Pols 920: Seminar in State Politics

POLS 920: SEMINAR IN STATE POLITICS

Kevin Smith

529 Oldfather

472-0779

Introduction

It would be hard to design a better laboratory for testing general propositions about political behavior and policy than the U.S. states. The states have broadly similar political cultures, structures and populations, but also have variation across a wide range of social, policy and institutional characteristics that are of direct relevance to most theories of politics and policies. Unlike the examination of single units of government (such as the U.S. federal government), the states provide the variation necessary to explore cause and effect relationships meaningfully. Yet unlike cross-national or local government comparisons there is not so much variation that identifying and isolating meaningful relationships becomes overly complex. The accessibility of state government officials and state-level data make possible a broad range of research strategies that are not practical using other units of analysis.

In addition to their unparalleled advantages for empirically studying general political phenomena, the states are important because of their centrality to the U.S. political system. Put simply, you cannot understand the politics of the United States—its partisan and ideological conflicts, its foreign and domestic policy, its institutional idiosyncracies--without understanding state politics and the role of states within the political system.

Objectives

This course has two objectives:

1. To provide an introduction to the large body of theoretical and empirical research undertaken by political scientists using the states as units of analysis. Because this research literature is so large, we have to sample selectively rather than exhaustively. While covering many bases, keep in mind that this course provides an introduction to the state politics and policy literature, not a comprehensive tour.

2. To show you how to good political science and policy research is done. As indicated above, the states represent a unique laboratory for a broad range of questions important to political scientists. For a wide range of questions of importance to the discipline, the comparative approach using states as units of analysis offers an unparalleled opportunity for systematic research.

Required Texts

Gray, Virginia and Russell Hanson. 2008. Politics in the American States. 9th edition. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Masket, Seth E. 2011. No Middle Ground. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Bonneau, Chris and Melinda Gann Hall. 2009. In Defense of Judicial Elections. New York: Routledge.

Rosenthal, Alan. 2009. Engines of Democracy. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Tarr, G. Alan. 2000. Understanding State Constitutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Approximately 50 journal articles are also assigned reading. These articles are listed below.

Course Format

This course is organized as a hybrid core/research seminar. There will be assigned readings each week, you will be required to write a reaction paper on these readings, and we will summarize and analyze these readings in class. It is critical that each student carefully read all assigned readings every week. Most weeks there will be a reading assigned from the Gray and Hanson book. It might be a good idea to read this first – these chapters are broad overviews that will provide context for the more narrowly focused journal articles. In this sense, the course is organized exactly as if it were the “core seminar in state politics and policy.” Unlike a core seminar, however, there will be no mock comp as a final requirement and the course paper requirement will be a research paper rather than a literature review.

Course Requirements and Grades

Students are required to do the following:

Complete all week readings assigned and on time. Readings must be completed before class, all the readings assigned for Aug. 30 must be read before class.

Turn in a weekly reaction paper. The reaction paper should be no longer that two pages

11 or 12 point standard font such as Arial or Times New Roman, double-spaced with standard one-inch margins) and should offer an analysis–not a synopsis–of the readings. It is not necessary to include references to all of a week’s readings in a reaction paper, I much prefer a well thought out and logically ordered analysis of a linked theme cross two or three papers than a brief paragraph on every reading. We have twelve weeks of readings. Ten reaction papers will counted for grade purposes. If you only turn in ten papers, fine. If you turn in more, I will only count the highest scores for grade purposes.

Participate in seminar. A seminar works best if everyone contributes. If you write a

reaction paper, you’ve got something to say. Sharing that something with your peers is one of the most important aspects of a seminar.

Write and present a research paper. This paper is the primary intellectual product of the

seminar. I will allow maximum flexibility on the topic of this paper, but it must have some connection to state politics and policy. At a minimum the research question must have some connection to the themes and issues raised in class and the unit of analysis must be the states or a state. As we shall see, this leaves you an enormous amount of flexibility and choice in terms of a specific topic. In terms of length, structure and mechanics, you should envision the paper as the equivalent of the journal articles you read in class. Mechanically, this translates into about 15-20 pages in length (plus end material), and uses a standard documentation format (e.g. MLA, APSA, Chicago Manual of Style). Content wise this means a paper organized with the following elements:

1. A clearly stated research question.

2. A justification for the research question (i.e. an answer to the “So what?” question).

3. A context for the research question (i.e. a lit review).

4. A systematic answer to the question–i.e. a theory (or more loosely, a model).

NOTE–2, 3 and 4 may be done together.

