Jonathan Winburn

The Gerrymanderers Are Coming! Legislative Redistricting Won't Affect Competition or Polarization Much, No Matter Who Does It

Redistricting received substantial attention in the popular media in 2011, as states redrew state legislative and congressional district boundaries. Many reformers continue to argue for a de-politicization of the redistricting process, claiming that partisan redistricting is responsible for declining electoral competition and increasing legislative polarization. Our analysis of evidence from state legislatures during the last decade suggests that the effects of partisan redistricting on competition and polarization are small, considerably more nuanced than reformers would suggest, and overwhelmed by other aspects of the political environment.

Representation in U.S. Legislatures: The Acquisition and Analysis of U.S. State Legislative Roll-Call Data

Roll-call data have become a staple of contemporary scholarship on legislative behavior. Recent methodological innovations in the analysis of roll-call data have produced a number of important theoretical insights, such as understanding the structure of congressional decisionmaking and the role of parties and ideology in Congress. Many of the methodological innovations and theoretical questions sparked by congressional scholarship have been difficult to test at the state level because of the lack of comprehensive data on various forms of state legislative behavior, including roll-call voting. The Representation in Americas Legislatures project rectifies that problem through collection of comprehensive state legislative roll-call votes across all 99 state legislative chambers for the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 legislative sessions. In this article, we describe the data available through this project as well as our data acquisition procedures, including Stata and Perl programming and OCR of paper documents, with suggestions about how to use these methods to collect a wide range of state-level data.

Carving Voters Out: Redistricting’s Influence on Political Information, Turnout, and Voting Behavior

This article examines how the splitting of counties into multiple congressional districts affects citizens’ abilities to recall House candidates, turnout, roll off their congressional vote, and cast straight-ticket ballots. We demonstrate that while voters living in the “short end of the split” are less likely to recall their House candidates, they do behave similarly at the ballot box to voters drawn into districts containing their natural community of interest. Our results suggest the Supreme Court’s traditional focus on population equality across congressional districts might be more appropriately administered in concert with respect for natural communities of interest such as counties.

Media coverage and issue visibility: State legislative responses to school bullying

Abstract Dealing with the schoolyard bully is an age-old problem; however, legislators have only recently tackled it at the state level. This study examines the adoption of anti-bullying policies from the policy diffusion and innovation perspective with an emphasis on the role of print media coverage. The study contributes to the policy diffusion literature by examining both national and local media coverage as conduits for diffusion and adds to the expanding views of the diffusion process beyond the traditional geographic proximity argument. Further, it provides the first examination of an emerging policy area important to education policy scholars. The findings show issue saliency via national media coverage drives policy adoption beyond any geographic proximity.

The Significance of Race and Geography on Legislative Behavior: Exploring the Legislative Agenda in Post-Katrina Louisiana

Hurricane Katrina dramatically altered the political landscape in Louisiana, and a clear racial gap in public opinion formed regarding the governmental response to the storms. Using data from the 2005 and 2006 legislative sessions, the authors examine the changes in the legislative agenda in response to Hurricane Katrina with a focus on the role of race and district geography on these changes. They find an important influence for both district location and race on the post-Katrina agenda of disaster relief and Black-interest legislation. This article provides a look at what factors influence the introduction of a new issue to the policy agenda and highlights how a new issue can bring more attention to previously existing ones.

Rethinking the Normal Vote, the Personal Vote, and the Impact of Legislative Professionalism in U.S. State Legislative Elections

Legislators might rely on their partisan base for electoral support—what scholars call their normal vote—or they may cultivate support among nonpartisans through casework or constituency service—what scholars call a personal vote. Previous research frequently argues that legislators face a tradeoff between pursuing the normal vote and a personal vote as traditionally defined, often focusing on resources used by incumbents to build their personal vote. In contrast, we argue that securing the support of partisans and nonpartisans alike should be evaluated based on how a legislator performs in office, and that the so-called normal and personal vote need not be viewed as in conflict. We evaluate our claims using data from state legislative elections following redistricting, focusing on legislative professionalism to measure the resources available to incumbents that they might use to cultivate a personal note.

From the Constituent’s Eye Experimental Evidence on the District Selection Preferences of Individuals

States have increasingly taken the process of redistricting out of the hands of elected legislators and placed it with the public. The shift is in part driven by a concern that legislators are motivated to partition districts to advantage their own and their political party’s electoral prospects, whereas citizens are not. We know little, however, about the preferences of the public when it comes to redistricting. One party-based argument is that individuals should prefer to share a district with as many like-minded partisans as possible to maximize their legislative representation, whereas other arguments suggest that nonpartisan factors, such as sharing a district with their community, may be more important. Using a novel experimental design, we find that for most participants, the draw to share a district with copartisans is stronger than a preference for preserving a community (county) within the district even when participants are specifically instructed to attend to local jurisdictional boundaries.

A Review of “Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America”

Aldrich, John H. and David W. Rohde. 2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government.” In Congress Reconsidered, 7th ed., eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, pp. 269–92. Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Part Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Krehbiel, Keith. 1997. “Restrictive Rules Reconsidered.” American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 919–944. . 1999. “Paradoxes of Parties in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(1): 31–64. . 2000. “Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 212–27. Krehbiel, Keith, and Alan Wiseman. 2001. “Joseph G. Cannon: Majoritarian from Illinois.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (3): 357–89. Parker, David C.W. 2008. The Power of Money in Congressional Campaigns, 1880–2006. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.