Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)最新文献

{"title":"Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases","authors":"J. Stoutenborough, Donald P. Haider‐Markel, M. Allen","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900310","url":null,"abstract":"The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny. We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127892885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Politics and Judicial Assertiveness in Emerging Democracies: High Court Behavior in Malawi and Zambia","authors":"P. VonDoepp","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900306","url":null,"abstract":"Focused on High Court behavior in Malawi and Zambia, this article examines the factors affecting judicial assertiveness vis a vis other power-holders in the state. Drawing from strategic understandings of judicial decisionmaking, the analysis focuses on whether and how political factors shape judicial behavior. The findings lend support for those who have emphasized such factors, in particular by indicating that judicial assertiveness is somewhat dependent on larger political conditions. The findings also suggest that the strategic view can be refined. For one, scholars should more directly consider how political factors interact with judicial preferences to shape decisionmaking. Further, scholars should appreciate how political conditions may encourage judges to embrace positions of political neutrality.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123502713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Law in Action","authors":"Keith J. Bybee","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900308","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116066808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Queering the Rehnquist Court","authors":"Thomas M. Keck","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900309","url":null,"abstract":"Rehnquist Court is intriguing, to say the least, and it promises to shed some light on the particular ways in which the constitutional law of LGBT rights was transformed from 1986 to 2003. The conservative Court’s 2003 decision to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick—or, as Burgess puts it, to give Bowers a makeover—is certainly in need of explanation, and I’m open to the claim that queer theory might help provide that explanation. I’m not yet convinced, however, that “makeover” is a better metaphor than “reversal” for this dramatic shift on the Court. In particular, Burgess suggests that two key features of the Queer Eye makeovers are their uncertain success—will the straight guy maintain his new self after the Fab Five go home?—and their incompleteness—how much of a transformation can the Fab Five work if they have to stay true to the straight guy’s personality and, in particular, if he has to stay straight, occupying his conventional male role in a heterosexual relationship? These features of the Queer Eye makeovers might well illuminate the Court’s makeover of Bowers by calling attention to the following questions: Did the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas successfully lay Bowers to rest, or will the old straight decision reemerge when no one’s looking? And how sweeping was the Court’s makeover in any event? Did Lawrence stay true to the core personality traits of Bowers? Or did the judicial Fab Five fundamentally refashion this straight precedent? And is the new constitutional law of LGBT rights severely limited by any lingering remnants of the hostile 1986 precedent? These are crucial questions, and while I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, I actually think that the Court’s recent decision marked more than a partial makeover. Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Lawrence, following his opinion seven years earlier in the Rehnquist Court’s other landmark gay rights decision, Romer v. Evans, both reflected and helped to enact a fundamental change in gay and lesbian rights. To my mind, the most interesting and difficult question is why in the world a justice appointed by Ronald Reagan would issue these sweeping pro-gay decisions. My own view is that Romer and Lawrence stand together as such a remarkable declaration of support for gay rights that it must be wrong to characterize the Rehnquist Court as a conservative Court. Or, if not wrong, then at least incomplete. Consider Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in Romer. This opinion was cautious, to be sure, but it clearly recognized that the federal courts must protect minority groups that have faced prejudice and discrimination from majoritarian tyranny, and that gays and lesbians are such a group. For a Reagan appointee to declare, just ten years after Bowers, that “[a] State cannot . . . deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws”—and for this same Reagan appointee to hold, just seven years later, that the Bowers “precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons,” that it “was not correct when it was","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131788690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparing GEE and Robust Standard Errors for Conditionally Dependent Data","authors":"Christopher Zorn","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900301","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years political scientists have become increasingly sensitive to questions of conditional dependence in their data. I outline and compare two general, widely-used approaches for addressing such dependence—robust variance estimators and generalized estimating equations (GEEs)—using data on votes in Supreme Court search and seizure decisions between 1963 and 1981. The results make clear that choices about the unit on which data are grouped, i.e., clustered, are typically of far greater significance than are decisions about which type estimator is used.