5. A test of that systematic answer. This doesn’t have to be quantitative in terms of using statistical methods. But it does have to be empirical.

6. A conclusion assessing your contribution to the question you set out to answer.

A research paper memo that covers points 1 and 2 above, and includes some indication of how you plan to address points 3, 4, and 5, is due in class at the beginning of class Oct. 4. (Oct 13). The full paper is due by the end of the last week of classes–NO EXCEPTIONS. If at all possible I’d urge you to conceive of this paper as either a thesis/dissertation chapter and/or a stand alone journal article. If you have an idea already, great. If not, don’t worry--I’ve prepared a separate memo aimed at helping out with topics, finding the right literature, getting data etc etc.

Your final grade will weighted according to the following:

Participation:10 percent Research memo: 5 percent

Reaction papers:40 percent Research Paper: 45 percent

Seminar Topics and Schedule

Aug. 23: Introduction to Class

Aug. 30: Federalism, Inter-Governmental Relations, and the Comparative Research Approach

Hanson, Russell. 2008. “Intergovernmental Relations.” Ch. 2 in Gray and Hanson.

Dinan, John and Shama Gamkhar. 2009. “The State of American Federalism 2008-2009: The Presidential Election, the Economic Downturn and the Consequences for Federalism.” Publius.

Mooney, Christopher Z. 1998. “Why Do They Tax Dogs in West Virginia? Teaching Political Science Through Comparative State Politics.” PS: Political & Politics.

Nicholson-Crotty, Sean and Kenneth J. Meier. 2002. “Size Doesn’t Matter: In Defense of Single-State Studies.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

Morehouse, Sarah M. and Malcom E. Jewell. 2004. “States as Laboratories: A Reprise.” Annual Review of Political Science.

Brace, Paul and Aubrey Jewett. 1995. “The State of State Politics Research.” Political Research Quarterly.

Sep. 6 Political Culture, Ideology, and Diversity in the States

Gray, Virginia. 2008. “The Socioeconomic and Political Context of States.” Ch. 1 in Gray and Hanson.

Elazar, Daniel. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States. 4th ed. Chapter 5 (political culture).

Sharkansy, Ira. 1969. “The Utility of Elazar’s Political Culture.” Polity. 2: 66-83.

Lieske, Joel. 1993. “Regional Sub-Cultures of the United States.” Journal of Politics. 55: 888-913.

Hero, Rodney E. and Caroline J. Tolbert. 1996. “Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the State of the U.S.” American Journal of Political Science. 40: 851-871.

Berry, William D., Richard Fording, Evan Ringquish, Russell Hanson, and Carl Klarner. 2010. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the U.S. States: A Re-Appraisal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Carsey, Thomas and Jeffrey Harden. 2010. “New Measures of Partisanship, Ideology, and Policy Mood.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Sep. 13. State Constitutions

Tarr, G. Alan. Understanding State Constitutions.

Sep. 20: Governors and the Executive Branch

Beyle, Thad and Margaret Ferguson. 2008. “Governors and the Executive Branch.” Ch. 7 in Gray and Hanson.

Sigelman, Lee and Nelson C. Dometrius. 1988. “Governors as Chief Administrators: The Linkage Between Formal Powers and Informal Influence.” American Politics Quarterly. 15: 157-170.

Bowman, Ann, Neal Woods, and Milton Stark. 2010. “Governors Turn Pro: Separation of Powers and the Institutionalization of the American Governorship.” Political Research Quarterly.

Brown, Adam. 2010. “Are Governors Responsible for the State Economy?” Journal of Politics.

Provost, Colin. 2010. “An Integrated Model of U.S. State Attorney General Behavior in Multi-State Litigation.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Klarner, Carl and Andrew Karch. 2008. “Why Do Governors Issue Vetoes?” Political Research Quarterly.

Sep. 27 State Legislatures: An Introduction

Hamm, Keith and Gary Moncrief. 2008. “Legislative Politics in the States.” Ch. 6 in Gray and Hanson.

Rosenthal, Alan. 2009. Engines of Democracy.

Oct. 4. State Legislatures: Power, Decisionmaking and Term Limits

RESEARCH MEMO DUE

Gamm, Gerald and Thad Kousser. 2010. “Broad Bills or Patricularistic Policy? Historical Patterns in State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review.

Clucas, Richard. 2007. “Legislative Professionalism and the Power of State House Leaders.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Preuhs, Robert. 2006. “The Conditional Effects of Minority Descriptive Representation.” Journal of Politics.

