Explore the vast range of titles available.

As partisanship strengthens in the United States, unaffiliated voter registration is also increasing. We conducted an original survey experiment to understand voter registration choices among registered voters in Florida and North Carolina, two states with substantial shares of unaffiliated registrants and persistent partisan polarization, but with differing primary participation rules. Institutionally, Florida holds closed primaries where only those registered with a political party may participate in the respective primary for that party. North Carolina holds semi-closed primaries that allow those not registered with a political party (i.e., unaffiliated registrants) to vote in party primary elections. The results of our experiment demonstrate that institutional context matters. Specifically, informing respondents of primary participation rules shapes voter registration recommendations. Among registrants who identify as independents, exposure to Florida’s closed primary rule causes them to be more likely to recommend party registration, whereas awareness of the semi-closed North Carolina primary rule makes independents and partisans more likely to advise unaffiliated registration. However, in the absence of information explaining rules for primary participation, respondents are more likely to suggest that their friend register in alignment with their own political identity. In summary, our study provides valuable insights into how registration choices are conditioned by political identities and exposure to treatments that emphasize political conditions and primary participation rules.

An inside look at why the Republican Party has come to dominate the rural American South Beginning with the Dixiecrat Revolt of 1948 and extending through the 2020 election cycle, political scientists M.V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee trace the process by which rural white southerners transformed from fiercely loyal Democrats to stalwart Republicans. While these rural white southerners were the slowest to affiliate with the Grand Old Party, they are now its staunchest supporters. This transition and the reasons for it are vital to understanding the current electoral landscape of the American South, including states like Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, all of which have the potential to exert enormous influence over national electoral outcomes. In this first book-length empirically based study focusing on rural southern voters, Hood and McKee examine their changing political behavior, arguing that their Democratic-to-Republican transition is both more recent and more durable than most political observers realize. By analyzing data collected from their own region-wide polling along with a variety of other carefully mined sources, the authors explain why the initial appeal of 1950s Republicanism to upscale white southerners in metropolitan settings took well over a half-century to yield to, and morph into, its culturally conservative variant now championed by rural residents. Hood and McKee contend that it is impossible to understand current American electoral politics without understanding the longer trajectory of voting behavior in rural America and they offer not only a framework but also the data necessary for doing so.

While the effects of legal and institutional arrangements on political participation are well documented, little attention has been given to the potential participatory effects of one of the United States' most important electoral laws: constitutionally mandated reapportionment. By severing the ties between constituents and their incumbents, we argue, redistricting raises information costs, leading to increased levels of nonvoting in U.S. House contests. Survey data from the 1992 American National Election Studies show that redrawn citizens are half as likely to know their incumbent's name as citizens who remain in a familiar incumbent's district and, consequently, significantly more likely to roll off, or abstain from voting in the House election after having cast a presidential vote. We also show that participation rates in the 2002-2006 House elections in Texas—each of which followed a redistricting—match these patterns, with roll-off increasing 3% to 8% in portions of the state that were redrawn, controlling for other factors. The findings demonstrate that scholars and policy makers ought to be concerned with the extent to which the redrawing of congressional lines affects citizens' exercise of political voice.

The marked increase in restrictive voter identification (ID) laws since the 2010 elections reveals the extreme partisan polarization in those state legislatures advancing this reform. Unlike previous studies that examine state-level factors expected to influence passage of restrictive voter ID bills, this study is the first to investigate the question using the state legislator as the unit of analysis. Multivariate analysis of the voting behavior of state legislators shows which kinds of district-level factors increase or decrease their likelihood of supporting stricter voter ID laws. Given the differentiable coalitions favoring Democratic and Republican candidates, certain partisan-aligned district demographics influence state lawmaker support for restrictive voter ID legislation. Race in particular is a major cleavage conditioning support for restrictive voter ID laws. Unlike the mixed findings generated by macro-level studies, this article provides convincing evidence that the size of the black district population negatively influences the likelihood that a Democratic legislator votes in favor of a restrictive voter ID bill, but positively affects the probability that a Republican lawmaker votes yes. The findings in this study illuminate the contextual factors that influence legislator voting on this salient election reform.

