaign. Respondents completed a pre-test questionnaire before being exposed to a variety of different media stimuli. Their political attitudes were then measured again in a post-test questionnaire. Our empirical findings suggest that, in general, PEBs exerted little direct effect on voters' images of the main political parties in 2001. However, there were a series of partial exposure effects confined to particular sub-groups of voters. For example, for non-partisan voters, attack advertising appears to have been less effective than advocacy advertising. Indeed, in the U.K. in 2001 there were contexts in which negative campaigning was explicitly counter-productive in the sense that it appears to have actively stimulated sympathy for the target of the attack rather than strengthening the relative position of the sponsor. Part one of this article outlines the theoretical debates and rationales that state the specific hypotheses that we test. Part two describes the experimental design that we used in order to generate the data to test these hypotheses, together with our operational measures. Part three reports our empirical findings. THE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND An extensive literature has sought to assess the effectiveness of television-based campaign advertising in American elections (Pfau and Kinski 1990; Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1995; Lau and Sigelman, 2000; West 2001; Thurber 2000; Lau and Pomper 2002). In Britain, many studies have described the evolution and character of campaign communications (see, for example, Scammell 1995; Seymore-Ure 1996; Butler and Kavanagh 2001) and the impact of news media coverage upon electoral behavior (Miller 1991; Norris et al. 1999). A smaller body of work has focused on trends in the format and contents of party election broadcasts (see Scammell and Semetko 1995; Harrison 2001). In particular, content analysis by Hodess, Tedesco, and Kaid (2000) noted a tendency towards increased negativity evident in PEB aired during the 1997 campaign, compared with 1992. …

Generational Cohorts, Group Membership, and Political Participation by People with Disabilities

Abstract: In this investigation, we offer a quite comprehensive examination of political participation among people with disabilities-a large and growing segment of the U.S. population. In the 2000 census, nearly 50 million people identified themselves as living with a disability. Using national household survey data from 1998 and 2000, we find that senior citizens with disabilities have significantly lower levels of political participation than their non-disabled counterparts. In contrast, younger people with disabilities have levels similar to (or higher than) those of their non-disabled peers. In addition, seniors with disabilities are less likely than younger people with disabilities to attend disability groups or engage in disability activism. Finally, we find that increases in group involvement are strongly linked to increases in political participation, indicating that the lower group involvement of seniors with disabilities may account for at least some of their lower political participation. While scholars have demonstrated the importance of generational differences in understanding the political participation of the general electorate (Miller and Shanks 1996, Putnam 2000), there has been little attention paid to generational changes among people with disabilities, even though this could help account for their lower average participation. The few existing studies examining political participation among people with disabilities suggest that even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors, people with disabilities have lower levels of political participation than have non-disabled citizens. In particular, voting rates among people with disabilities are 14-21 percentage points lower than that of non-disabled Americans, with especially low turnout among senior citizens with disabilities (Shields, Schriner, and Schriner 1998; Schur and Kruse 2000; Schur et al. 2002). In general, there are three hypotheses accounting for the relationship between age and political participation. The life-experience hypothesis suggests that as people age, they acquire resources and have learning experiences promoting active community involvement (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993: 139). The life-cycle hypothesis contends that young citizens are less likely to become active in political life because they lack the community involvement necessary to believe that politics and community are important arenas. In addition, the life-cycle hypothesis suggests that there will be a gradual decrease of political and social involvement among the most elderly citizens as physical limitations begin to increase and intensify (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993: 139). Finally, the generational hypothesis suggests that socializing experiences influence each generation differently, which alters life-long patterns of political participation. These socializing experiences have led senior cohorts to have high levels of involvement (relative to younger generations) because of the political socialization they experienced before and after WWlI-rendering them part of the 'long civic generation' (Putnam 2000: 254; Miller and Shanks 1996). Regardless, there are reasons to expect these relationships to be substantially different among people with disabilities who have experienced dramatic differences in their treatment across generational cohorts (French and Swain 1996). Senior cohorts who grew up with disabilities experienced prejudice and discrimination that explicitly barred them from civic engagement and community affairs (Shapiro 1993; Hahn 1985). Discrimination was evidenced by segregation from public schools, inaccessible buildings, and neglect from political leaders. Even individuals who grew up without disabilities had their views of disability shaped in this environment. Younger individuals with disabilities, while still experiencing discrimination, have also witnessed a growing disability rights movement, the passage of the ADA, and incremental improvement in laws and policies providing greater integration into mainstream society. …

The Political Economy of Simultaneous Transitions: An Empirical Test of Two Models

Abstract: During periods of strained economic circumstances, voters who are most hurt by their government’s policies will punish elected officials by removing them from office and replacing them with ones more likely to enact policies sympathetic to the voters’ plight. Because the benefits of economic reforms are dispersed while the costs are concentrated, disadvantaged voters are likely to be effective in undermining economic reform efforts by destabilizing their government under democratic regimes. The alternative view holds that economic reforms generate a pattern of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, which enables the groups most favored by the reform to capture the government and freeze the reform programs in a state most beneficial to them. Despite many case-studies and statistical analyses of related questions, there has been no attempt to construct a statistical test that will examine the hypotheses generated by the two different models directly. This article bridges this gap and addresses several questions: Are the losers from economic reforms threatening to the progress of these reforms? Does their influence vary across countries? What are the policy implications that we can derive from the results? Can a democracy sustain socially costly economic reforms? The results from the statistical analysis of 25 former communist countries are strong, internally consistent, and startling: democracies do universally better than nondemocracies when unemployment is low; when unemployment is high, democracies do as well as nondemocracies in short-term reforms, but consistently outperform nondemocracies in long-term reforms. Government stability has no impact on the performance of democracies, but has a weak beneficial impact on the performance of nondemocracies. As a whole, the results provide strong support for the view that losers from reform do not endanger the success of reforms, and that it is possible (and probably necessary) to create democratic institutions for these reforms to succeed. These results have special relevance in theorizing about simultaneous political and economic transitions in former communist countries. Traditionally, it is assumed that building and maintaining a stable democratic regime require an advanced capitalist society. The problem in former communist states is especially acute because their governments are conducting a transition from command to market economy while building democratic norms and institutions at the same time. Depending on which of the two theoretical views about the pattern of gains and losses is correct, one would prescribe diametrically opposed policies. In the first case, one would seek to isolate the government from the pressure of reform losers to enable it to conduct economic policies that hurt a substantial segment of voters. In the other case, one would attempt to open the government to voter pressure and minimize the influence of reform winners.