Meinke, Scott and Edward Hasecke. 2003. “Term Limits, Professionalization, and Partisan Control in U.S. State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics.

Kousser, Thad. 2006. “The Limited Impact of Term Limits.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Wright, Gerald. 2007. “Do Term Limits Affect Legislative Roll Call Voting?” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Oct 11:State Courts.

Hall, Melinda Gann. 2008. “State Courts: Politics and the Judicial Process.” Chapter 8 Gray and Hanson.

Bonneau, Chris and Melinda Gann Hall. 2009. In Defense of Judicial Elections.

Oct. 18: FALL BREAK NO CLASS

Oct 25: Political Parties and Interest Groups I

Holbrook, Thomas and Raymond La Raja. 2008. “Parties and Elections.” Chapter 3 Gray and Hanson.

Nownes, Anthony, Clive Thomas and Ronald Hrebenar. 2008. “Interest Groups in the States.” Chapter 4 in Gray and Hanson.

Lowery, David and Virginia Gray. 1995. “The Population Ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the Natural Regulation of Interest Group Numbers in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science. 39: 1-29.

Wright, Gerald and Brian Schaffner. 2002. “The Influence of Party: Evidence from the State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review.

Boehmke, Frederick. 2002. “The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Size and Diversity of State Interest Group Populations.” Journal of Politics.

Aldrich, John and James Battista. 2002. “Conditional Party Government in the States.” American Journal of Political Science.

Herrnson, Paul. 2009. “The Roles of Party Organizations, Party-Connected Committees, and Party Allies in Elections.” The Journal of Politics.

Nov. 1: Political Parties and Interest Groups II.

Masket, Seth. 2011. No Middle Ground.

Nov. 8. Voting

Kim, Jae-On, John Petrocik, and Stephen Enokson. 1975. “Voter Turnout Among the American States: Systemic and Individual Components.” American Political Science Review.

Chubb, John E. 1988. “Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamics of State Elections.” American Political Science Review. 82: 133-154.

Jackson, Robert A. 1997. “The Mobilization of State Electorates in the 1988 and 1990 Elections.” Journal of Politics. 59: 520-537.

Schaffner, Brian F., Matthew Streb and Gerald Wright. 2001. “Teams Without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.” Political Research Quarterly. 54: 7-31.

McDonald, Michael. 2002. “The Turnout Rate among Eligible Voters in the States, 1980-2000.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Holbrook, Thomas and Brianne Hedbreder. 2010. “Does Measurement Matter? The Case of VAP and VEP in Models of Voter Turnout in the United States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Nov. 15: Public Policy: Determinants and Origins

Dawson, Richard E. and James A. Robinson. 1963. “Inter-party Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States.” Journal of Politics. 25: 265-289.

Wright, Gerald C., Robert S. Erikson and John P. McIver. 1987. “Public Opinion and Policy Liberalism in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science. 31: 835-850.

Monogan, James, Vriginia Gray and David Lowery. 2009. “Public Opinion, Organized Interests, and Policy Congruence in Initiative and Noninitiative U.S. States.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Walker, Jack. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States.” American Political Science Review. 63: 880-899.

Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.”American Journal of Political Science.

Nicholson-Crotty, Sean. 2009. “The Politics of Diffusion: Public Policy in the American States.” The Journal of Politics.

Fellowes, Matthew and Gretchen Rowe. 2004. “Politics and the New American Welfare States.” American Journal of Political Science

Gerber, Brian and Paul Teske. 2000. “Regulatory Policymaking in the American States: A Review of Theories and Evidence.”

Nov 22. Public Policy: Outcomes

Jones, Bryan. 1990. “Public Policies and Economic Growth in the American States.” The Journal of Politics.

Smith, Kevin B. 1999. “Clean Thoughts and Dirty Minds.” Policy Studies Journal.

Smith, Kevin B. 2004. “The Politics of Punishment: Evaluating Political Explanations of Incarceration Rates.” Journal of Politics. 66: 925-938.

Bohte, John. 2004. “Examining the Impact of Charter Schools on Performance in Traditional Public Schools.” Policy Studies Journal.

Ritchey, Mark and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2011. “Deterrance Theory and the Implementation of Speed Limits in the American States.” Policy Studies Journal.

New, Michael. 2010. “U.S. State Tax and Expenditure Limitations: A Comparative Political Analysis.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Nov. 29 Paper Presentations

Dec. 6 Paper Presentations. RESEARCH PAPERS DUE.