DOCSLIB.ORG

Shapiro Arato LLP Alexandra A.E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shapiro Arato LLP Alexandra A.E 500 Filth Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10110 tel: 212-257-4860 fax: 212-202-6417 sa Shapiro Arato LLP www.shaplroarato.com Alexandra A.E. Shapiro [email protected] Direct; 212-257-4881 i October 20, 2015 1 I VIA FEDEX I Federal Election Commission J Office of Complaints Examination p,' ^ " and Legal Administration ............ • : Attn: Frankie Hampton • -=• 999 E Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 [email protected] Re: MUR 6942, In the Matter of the Commission on Presidential Debates, et al.. if Dear Ms. Hampton: We represent the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian National Committee, Inc., the complainants in the above-referenced matter. We write to provide the Federal Election Commission with additional evidence based on events occurring after the Complaint was filed, which supports the Complaint. I On September 11,2014, Level the Playing Field and Dr. Peter Ackerman filed an administrative complaint with the Commission against the Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") and its leadership. The Commission designated the matter MUR 6869. On June 16, 2015 and June 18, 2015, respectively, the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian National Committee submitted requests seeking to join the complaint in MUR 6869, or, in the alternative, seeking to file a new administrative complaint. The Commission designated that matter MUR 6942. The Commission subsequently dismissed the administrative complaint in MUR 6869, although it did not indicate whether that dismissal covered MUR 6942. The complaints in MURs 6869 and 6942 both allege that the CPD and its leadership, who are responsible for hosting the general election presidential debates, have violated FECA and the FEC's regulations governing debate sponsorship. The CPD bars candidates from participating in the debates if they do not poll at 15% in an average of five national polls taken approximately two months before the election. As detailed in the Complaint, the CPD's 15% rule is biased against third-party and independent candidates, see Complaint at 33-47, and therefore violates the requirement that debate selection criteria "must be free of 'content bias," and not geared to the selection of certain pre-chosen participants." First General Counsel's Report at 7, MUR 5395 (Dow Jones) (Jan. 13,2005) (quotation marks omitted). One of the reasons that the CPD's 15% rule discriminates against independent and third- party candidates in violation of the FEC's regulation is that pre-election polls are frequently inaccurate, as confirmed by results in recent elections, both in the United States and abroad. See Ltr. of Alexandra A.E. Shapiro to Kim Collins, MUR 6869 (Nov. 24,2014) at 2-4, submitted herewith as Exhibit 1. The recent experience of the Gallup Organization, which assists the CPD in applying its 15% rule, is emblematic of polling's inherent unreliability. The CPD adopted its 15% rule in 2000, and has used it in every presidential election since. See Ltr. of Lewis K. Loss to the Office of the General Counsel of the FEC, MUR 6869 (Dec. 15, 2014) at 7, submitted herewith as Exhibit 2. In each such election. Dr. Frank Newport, the Editor-in-Chief of Gallup, has been primarily responsible for selecting the five national polls used by the CPD in connection with the 15% rule, and, in every election, he has chosen polls conducted by Gallup as one of the national polls. See Decl. of Fra^ Newport, MUR 6869, at 2-3, submitted herewith as Exhibits. The CPD has also relied on Dr. Newport to defend it from administrative complaints filed with the Commission. The CPD purports to be "extraordinarily careful in how it selects and uses polling data," primarily because it "has relied on the expertise of Dr. Frank Newport." Exhibit 2 at 10. Likewise, Dr. Newport has submitted declarations to the Commission on the CPD's behalf, including in MUR 6869 and in MURs 4987, 5004, and 5021, earlier matters involving the CPD on which the Commission relied in dismissing the complaint in MUR 6869. In these declarations. Dr. Newport has touted public opinion polling as a "science" or a "scientific process." Exhibit 3 at 4; see also Decl. of Frank Newport, MUR 4987, at 2, submitted herewith as Exhibit 4 (describing polling as a "highly developed and tested scientific process"). He has also claimed that polls are "reliable," and that "the methodology [of polling] continues to improve" and "evolve[]." Exhibit 3 at 4-5; Exhibit 4 at 2 (asserting that public opinion polling "has a high degree