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133957820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patterns of Change in the Use of Imprisonment in the American States: An Integration of Path Dependence, Punctuated Equilibrium and Policy Design Approaches","authors":"A. Schneider","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900313","url":null,"abstract":"This study analyzes changes from 1927 through 2003 in the use of incarceration by the American States, testing propositions derived from path dependency/punctuated equilibrium theory and from an extension of the social construction theory of policy design. The results suggest that incarceration changes often were path dependent, but that periods of equilibrium-type change with up and down adjustments also were relatively common until a critical juncture occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The results also show that the states tended to change in the same direction, at the same time, as if some kind of national policy mood was important, even though incarceration rates are produced by state-level decisionmakers working in many different types of state and local institutional settings. The results confirm the proposition from the social construction theory of policy design that upward paths will be more common, last longer, more extreme, and harder to break than downward ones. Analysis of the public opinion variables most closely related to the social construction of law breakers indicates that small year-to-year changes were not very useful in explaining annual rates of incarceration change. On the other hand, a very rapid movement toward a more negative social construction may have been one of the factors important in triggering the critical juncture that occurred in all states. And, an exceptionally high and “sticky” negative construction of criminals extending for more than 30 years may be important in understanding the “stickiness” of institutions that produce incarceration rates.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130267884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"High-Conflict Television News and Public Opinion","authors":"Richard G. Forgette, Jonathan S. Morris","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900312","url":null,"abstract":"This research assesses whether conflict-laden news coverage affects public perceptions of political institutions and political elites in general. Particularly, is conflict-oriented television news coverage of politics contributing to negative evaluations of political institutions and their leaders? We present evidence from an experiment designed to address this question. Our experiment is constructed around media coverage of the State of the Union Address. We control for the source of news (CNN), and examine how CNN’s Crossfire and Inside Politics’ coverage and analyses of the State of the Union Address influenced the attitudes and perceptions of viewers. We find that conflict-laden television coverage decreases public evaluations of political institutions, trust in leadership, and overall support for political parties and the system as a whole. Our findings have implications for public opinion in an era of increased abundance of high-conflict cable news talk shows that turn the political process into a contact sport.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123765270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress","authors":"Sarah A. Fulton, Cherie D. Maestas, L. Maisel, W. Stone","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900206","url":null,"abstract":"Do men and women differ in their decisionmaking calculus for higher office? To answer this question, we use a survey of state legislators (SLs) in 1998 to examine the conditions under which male and female SLs seek a position in the U.S. House of Representatives. We consider three ways in which gender may influence ambition and the decision to run—indirectly, directly, and interactively—and we find evidence of all three effects. Female state legislators are less ambitious than males for a U.S. House seat, a difference that largely stems from gender disparities in child-care responsibilities. However, despite their lower ambition, female SLs are just as likely as their male counterparts to seek a congressional position. This apparent puzzle is solved by the finding that the expected benefit of office mediates the relationship between ambition and the likelihood of running. Female SLs are much more responsive to the expected benefit of office than are males, offsetting their diminished ambition level. The sense of a woman is reflected in female state legislators’ increased sensitivity to the strategic considerations surrounding a congressional candidacy. Because men and women respond differently to the intersection of ambition and opportunity, gender constitutes an important, yet often neglected, explanatory variable in the decision-to-run calculus.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"42 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120993783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exploring the Bases of Partisanship in the American Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology","authors":"A. Abramowitz, Kyle L. Saunders","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900201","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses data from the 1952-2004 American National Election Studies and the 2004 U.S. National Exit Poll to compare the influence of ideology and membership in social groups on party identification. Contrary to the claim by Green, Palmquist, and Schickler (2002) that party loyalties are rooted in voters’ social identities, we find that party identification is much more strongly related to voters’ ideological preferences than to their social identities as defined by their group memberships. Since the 1970s, Republican identification has increased substantially among whites inside and outside of the South with the most dramatic gains occurring among married voters, men, and Catholics. Within these subgroups, however, Republican gains have occurred mainly or exclusively among self-identified conservatives. As a result, the relationship between ideology and party identification has increased dramatically. This has important implications for voting behavior. Increased consistency between ideology and party identification has contributed to higher levels of party loyalty in presidential and congressional elections.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125877457","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PACs, Issue Context, and Congressional Decisionmaking","authors":"C. Witko","doi":"10.1177/106591290605900210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900210","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have claimed that PAC influence on congressional behavior is more likely on certain types of issues. After considering both roll-call voting and committee participation, I argue that the conditions making PAC influence on voting most likely make influence on participation least likely, and vice versa. The analysis of 20 legislative proposals indicates that PACs are able to influence voting on non-ideological/non-visible issues, but are more likely to influence participation on ideological/visible issues. Unlike previous studies, these findings demonstrate that PACs can influence behavior across different contexts, but that the route to influence differs depending on the type of issue being considered.","PeriodicalId":394472,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly (formerly WPQ)","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124391865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}