“Lien On Me”: State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism:

Abstract: Within the current context of state governments searching for roles in the response to terrorism, we explore the nature of state policy response to recent domestic threats to government operations. We employ a general model of state diffusion of innovative policies in an effort to understand state adoption of laws against the use of frivolous liens. The use of such liens by right-wing Patriot groups grew in the 1990s, leading us to focus on key issues related to policy diffusion—the extent of the problem or threat, and the characteristics of regional response. To test specific hypotheses we use Event History Analysis on a state-level dataset from 1995 to 1999. Our results suggest that state adoption of lien laws is mostly driven by regional forces, including the regional threat posed by Patriot groups and the adoption of lien laws by other states in the region, rather than national forces or factors internal to a state. We conclude that previous research has been too limited in its conceptualization of re...

Who Evaluates a Presidential Candidate by Using Non-Policy Campaign Messages?

Abstract: This article tests the hypothesis that low-education voters are more likely to evaluate a candidate using personalistic or non-policy campaign messages than are more educated voters. The Latino ele...

Congress Opens the Courthouse Doors: Statutory Changes to Judicial Review Under the Clean Air Act:

Abstract: Intervention by the federal courts in regulatory policymaking has increased markedly, in both quantity and level of intrusiveness, over the last 40 years. Scholarly commentators have concluded that this level of intervention is not appropriate. This suggests a question: Why are the courts so involved in regulatory policymaking? This article answers that question by examining congressional motivation to increase the rights of interested parties to take their policy battles into court. By analyzing three sets of amendment to the Clean Air Act, I show that members of Congress strategically manipulate statutory rules governing the role of courts in regulatory policymaking to help their political supporters and to advance their own policy goals. Thus, a primary explanation of the increased role of the judiciary in regulatory policymaking is that this increase has served the goals of members of Congress. Judicial interference in regulatory policymaking has expanded enormously over the last 40 years, and federal judges have been criticized by political scientists, academic lawyers, and politicians for overstepping their institutional roles (clayton 1995). Scholarly critics have condemned the courts for frustrating agencies' attempts to make sound policy (Horowitz 1977; Mashaw and Harfst 1990; and Melnick 1983), and for undermining democratic control of policy (Rabkin 1989). An influential analysis of the courts' growing role in policymaking (Stewart 1975) characterized and criticized the expansion as the evolution of courts into substitute or supplementary forums for the assertion of political interests instead of legal rights. All these critics lay the blame for growth of judicial policymaking primarily at the feet of judges who have moved beyond their legitimate roles.1 However, this explanation overlooks the role that Congress has played in this process. The thesis of this article is that Congress has pushed the transformation of administrative law by giving more people more rights to take their policy disputes into court, and has done so for political reasons. Congress has the authority to specify who can challenge an agency in court, which court has jurisdiction over the case, how much time a litigant has in which to file a lawsuit, what types of evidence are admissible, and other parameters of judicial action.2 Through these parameters of judicial review, Congress can set the level and character of the judicial role in national policymaking.3 The right to go to court is a political resource, and the setting of these parameters of judicial review is a political process. This paper examines a cornerstone of environmental policy, the Clean Air Act, to illustrate congressional manipulation of judicial review provisions. Environmental policy is well-suited to this task for several reasons. First, it is an area in which extensive judicial intrusion into policymaking has been especially well noted (Melnick 1983). second, the two opposing coalitions on environmental policy are relatively clear-cut and cohesive. The objects of environmental regulation (those businesses and industries whose activities are limited by regulatory statutes), allied with anti-regulatory politicians, seek to reduce the impact of environmental regulation on the economy. The intended beneficiaries of regulation (the general public and, more specifically, environmental interest groups) allied with pro-regulatory politicians, support policies that will reduce pollution and clean up the environment. These two categories, objects and beneficiaries of regulation, overlap significantly with the constituent groups of the Republican and Democratic parties (Shipan and Lowry 2001). This study makes several important theoretical points. First, members of Congress lake an interest in these parameters of judicial review. In each of the three sets of amendments to the Clean Air Act, judicial review provisions were controversial and members of Congress focused attention on even the details of judicial review. …

Competing Constraints: State Court Responses to Supreme Court Decisions and Legislation on Wages and Hours:

Abstract: This article examines state supreme court implementation of Supreme Court precedent when deciding cases challenging state legislation. While previous research provides a wealth of insight into how state contextual and institutional features constrain state court decisionmaking and how lower courts respond to Supreme Court precedent, very little research explicitly examines state court decisionmaking when both constraints are present. By integrating the findings of previous research, I develop and test hypotheses about the effect of these different actors on state court decisionmaking. The results show that state courts are indeed constrained by both state and federal actors. The results also suggest that there may be instances where policies are so salient to both state actors and to the U.S. Supreme Court that the influence of the state court’s own policy preferences may be minimal. The findings provide important evidence about the importance of competing constraints on state supreme court decisionmaking.