of reliability"). However, the results fi-om recent Gallup polls belie Dr. Newport's and the CPD's unfounded faith in polling. Gallup's polls throughout the 2012 presidential election exhibited substantial inaccuracies, "consistently show[ing] Mr. Roraney aJiead by about six percentage points" in an election that President Obama won by 3.87%, and possessing an average margin of error of 7.2%. See Nate Silver, Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race, N.Y. Times (Nov. 10, 2012), lul»://|jvelhirtveitilit.blogs;nvtimes.com/201.2/11/1 QAvhich- poll.s-fared-best-and-worst-m-the-2012-T>residential-ra.ce/? .r=l. submitted herewith as Exhibit 5. The errors were "among the worst results" of all polling firms, and consistent with Gallup's recent "poor" performance in pre-election polling. Id. (criticizing Gallup as having "three poor elections in a row," including the 2008 presidential election); see also Nate Silver, Gallup vs. the World, N.Y. Times (Oct. 18, 2012), h.ltp://Fi.vethirtvciEht.blou.s.nvtimes.coin/2Q12/10/18/ualliip- v.s-lhc-worJd/. submitted herewith as Exhibit 6. Gallup's recent failures have led to soul-searching within the organization. Dr. Newport has publicly conceded that Gallup has no "definitive answer" for its errors, and that Gallup's polls were toward the "inaccurate end of the spectrum." See Scott Clement, Gallup explains what went wrong in 2012, Wash. Post (June 4,2013), http.s://www.w:i.shingtonoo.st.conT/new.s/lhe-fi.\'Avp/20l3/Q6/04/t>alliio-exnlaiii.s-what-werit- wi ong-in-20l2/l submitted herewith as Exhibit 7; Steven Shepard, Gallup Blew Its Presidential polls, but Why?, Nat'l J. (Nov. 18, 2012), hUp:/Av\Vw.nationaliouiiuil.com/s/88751/galliip-blcw- il.s-pre.sitlerititil-poll.s-wliv?Q='galliio%20steven%2()shcixird&a=&t=&c=&s=Nonc<Se~No.ne. submitted.herewith as Exhibit 8. Vowing to be ready for the next presidential election, Gallup undertook a detailed review of its pre-election polling methodology, and, in response, has recently announced that it will no longer conduct public opinion polling for the 2016 presidential primary race at all. See Steven Shepard, Gallup gives up the horse race, Politico (Oct. 7,2015), htl.p://www.nolilico.coin/sL()i v/2015/i0/aallun-ooll.^2016-poll.slcri»-214493. submitted herewith as Exhibit 9. Gallup's abdication from the field of polling for the presidential primary race is a tacit acknowledgement that it no longer has confidence in the accuracy of its public opinion polling. It shows that, contrary to Dr. Newport's assertions in his submissions to the FEC that polling is "rcliable"-and-'^scientifiCi"-his-own-polling'Organization-recognizes-thathorse-race.polling-has— become inherently unreliable. Moreover, as explained in the Complaint, the flaws and errors of pre-election polling disproportionately affect independent and third-party candidates, who, in comparison to Democratic and Republican Party candidates, are more likely to have support close to the 15% threshold and are therefore far more likely to be wrongly excluded under the CPD's 1.5% rule. See Complaint at 40-44. The demonstrable arbitrariness of pre-election polling systematically discriminates against independent and third-party candidates, and fatally undermines the CPD's argument that polling is an objective criterion under the.Commission's debate staging regulations. For these reasons and those set forth in the Complaint, the Green Party of the United States and the Libertarian National Committee respectfully request that the FEC find the CPD and its leaders have violated FECA and the regulations governing debate sponsorship, and grant the relief sought in the Complaint. Sincerely, o Alexandra A.E. Shapiro cc: Robert William Bonham, III (via email) Ends. 500 Firth Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10110 tel: 212-257-4660 fax: 212-202-6417 Shapiro Arato & Isserles LLP www.shapirooraio.com Alexandra A.E. Shapiro. [email protected] Direct; 212-257-4881 November 24,2014 V-IA EMAIL .AND. FEDEX 1 Federal Election Commission i? Office of Complaints Examination y and Legal Administration i Attn: Kim Collins, Paralegal •i 999 E Street. N.W. g Washington, D.C. 20463 [email protected] 3 Re: MUR 6869, In the Matter of the Commission on Presidential Debates et al. Dear Ms. Collins: We represent Level the Playing Field and Dr. Peter Ackerman, the complainants in the above-referenced matter. We write to provide the Federal Election Commission with additional evidence based on events occurring after the Complaint was filed, which supports the Complairit. The Complaint alleges that the Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") and its < leadership, who are responsible