In addition to this, the Republican Party has used their manufactured advantage to forward policy that increases the cost of voting and diverts money away from public health initiatives, including COVID-19 preparedness. The authors conclude that the inter-relatedness of American politics, contrary to Justice Scalia’s assertion that gerrymandering’s effects are limited to the district in which they occur, means that gerrymandering is everyone’s problem. The authors relay this assault on the foundation of modern democracy with the gravity it deserves, explaining how, when, and why contemporary redistricting has eroded our democratic institutions and the public’s faith in them.
{"title":"Gerrymandering the States: Partisanship, Race, and the Transformation of American Federalism","authors":"Isaac Pollert","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.44","url":null,"abstract":"In addition to this, the Republican Party has used their manufactured advantage to forward policy that increases the cost of voting and diverts money away from public health initiatives, including COVID-19 preparedness. The authors conclude that the inter-relatedness of American politics, contrary to Justice Scalia’s assertion that gerrymandering’s effects are limited to the district in which they occur, means that gerrymandering is everyone’s problem. The authors relay this assault on the foundation of modern democracy with the gravity it deserves, explaining how, when, and why contemporary redistricting has eroded our democratic institutions and the public’s faith in them.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"60 1","pages":"593 - 595"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80865760","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}
Abstract Redistricting poses a potential harm to American voters in limiting choice and accountability at the polls. Although voters still retain their right to contact their representatives, research shows that the confusion created when redistricting divides ZIP codes confounds the constituent–representative link. We build on existing research that shows splitting ZIP codes across multiple congressional districts leads to harms in representation. Specifically, we examine the role of splitting ZIP codes on the recognition of the racial group membership of one’s Congressional representative, a foundational component of the descriptive representation of racial minority voters via minority–majority districts in the United States. We find that citizens living in split ZIP codes are significantly less likely to know the race of their member of Congress. This occurs even when controlling for a host of factors including the race and partisanship of the constituent, the tenure of the member, and the amount of time a constituent has lived in their congressional district. Our work provides further evidence of the democratic harms experienced by American citizens living in ZIP codes that are split between multiple congressional districts. This work also points to the representational harms produced by poor district design on the representation of American voters.
{"title":"Redistricting Out Descriptive Representation: The Harmful Effect of Splitting ZIP Codes on the Constituent–Representative Link","authors":"T. Steelman, John A. Curiel","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.33","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Redistricting poses a potential harm to American voters in limiting choice and accountability at the polls. Although voters still retain their right to contact their representatives, research shows that the confusion created when redistricting divides ZIP codes confounds the constituent–representative link. We build on existing research that shows splitting ZIP codes across multiple congressional districts leads to harms in representation. Specifically, we examine the role of splitting ZIP codes on the recognition of the racial group membership of one’s Congressional representative, a foundational component of the descriptive representation of racial minority voters via minority–majority districts in the United States. We find that citizens living in split ZIP codes are significantly less likely to know the race of their member of Congress. This occurs even when controlling for a host of factors including the race and partisanship of the constituent, the tenure of the member, and the amount of time a constituent has lived in their congressional district. Our work provides further evidence of the democratic harms experienced by American citizens living in ZIP codes that are split between multiple congressional districts. This work also points to the representational harms produced by poor district design on the representation of American voters.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"132 1","pages":"1 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77503333","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":"REP volume 7 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.14","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"45 1","pages":"f1 - f4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76690678","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 Autonomy-Representation Dilemma: Indigenous Groups and Distributive Benefits in the Americas—CORRIGENDUM","authors":"Christopher L. Carter","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"27 1","pages":"356 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74575521","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}
the Disadvantaged: Group Interests and Legislator Reputation in US Congress , Katrina McNally considers the representation of disadvantaged groups, defined as “ groups that face additional societal barriers, particularly a history of discrimination ” (pg. 22) in Congress. Unlike studies of descriptive representation that consider the representation of individual groups, such as racial/ethnic minorities or women, McNally develops a generalizable theory of legislative reputations which can be used to analyze representation more broadly.
{"title":"Representing the Disadvantaged: Group Interests and Legislator Reputation in US Congress. By Katrina F. McNally. Cambridge University Press, 2021. 266 pp","authors":"Matthew J. Geras","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.9","url":null,"abstract":"the Disadvantaged: Group Interests and Legislator Reputation in US Congress , Katrina McNally considers the representation of disadvantaged groups, defined as “ groups that face additional societal barriers, particularly a history of discrimination ” (pg. 22) in Congress. Unlike studies of descriptive representation that consider the representation of individual groups, such as racial/ethnic minorities or women, McNally develops a generalizable theory of legislative reputations which can be used to analyze representation more broadly.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"104 1","pages":"602 - 604"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86264199","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}
Abstract Many worry that uncivil discourse can undermine democratic processes. Yet, what exactly does it mean for discourse to be uncivil? I argue that there is systematic variation in perceptions of incivility based on the identity of those targeted by uncivil speech. Specifically, I show—via a conjoint survey experiment—that White Americans are less likely to view statements directed at Black Americans as uncivil but more likely to perceive incivility when the target is a woman or a co-partisan. These results suggest an identity-laden aspect of incivility such that it is acceptable to treat Black Americans with less civility but less acceptable to do so for women and co-partisans. The results have implications for how we assess discourse and how that discourse affects the public.