The drawing of congressional district lines can significantly reduce political participation in U.S. House elections, according to recent work. But such studies have failed to explain which citizens' voting rates are most susceptible to the dislocating effects of redistricting and whether the findings are generalizable to a variety of political contexts. Building on this nascent literature and work on back political participation, we show that redistricting's negative effects on participation—measured by voter roll-off in U.S. House elections—are generally strongest among African Americans, but that black voters can be mobilized when they are redrawn into a black representative's congressional district. Our findings, based on data from 11 postredistricting elections in five states from 1992 through 2006, both expand the empirical scope of previous work and suggest that redistricting plays a previously hidden role in affecting black participation in congressional contests.

In political science, urban politics is a well-established subfield. And more recently, suburban political behavior has received a fair amount of attention (Gainsborough 2001; 2005; McKee and Shaw 2003; Oliver 2001). But with a few exceptions (see Francia and Baumgartner 2005–2006; Gimpel and Karnes 2006), the political behavior of rural residents has been conspicuously absent thus far in a growing literature on the political role of place. This is quite surprising given the clamoring in the popular press about “red states” versus “blue states” in the most recent presidential contests. All of the post-presidential election maps that highlight red Republican counties and blue Democratic counties display a sea of red covering the vast swaths of rural, middle America. The ocean of Republican red is enough to make one ask: What's the Matter with Kansas? (Frank 2004)—one of those thinly populated plains states with hardly a glimmer of blue on a county-level map of the 2004 presidential election.

If the election of Donald Trump has proven anything indisputably, it is that the notion of America as a “postracial” society in the aftermath of the Obama presidency is a canard. Yet how should we understand the specific pattern of race’s persistent salience in US politics? In Deep Roots , Avidit Acharya, Matthew Blackwell, and Maya Sen argue that it is the long legacy of chattel slavery that continues to shape politics in the US South in distinctive fashion. Comparing regions that were once marked by slavery with those that were not, the authors develop the concept of “behavioral path dependence” to describe the production and reproduction of a political culture marked by intergenerational racial prejudice. They argue that this legacy continues to shape US politics today in a fashion that is both understandable and predictable with the tools of empirical political science. We asked several scholars with expertise on politics and race, US political development, and political behavior to address this controversial argument.

Objective. The proliferation of voter identification (ID) laws in the American states has spawned a growing literature examining their causes and effects. We move in a different direction, focusing on public opinion toward these laws. Methods. Drawing on a battery of questions in the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we explore why some respondents believe these laws prevent fraud while others believe they disadvantage political participation. Results. We find that partisanship shapes respondents’ attitudes about the effects of voter ID laws, but in different ways. Democrats, whose opinions vary according to ideology, education, attention to politics, and racial resentment, are divided. Republicans, however, are markedly more united in their support of voter ID laws. Conclusions. These differences, we argue, are consistent with an elite-to-mass message transmission reflecting the current context of polarized party politics and the variation in the voter coalitions comprising the Democratic and Republican parties.

We undertake a comprehensive examination of restrictive voter ID legislation in the American states from 2001 through 2012. With a dataset containing approximately one thousand introduced and nearly one hundred adopted voter ID laws, we evaluate the likelihood that a state legislature introduces a restrictive voter ID bill, as well as the likelihood that a state government adopts such a law. Voter ID laws have evolved from a valence issue into a partisan battle, where Republicans defend them as a safeguard against fraud while Democrats indict them as a mechanism of voter suppression. However, voter ID legislation is not uniform across the states; not all Republican-controlled legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voter ID laws. Instead, our findings show it is a combination of partisan control and the electoral context that drives enactment of such measures. While the prevalence of Republican lawmakers strongly and positively influences the adoption of voter ID laws in electorally competitive states, its effect is significantly weaker in electorally uncompetitive states. Republicans preside over an electoral coalition that is declining in size; where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.

Former president Trump made hundreds of candidate endorsements in the 2022 Republican primaries. The state of Georgia garnered outsized attention because it was ground zero for Trump’s false accusations of a stolen 2020 presidential election. Trump endorsed several candidates in Georgia’s May 2022 GOP primary contests, including candidates challenging Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, incumbents drawing Trump’s ire for upholding the 2020 outcome favoring Joe Biden. In a survey of likely Georgia GOP primary voters randomizing whether they are told which candidate Trump endorsed in five statewide races (governor, US Senate, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and insurance commissioner), our analysis shows substantial variability in the influence of Trump’s endorsement. With scant prior information in low-profile contests (e.g., insurance commissioner), the Trump endorsement has a substantial impact, whereas it is rendered ineffectual in the most high-profile race for governor. Thus, the findings demonstrate the remarkable variability of a Trump endorsement, which is primarily contingent upon the salience of a specific race.