for hosting the general election presidential debates, have i violated ^e FEC's regulations governing debate sponsorship. The CPD bars candidates from participating in the debates if they do not poll at 15% in. an average of five national polls taken approximately two months before the election. As detailed in the Complaint, this 15% rule systematically discriminates against third-party and independent candidates, see Complaint at 33-47, and therefore violates the requirement that debate selection criteria "must be free of 'content bias,' and not geared to the selection of certain pre-chosen participants." First General Counsel's Report at 7, MUR 5395 (Dow Jones) (Jan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 9, 2014 the Centrist Project Voice
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 9, 2014 The Centrist Project Voice Endorses Susan Collins, Larry Pressler, Michelle Nunn, Greg Orman and Jill Bossi for U.S. Senate Candidates Focused on Core Issues of Broad Importance to Americans Washington, DC — The Centrist Project Voice, the nation’s first political action committee supporting candidates ready to set aside partisan politics and focus on the core issues of critical importance to all Americans, today announced that it has endorsed the following candidates running for U.S. senate seats this fall: Susan Collins of Maine, Larry Pressler of South Dakota, Michelle Nunn of Georgia, Greg Orman of Kansas, and Jill Bossi of South Carolina. "The Centrist Project Voice is pleased to be able to support Susan Collins, Larry Pressler, Michelle Nunn, Greg Orman, and Jill Bossi in their bids to serve the American people by focusing on the critical and mainstream issues that face our country," said Centrist Project Founder Charles Wheelan, a senior lecturer and policy fellow at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College and the bestselling author of Naked Economics. "Each of these candidates embody the Centrist Principles, (fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, social tolerance, economic opportunity and a pragmatic approach to solving core policy challenges) as being the bedrock for how to approach public policy matters in the Senate in order to break the partisan deadlock that grips Congress and move America forward." "Our nation needs different kinds of leaders—people [who] will fight to end the point scoring and political bickering that is going on right now in Washington," Nunn said. "We need more leaders who will bring common-sense and a collaborative sensibility to our broken political process." “We are on the verge of something truly historic,” said Larry Pressler.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Order and Political Participation: Election Scheduling, Calendar Position, and Antebellum Congressional Turnout
    Electoral Order and Political Participation: Election Scheduling, Calendar Position, and Antebellum Congressional Turnout Sara M. Butler Department of Political Science UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095-1472 [email protected] and Scott C. James Associate Professor Department of Political Science UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095-1472 (310) 825-4442 [email protected] An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 3-6, 2008, Chicago, IL. Thanks to Matt Atkinson, Kathy Bawn, and Shamira Gelbman for helpful comments. ABSTRACT Surge-and-decline theory accounts for an enduring regularity in American politics: the predictable increase in voter turnout that accompanies on-year congressional elections and its equally predictable decrease at midterm. Despite the theory’s wide historical applicability, antebellum American political history offers a strong challenge to its generalizability, with patterns of surge-and-decline nowhere evident in the period’s aggregate electoral data. Why? The answer to this puzzle lies with the institutional design of antebellum elections. Today, presidential and on-year congressional elections are everywhere same-day events. By comparison, antebellum states scheduled their on- year congressional elections in one of three ways: before, after, or on the same day as the presidential election. The structure of antebellum elections offers a unique opportunity— akin to a natural experiment—to illuminate surge-and-decline dynamics in ways not possible by the study of contemporary congressional elections alone. Utilizing quantitative and qualitative materials, our analysis clarifies and partly resolves this lack of fit between theory and historical record. It also adds to our understanding of the effects of political institutions and electoral design on citizen engagement.