{"title":"Race, Gender, and the Politics of Incivility: How Identity Moderates Perceptions of Uncivil Discourse","authors":"S. R. Gubitz","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.7","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many worry that uncivil discourse can undermine democratic processes. Yet, what exactly does it mean for discourse to be uncivil? I argue that there is systematic variation in perceptions of incivility based on the identity of those targeted by uncivil speech. Specifically, I show—via a conjoint survey experiment—that White Americans are less likely to view statements directed at Black Americans as uncivil but more likely to perceive incivility when the target is a woman or a co-partisan. These results suggest an identity-laden aspect of incivility such that it is acceptable to treat Black Americans with less civility but less acceptable to do so for women and co-partisans. The results have implications for how we assess discourse and how that discourse affects the public.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"43 1","pages":"526 - 543"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88379345","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}
Abstract Previous research on the voting propensity of young Americans has largely treated the effects of state electoral laws as homogenous, despite today’s youth belonging to the most racially and ethnically diverse age cohort to date. Research has documented differences in participatory resources across racial, ethnic, and age groups, with recent work also suggesting differences in racial and ethnic identity influences across age groups. These factors may lead to significant differences in voter turnout under different state electoral environments. Using the Current Population Survey (2000–2016), national voter rolls (2012), and the Cost of Voting Index, this study investigates how the intersectionality of age and racial/ethnic identification affect voting decisions across state electoral environments. Whether comparing young voters across racial/ethnic identifications or comparing young voters to their older racial/ethnic counterparts, results strongly support the assertion that young voters are affected to differing degrees by increased costs to vote along racial/ethnic lines.
{"title":"Electoral Double-Bind: How Electoral Environments Affect Racial and Ethnic Youth Voting Behavior","authors":"Joseph A. Coll, Courtney L. Juelich","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.5","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Previous research on the voting propensity of young Americans has largely treated the effects of state electoral laws as homogenous, despite today’s youth belonging to the most racially and ethnically diverse age cohort to date. Research has documented differences in participatory resources across racial, ethnic, and age groups, with recent work also suggesting differences in racial and ethnic identity influences across age groups. These factors may lead to significant differences in voter turnout under different state electoral environments. Using the Current Population Survey (2000–2016), national voter rolls (2012), and the Cost of Voting Index, this study investigates how the intersectionality of age and racial/ethnic identification affect voting decisions across state electoral environments. Whether comparing young voters across racial/ethnic identifications or comparing young voters to their older racial/ethnic counterparts, results strongly support the assertion that young voters are affected to differing degrees by increased costs to vote along racial/ethnic lines.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"11 1","pages":"544 - 571"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89299817","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}
institutional structures as well as the strategic choices of policy-makers. The presentation of the comparative case studies is masterful. However, there is one central lacuna. Professor Ellermann acknowledges the absence of a theory of policy-maker preferences; rather she generates the preferences of this central actor inductively. In many ways, this is an understandable choice as she already has a complex matrix of variables that she weaves together. But it does raise the question of where the preferences of the central actor of the model are generated and also points to potential endogeneity issues. Even if we grant that policy-maker preferences can be distinctive from other political actors, there is the possibility that the initial array of political institutions and actors shapes the key decision-maker’s policy proposal. The case studies weave powerful stories of immigration policy-making but also introduce elements that appear central to the argument but are not addressed in the theoretical frame. In particular, the insulation of policy-makers from the public’s restrictive policy preferences is an important element in the theory. Yet even when institutional structures remain constant, role of the public varies in part based on whether public opinion remains latent and unorganized versus when it is activated. Yet nothing in the theory accounts for the conditions under which we should expect public opinion to be activated. The role of the economy also appears important in many instances yet that element is not theorized either. The book is lengthy and dense, so it is difficult to demand more. Yet an important omission is attention to alternate theories. The first chapter introduces and critiques most of the extant theoretical literature, but the case study chapters do not provide the promised attention to alternate theories. Ellermann’s theoretical elements are woven into the case narratives with care, but research design in qualitative methods requires attention to alternative explanations as well. Nonetheless, this book will leave an important mark on immigration policy scholarship both by its ambitious effort to find an encompassing theory of immigration policy and the careful attention to the complexity of immigration policy-making. Perhaps we should disavow Gary Freeman’s call for multiple theories of migration policy-making and build on Professor Ellermann’s elegant work.
