Kathleen Hale

Citizen–Government Interaction and the Internet: Expectations and Accomplishments in Contact, Quality, and Trust

ABSTRACT In addition to improving efficiency and transparency of government services, e-government may increase the frequency of interaction between citizens and government as well as improve perceptions of quality and trust in government more broadly. Analyses of citizen-initiated contact with government using Pew Internet and American Life Project survey data indicate that e-government has motivated citizen-initiated contact with government among some demographic groups and magnified existing gaps for others. Online citizen-initiated contact improves the quality of interactions with government; however, the findings here do not support the argument that e-government increases trust among its users. Findings are consistent with the goals of the American government in adopting and promoting e-government.

E-disclosure laws and electronic campaign finance reform: Lessons from the diffusion of e-government policies in the States

Abstract This study presents a first look at the diffusion of electronic campaign finance laws, or e-disclosure policies, across the 50 states. Fifty state data and multivariate regression analysis test the influence of state professional networks and interest groups on the extent of e-disclosure implementation across the states. Findings demonstrate that certian types of interest groups are influential in expanding or retarding the growth of e-disclosure policies when controlling for other factors. Findings also demonstrate that greater levels of legislative professionalism, education, and state resources support greater levels of implementation of e-disclosure policies. Greater levels of state infrastructure capacity for e-government are also significant predictor of more extensive e-disclosure implementation. Findings have implications for emerging research at the intersection of technology and democracy.

Technology, politics, and e-commerce: Internet sales tax and interstate cooperation

Abstract Since the advent of the internet, state governments have been challenged to balance the forces of technological change against fundamental decisions about governance and administration. This research examines that balance in the case of electronic commerce and its relationship to state budgets and revenue raised by sales tax. Under the voluntary Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement of 2002, states can cooperate with one another and with sellers to collect sales tax on internet sales, yet only about half the states that levy sales tax have initiated this policy change. This research tests rival explanations for state membership in this interstate administrative agreement and implementation of its provisions from 2003 through 2007. State participation is enhanced by existing technological capacity and frustrated by requirements for shared governance and shared administrative responsibilities. Participation is fostered by more extensive implementation of e-commerce and certain political factors. State fiscal factors and e-Government implementation are not significant. Moreover, state legislative professionalism inhibits state participation in this agreement. These findings have implications for understanding the influence of future technological change on government practices and for intergovernmental relationships weighted toward shared governance.

Understanding Nonprofit Transparency: The Limits of Formal Regulation in the American Nonprofit Sector

This article describes and analyzes the regulation of transparency in American nonprofit organizations in comparison to similar regulation of American public sector agencies. Transparency is a symbol for accountability and a critically important dimension of nonprofit organizations, which are private and voluntary but chartered by government for public purposes. Federal policy aimed at nonprofit transparency relies on formal regulation, and some guidance can be drawn from examining nonprofit regulation in comparison to the formal regulatory schemes designed to ensure transparency of public sector government agencies. However, formal transparency regulation of nonprofits is not as extensive as that of the public sector, and current illustrations from the nonprofit arena indicate that formal regulation does not address typical public concerns about nonprofit transparency. Instead, nonprofits may need to turn to normative sector values, including trust and collaboration, in order to be considered transparent in the current environment.

E-Disclosure of Campaign Finance Information: Divergent Interests in the States

This study examines factors that influence transparency and access in e-disclosure of state campaign finances. Although e-disclosure has the potential to increase campaign finance transparency and real-time public access to information, little research has been conducted on the factors that have influenced the extent of state e-disclosure practices. E-disclosure practices are analyzed from 2003 through 2007 for the 50 states using multivariate cross-sectional time series analysis and data from the Campaign Disclosure Project. Findings indicate the positive influence of legislative professionalism and state resources on more comprehensive and transparent e-disclosure approaches. Findings also indicate the importance of political factors not found to be salient in earlier e-government research and an ideological divergence between political elites and the general public on the value of disclosure.

Current Challenges in Election Administration

This chapter focuses on emerging issues in election administration. These issues are a combination of ideas that election administrators are talking about and concerns that those studying the field have raised. Some of the thoughts expressed in this chapter come from data collected directly from election administrators, as noted in the Preface. Most recently, we asked a group of about 100 elections administrators what they thought elections and election administration would be like as we approach a Presidential election 20 years in the future. They offered insights on balloting, registration, technology, and other election administration issues. Their responses are summarized in Table 7.1, in the order of most frequent to least frequent response.

State Innovations in Election Administration

This chapter considers a sample of election administration initiatives at the state level. Under the US federal system, the states retain considerable latitude to pass laws regarding the time, manner, and place of elections. In broad and historic terms, the role of the national government has been to focus on questions of equity in access and participation in order to protect individual rights (Ewald 2009). As discussed in earlier chapters of this book, the relationship between the national and state governments evolved as the national government stepped in to ensure de jure and de facto political equality. State latitude in election administration is reflected in the wide variety of state and local laws and practices that are discussed throughout this book. It is also reflected in the discretion awarded to states under national policy initiatives that frame modern elections. As we have noted, state discretion is a hallmark of the American federal system. States have taken advantage of this discretion, for example, in their approaches under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) in developing plans to convert to electronic voting systems, establish electronic voter registration databases, and coordinate activities between state and local election offices (Alvarez and Hall 2005; Hale and Brown 2013; Palazzolo and Ceasar 2005).

Understanding Election Administration Systems

This chapter begins with a basic description of the structure of US election systems, the public institutions that are responsible for the conduct of elections. The second part of the chapter describes the different subsystems that make up the whole of election administration and shows not only how the formal institutions interact in the provision of elections but also how the subsystems involve other actors whose primary purpose is not necessarily elections but who still affect election systems. The third part focuses on the relationships between election systems and the external environment and among subsystems of electoral systems. Here, we explore how a change in one part of a system can affect another.

The Legal Framework of Election Administration in the Modern Era

The modern era of the federal legal framework of election administration has been further influenced by three laws passed after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). These laws were intended to address particular concerns that were not addressed through the VRA. These federal laws include the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA) and its subsequent legislative modifications through the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 (MOVE). Each of these federal laws addresses a particular dimension of the election administration process, and each evolved in response to particular problems.

Pluralism, Political Participation, and Third-Party Groups

In earlier chapters we focused on the government actors and institutions that constitute American election administration systems and on the context of American federalism as one external factor which influences these systems. Election administration systems are also influenced by the external context of pluralism. Broadly, pluralism argues that nongovernmental interest groups use their resources (e.g., time, money, and membership) to influence the political process. The theory of pluralism suggests that most people, most of the time, need not be interested in politics because they have their own day-to-day lives to contend with. Only when their personal interests are significantly affected will they become involved in the policy process, and their involvement gets the best reception from policy makers when they band together in organized interest groups to push for changes. Thus, people can act on the political system to change rules to advance their needs, as well as act within it. The pluralist system has enough room, or slack, for this to occur because of the fluidity of various interests over time and across the population (Dahl 1961). Thus, the pluralist system in American politics serves as the interface between individual interests and government action through organized interest, advocacy, and third-party groups.1 All that said, perhaps Schattschneider’s critique of the pluralist vision of American politics, “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper class accent,” has some traction when one considers the significant resource output necessary to fuel the work of these organizations described in this chapter (1960, 35).