    [Show full text]
  • Brooks Pierce Election Update, March 4, 2020
    Brooks Pierce Election Update, March 4, 2020 03.04.2020 North Carolina Voters Cast Primary Ballots Over 2.1 million North Carolina voters cast primary election ballots on March 3 and during the early voting period. Most races have been decided, but a few may require runoffs. In races where no candidate receives 30% of the vote, the second place finisher may call for a runoff. Given that many political observers see North Carolina as a “purple” state, the November elections are expected to be hotly contested. While the official results have not yet been certified and the possibility for recounts or runoffs in some races remains… Here’s what we know: President President Donald Trump (R) won the Republican contest with 94% and Democrat Joe Biden won his party’s primary with 43 % to 24 % for Bernie Sanders, 13% for Michael Bloomberg and 10% for Elizabeth Warren. Governor Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest both won their party’s primary by large margins and will face off in November. Lt. Governor Republican Mark Robinson appears to have won with 33% and there may be a runoff on the Democratic side between Wake County Rep. Yvonne Holley (27%) and Buncombe County Sen. Terry Van Duyn (20%). Attorney General Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein will face Republican winner Jim O’Neill, the Forsyth County District Attorney, who received 47%. Agriculture Republican Commissioner Steve Troxler will face Democratic winner Jenna Wadsworth, a Wake County Soil and Water Supervisor, who received 54%. Auditor BROOKSPIERCE.COM Brooks Pierce Election Update, March 4, 2020 Democratic Auditor Beth Wood will face Republican Tony Street, a Brunswick County businessman, who received 56%.
    [Show full text]
  • Marginals [PDF]
    SUPRC / USA TODAY Kansas General Election Voters FINAL KANSAS SEPTEMBER TOPLINES Area Code: (N=500) n % KC Area ----------------------------------------------------------- 163 32.60 East/Topeka ----------------------------------------------------- 109 21.80 Wichita/South ---------------------------------------------------- 105 21.00 West --------------------------------------------------------------- 123 24.60 ********************************************************************************************************************************** {INSERT QUOTAS} INTRO SECTION> Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University and I would like to get your opinions on some questions about the upcoming elections in Kansas. Would you be willing to spend five minutes answering some brief questions? (quota – youngest in that household). Are you currently registered to vote? (N=500) n % Male ---------------------------------------------------------------- 236 47.20 Female ------------------------------------------------------------ 264 52.80 S2 Thank You. How likely are you to vote in the Kansas election for U.S. Senate and Governor – very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely? (N=500) n % Very Likely-------------------------------------------------------- 481 96.20 Somewhat Likely -------------------------------------------------- 19 3.80 1. Are you currently enrolled as a Democrat, Republican, Unaffiliated/Independent, Libertarian or something else? (N=500) n % Democrat ---------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING PANDORA's BOX David Cameron's Referendum Gamble On
    OPENING PANDORA’S BOX David Cameron’s Referendum Gamble on EU Membership Credit: The Economist. By Christina Hull Yale University Department of Political Science Adviser: Jolyon Howorth April 21, 2014 Abstract This essay examines the driving factors behind UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum if the Conservative Party is re-elected in 2015. It addresses the persistence of Euroskepticism in the United Kingdom and the tendency of Euroskeptics to generate intra-party conflict that often has dire consequences for Prime Ministers. Through an analysis of the relative impact of political strategy, the power of the media, and British public opinion, the essay argues that addressing party management and electoral concerns has been the primary influence on David Cameron’s decision and contends that Cameron has unwittingly unleashed a Pandora’s box that could pave the way for a British exit from the European Union. Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank the Bates Summer Research Fellowship, without which I would not have had the opportunity to complete my research in London. To Professor Peter Swenson and the members of The Senior Colloquium, Gabe Botelho, Josh Kalla, Gabe Levine, Mary Shi, and Joel Sircus, who provided excellent advice and criticism. To Professor David Cameron, without whom I never would have discovered my interest in European politics. To David Fayngor, who flew halfway across the world to keep me company during my summer research. To my mom for her unwavering support and my dad for his careful proofreading. And finally, to my adviser Professor Jolyon Howorth, who worked with me on this project for over a year and a half.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Mayors Growing Civic Engagement