{"title":"Migration and Democracy: How Remittances Undermine Dictatorships By Abel Escribà-Folch, Covadonga Meseguer and Joseph Wright. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022. 299 pp., $29.95 cloth","authors":"M. Paarlberg","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.8","url":null,"abstract":"institutional structures as well as the strategic choices of policy-makers. The presentation of the comparative case studies is masterful. However, there is one central lacuna. Professor Ellermann acknowledges the absence of a theory of policy-maker preferences; rather she generates the preferences of this central actor inductively. In many ways, this is an understandable choice as she already has a complex matrix of variables that she weaves together. But it does raise the question of where the preferences of the central actor of the model are generated and also points to potential endogeneity issues. Even if we grant that policy-maker preferences can be distinctive from other political actors, there is the possibility that the initial array of political institutions and actors shapes the key decision-maker’s policy proposal. The case studies weave powerful stories of immigration policy-making but also introduce elements that appear central to the argument but are not addressed in the theoretical frame. In particular, the insulation of policy-makers from the public’s restrictive policy preferences is an important element in the theory. Yet even when institutional structures remain constant, role of the public varies in part based on whether public opinion remains latent and unorganized versus when it is activated. Yet nothing in the theory accounts for the conditions under which we should expect public opinion to be activated. The role of the economy also appears important in many instances yet that element is not theorized either. The book is lengthy and dense, so it is difficult to demand more. Yet an important omission is attention to alternate theories. The first chapter introduces and critiques most of the extant theoretical literature, but the case study chapters do not provide the promised attention to alternate theories. Ellermann’s theoretical elements are woven into the case narratives with care, but research design in qualitative methods requires attention to alternative explanations as well. Nonetheless, this book will leave an important mark on immigration policy scholarship both by its ambitious effort to find an encompassing theory of immigration policy and the careful attention to the complexity of immigration policy-making. Perhaps we should disavow Gary Freeman’s call for multiple theories of migration policy-making and build on Professor Ellermann’s elegant work.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":"599 - 601"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79898410","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}
Abstract Two parallel processes structure American politics in the current moment: partisan polarization and the increasing linkage between racial attitudes and issue preferences of all sorts. We develop a novel theory that roots these two trends in historical changes in party coalitions. Changing racial compositions of the two major parties led to the formation of racialized images about Democrats and Republicans in people’s minds—and these images now structure Americans’ partisan loyalties and policy preferences. We test this theory in three empirical studies. First, using the American National Election Studies we trace the growing racial gap in party coalitions as well as the increasing overlap between racial and partisan affect. Then, in two original survey studies we directly measure race–party schemas and explore their political consequences. We demonstrate that race–party schemas are linked to partisan affect and issue preferences—with clear implications for the recent developments in U.S. politics.
{"title":"The Origins and Consequences of Racialized Schemas about U.S. Parties","authors":"K. Zhirkov, Nicholas A. Valentino","doi":"10.1017/rep.2022.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2022.4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Two parallel processes structure American politics in the current moment: partisan polarization and the increasing linkage between racial attitudes and issue preferences of all sorts. We develop a novel theory that roots these two trends in historical changes in party coalitions. Changing racial compositions of the two major parties led to the formation of racialized images about Democrats and Republicans in people’s minds—and these images now structure Americans’ partisan loyalties and policy preferences. We test this theory in three empirical studies. First, using the American National Election Studies we trace the growing racial gap in party coalitions as well as the increasing overlap between racial and partisan affect. Then, in two original survey studies we directly measure race–party schemas and explore their political consequences. We demonstrate that race–party schemas are linked to partisan affect and issue preferences—with clear implications for the recent developments in U.S. politics.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"80 1","pages":"484 - 504"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84115741","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}
Abstract Ethnonationalist politics have been on the rise in the United States since the 2008 financial crisis, culminating with the rise of Donald Trump. We examine why two seemingly unconnected things—economic crises and prejudice—so often arise simultaneously. Combining theories of economics and emotions, we connect economic crises and prejudice through the role of emotional response to crises, namely anger and anxiety. We use two survey experiments in the United States to test various theories of how emotions might connect economic threat to negative intergroup attitudes. We find that economic concerns increase both anger and anxiety among individuals, but that these emotions have distinct effects on prejudice. Angry individuals show increased prejudice, but only towards groups one is ideologically predisposed to be prejudiced towards. In contrast, anxiety exhibits few consistent effects on prejudice.
{"title":"Fear or Loathing: Affect, Political Economy, and Prejudice","authors":"S. Utych, Rachel Navarre, Matthew Rhodes-Purdy","doi":"10.1017/rep.2021.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2021.32","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ethnonationalist politics have been on the rise in the United States since the 2008 financial crisis, culminating with the rise of Donald Trump. We examine why two seemingly unconnected things—economic crises and prejudice—so often arise simultaneously. Combining theories of economics and emotions, we connect economic crises and prejudice through the role of emotional response to crises, namely anger and anxiety. We use two survey experiments in the United States to test various theories of how emotions might connect economic threat to negative intergroup attitudes. We find that economic concerns increase both anger and anxiety among individuals, but that these emotions have distinct effects on prejudice. Angry individuals show increased prejudice, but only towards groups one is ideologically predisposed to be prejudiced towards. In contrast, anxiety exhibits few consistent effects on prejudice.","PeriodicalId":37190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics","volume":"93 1","pages":"505 - 525"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90331939","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：