    J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 0 tennessee mayors growing civic engagement H O W L O C A L L E A D E R S C A N L E V E R A G E T H E I R O F F I C E T O E N G A G E V O T E R S introduction For over a decade, Tennessee has consistently trailed most other states in voter registration and turnout. Participation in local elections is particularly low: Voter turnout fell below 25 percent in recent elections in our state's four largest cities. As a state with a proud civic history, Tennessee has an important opportunity to examine practices, from election administration to civic engagement, that may offer room for improvement. Systemic reforms, such as policies that modernize and secure election machines and voter- registration databases, are critical, but so too are efforts that better connect voters to their communities and elected representatives. Although state leaders, election officials, community groups and individual residents all have roles to play, city and county mayors are uniquely suited to promote civic engagement at the community level. This report highlights Tennessee Mayors Growing Civic Engagment (TMGCE), a new cohort of city and county mayors who collectively committed to making civic engagement a priority in their communities. Within these pages, readers will learn why mayors are well-placed to lead civic engagement efforts, be able to review specific examples from the participating Tennessee leaders and have access to tools and templates to build a civic-engagement action plan all their own.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete March 26, 2014 USA HBO Real Sports/Marist
    Marist College Institute for Public Opinion Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone 845.575.5050 Fax 845.575.5111 www.maristpoll.marist.edu POLL MUST BE SOURCED: HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll* Race Impacts Decision Not to Pay College Athletes, Say More than Three in Ten *** Complete Tables for Poll Appended *** For Immediate Release: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 Contact: Lee M. Miringoff Barbara L. Carvalho Mary E. Griffith Marist College 845.575.5050 Keith Strudler The Marist College Center for Sports Communication, 845.575.3506 Gregory Domino HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, 212.512.5034 This HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll Reports: Despite the money top college men’s basketball and football programs generate, college athletes are not paid, and 31% of Americans believe there is some truth to the argument that this is because many student athletes are African American. This includes 4% who believe there is a lot of credence to that claim and 27% who say there is probably some legitimacy to it. 17% report there is not very much truth in it, and a majority -- 53% -- says the argument that race plays into the decision not to pay college athletes is false. Similar proportions of college sports fans share these views. This HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll has been conducted in conjunction with the Marist College Center for Sports Communication. “When the majority of revenue generating college athletes are unpaid African-American players and the majority of coaches are often white and well compensated, it almost compels the public to raise the question of race,” says Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 19-524 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROQUE DE LA FUENTE, AKA ROCKY, Petitioner, v. AlEX PADIllA, CALIFOrnIA SECRETARY OF STATE, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ALICia I. DEARN, ESQ. Counsel of Record 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 850 Clayton, MO 63105 (314) 526-0040 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae 292830 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................i TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .............. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................6 ARGUMENT....................................7 I. CERTIORARI IS DESIRABLE BECAUSE THERE IS CONFUSION AMONG LOWER COURTS OVER WHETHER THE APPLY THE USAGE TEST ...........7 II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY STATED THAT BECAUSE MINOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HAVE APPEARED ON THE CALIFORNIA BALLOT, THEREFORE IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT NO INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS QUALIFIED SINCE 1992 ..............................15 CONCLUSION .................................20 ii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page CASES: American Party v. Jernigan, 424 F.Supp. 943 (e.d. Ark. 1977)..................8 Arutunoff v. Oklahoma State Election Board, 687 F.2d 1375 (1982)...........................14 Bergland v. Harris, 767 F.2d 1551 (1985) ..........................8-9 Bradley v Mandel, 449 F. Supp. 983 (1978) ........................10 Citizens to Establish a Reform Party in Arkansas v. Priest, 970 F. Supp. 690 (e.d. Ark. 1996) .................8 Coffield v. Kemp, 599 F.3d 1276 (2010) ...........................12 Cowen v. Raffensperger, 1:17cv-4660 ..................................12 Dart v.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript: NC-11 Congressional Debate, Sept
    Transcript: NC-11 congressional debate, Sept. 30, Asheville, N.C. NC-11 congressional candidates Madison Cawthorn and Moe Davis debated in Asheville on Sept. 30. This debate, hosted by Carolina Public Press and WLOS and broadcast here and on WMYA My40 and wlos.com, featured Holly Headrick, News 13 weekday anchor, and Carolina Public Press Managing Editor Frank Taylor moderating. Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings of this event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. Holly Headrick, News 13 WLOS 0:05 It's one of the most talked about races of the 2020 campaign, who will fill the vacant seat in North Carolina's 11th district House of Representatives. Madison Cawthorn, considered a rising star among Republicans is promising to bring fresh ideas to Washington. (natural sound from tape) Madison Cawthorn, Republican Candidate NC 11 0:20 It's time for term limits. Time to shake up washington dc Holly Headrick, News 13 WLOS 0:23 Democrat Moe Davis is running on experience and his military record. (natural sound from tape) Moe Davis, Democratic candidate NC 11 0:27 We need leadership that puts country over party. Holly Headrick, News 13 WLOS 0:30 It's a race that's gotten national exposure, primarily because the Republican who held the office, Mark Meadows is now President Trump's White House Chief of Staff.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Sandra Day O'connor: the World's Most Powerful Jurist?
    JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL JURIST? DIANE LOWENTHAL AND BARBARA PALMER* I. INTRODUCTION Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been called a "major force on [the] Supreme Court,"' the "real" Chief Justice, 2 and "America's most powerful jurist."' 3 Others have referred to her as "the most 5 powerful woman in America" 4 and even of "the world.", Even compared to women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, there is no one "who has had a more profound effect on society than any other American woman... If someone else had been appointed to her position on the court, our nation might now be living under different rules for abortion, affirmative action, race, religion in school and civil rights. We might well have a different president." 6 Former Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger noted, "What is most striking is the assurance with which this formerly obscure state court judge effectively decides many hugely important questions for a country of 275 million people.",7 As one journalist put it, "We are all living in * Diane Lowenthal, Ph.D. in Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University and Barbara Palmer, Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Minnesota, are assistant professors in American University's Washington Semester Program. The authors would like to thank their undergraduate research assistants, Amy Bauman, Nick Chapman-Hushek, and Amanda White. This paper was presented at October 28, 2004 Town Hall The Sway of the Swing Vote: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Her Influence on Issues of Race, Religion, Gender and Class sponsored by the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class and the Women, Leadership and Equality Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballot Initiatives and Electoral Timing
    Ballot Initiatives and Electoral Timing A. Lee Hannah∗ Pennsylvania State University Department of Political Sciencey Abstract This paper examines the effects of electoral timing on the results of ballot initiative campaigns. Using data from 1965 to 2009, I investigate whether initiative campaign re- sults systematically differ depending on whether the legislation appears during special, midterm, or presidential elections. I also consider the electoral context, particularly the effects of surging presidential candidates on ballot initiative results. The results suggest that initiatives on morality policy are sensitive to the electoral environment, particularly to “favorable surges” provided by popular presidential candidates. Preliminary evidence suggests that tax policy is unaffected by electoral timing. Introduction The increasing use of the ballot initiative has led to heightened interest in both the popular media and among scholars. Some of the most contentious issues in American politics, once reserved for debate among elected representatives, are now being decided directly by the me- dian voter. Yet the location of the median voter fluctuates from election to election based on a number of factors that influence turnout and shape the demographic makeup of voters in a given year. This suggests that votes on ballot initiatives may be influenced by the same factors that are known to influence electoral composition. In this paper, I contrast initiatives appearing on midterm and special election ballots with those held during presidential elections, deriving hypotheses from Campbell’s (1960) theory of electoral surge and decline. I examine whether electoral timing does systematically affect results. ∗Prepared for the 2012 State Politics and Policy Conference, Rice University and University of Houston, February 16-18, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020
    American Review of Politics Volume 37, Issue 1 31 January 2020 An open a ccess journal published by the University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science in colla bora tion with the University of Okla homa L ibraries Justin J. Wert Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science & Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage Daniel P. Brown Managing Editor The University of Oklahoma Department of Political Science Richard L. Engstrom Book Reviews Editor Duke University Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Social Sciences American Review of Politics Volume 37 Issue 1 Partisan Ambivalence and Electoral Decision Making Stephen C. Craig Paulina S. Cossette Michael D. Martinez University of Florida Washington College University of Florida [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract American politics today is driven largely by deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. That said, there are many people who view the opposition in an overwhelmingly negative light – but who simultaneously possess a mix of positive and negative feelings toward their own party. This paper is a response to prior research (most notably, Lavine, Johnson, and Steenbergen 2012) indicating that such ambivalence increases the probability that voters will engage in "deliberative" (or "effortful") rather than "heuristic" thinking when responding to the choices presented to them in political campaigns. Looking first at the 2014 gubernatorial election in Florida, we find no evidence that partisan ambivalence reduces the importance of party identification or increases the impact of other, more "rational" considerations (issue preferences, perceived candidate traits, economic evaluations) on voter choice.
    [Show full text]