Published and Accepted
-
Do White Americans have greater influence over policy outcomes than do people of color? To answer this question, we assess how well national lawmaking aligns with the preferences of nearly 500,000 Black, Asian, Latino, and White citizens from 2006 to 2022 using a novel dataset. On average, racial gaps in overall policy responsiveness appear small. However, citizens of color are significantly disadvantaged compared to White Americans when Republicans hold power, a disparity not explained by the socioeconomic and ideological correlates of race. Analyzing the congruence between constituents’ preferences and roll-call votes, we find that the numerically smaller size of minority constituencies does not explain party-based representational deficits either. In fact, Republican Senators represent constituents of color worse the larger their share of the electorate. Instead, our analysis suggests that White voters’ racial resentment drives partisan gaps in racial representation. Race matters in American policymaking in complex and troubling ways.
​​​
​
-
The prominent “voter myopia” debate investigates the electorate’s reactions to economic conditions or natural disasters to determine whether voters are myopic or far-sighted. We test whether voters are myopic when it comes to criminal justice, a salient policy realm in which the media often covers only short-term crime trends. While previous studies suggest that voters substitute “the end” for “the whole,” we find that voters take long-term data into account even when presented with countervailing short-term trends. Our evidence comes from an original survey experiment conducted on a sample of 2,979 respondents from California in 2022. Survey respondents who were randomly selected to view long-term trends as well as the recent short-term rise in California’s crime rates were more likely to support the incumbent attorney general and less likely to favor a tough-on-crime policy then those presented with only short-term spikes in crime, evidence that voters are not purely myopic.
​
​
"Exposure to Mass Shootings and Voting Directly on Gun Policy." with Ben Newman. American Political Science Review. (2025)
- Recent scholarship finds that exposure to mass shootings has no effect on Democratic vote shares. This outcome, however, reflects myriad issue concerns, with guns being just one issue typically dwarfed in importance by the attention given in electoral campaigns to jobs and the economy. In short, voting for a Democratic candidate may not be what citizens do when in want of “doing something” following a mass shooting. Our research improves the issue-domain correspondence between treatment and outcome by analyzing voting directly on gun policy. We leverage a mass shooting that occurred in Washington state shortly before residents voted on a ballot measure to regulate firearms. Critically, a previous measure on firearms appeared on the ballot in Washington two years prior, enabling our analysis to control for pretreatment support for gun control. Across various model specifications, we find that proximity to the shooting was associated with increased support for gun control.
​​
​
-
Despite longstanding efforts, racial and ethnic minorities remain greatly under-represented in public office. We examine whether changing the dates of local elections — which prior work has shown increases overall turnout and shrinks the turnout gap between racial and ethnic minorities and White voters — can also increase descriptive representation and reduce this representational shortfall. Leveraging changes in the timing of city council elections in California, we find that moving to November even-year elections is a potentially important pathway to greater representation, but results vary significantly by racial minority group. Our analysis demonstrates how, when, and for whom election timing matters. Representational gains accrue most for Latinos, whose turnout increases most during on-cycle elections, but at the cost of White and, potentially Black, representation. These effects tend to be greater when more co-ethnic candidates run and where Latinos constitute a larger share of the population. Finally, gains are greatest when local elections are coupled with presidential contests and when changes in timing cause Latino turnout to increase the most.
​​
​
-
Is policy equally responsive to public health crises that affect white communities and public health crises that affect nonwhite communities? I approach this question by studying states’ policy responses to mass shootings. I argue that states are more likely to tighten firearm laws in response to mass shootings where victims are disproportionately white compared to mass shootings where victims are disproportionately nonwhite. Using a staggered difference-in-difference with a 30-year state panel dataset, I find support for this claim. The models predict that 10 white mass shooting fatalities lead to an additional 1.6 restrictive firearm laws on average while 10 nonwhite mass shooting fatalities have no statistically significant effect of state firearm policy change. Importantly, the findings are robust to various model specifications and the differential effect of race exists irrespective of the partisan composition of state governments.
​
​
​​"The Impact of Police Killings on Proximal Voter Turnout." American Politics Research (2023).
-
This paper studies the effect of spatially proximal pre-election police killings on voter turnout. Proximity to police killings increases the likelihood that voters know about the incidents and feel threatened by police violence, making local policing practices salient. But does this demobilize voters by teaching anti-democratic political lessons or mobilize voters by highlighting amenable social injustices? Observing the 2016 presidential election, I test these competing perspectives using geolocated voter data and a difference-in-difference design with naturally matched groups. I find that police killings reduce voter participation rates by 2.9 percentage points in the killings’ one-mile radius but have no effect on voters living one to two miles away from the killings. Importantly, space and race matter. Police killings of Black victims reduce voter participation rates by 8 percentage points in the killings’ half-mile radius, but turnout remains unchanged when police kill White and Latino victims, regardless of the distance.
​​
​
-
Low and uneven turnout is a serious problem for local democracy. Fortunately, one simple reform — shifting the timing of local elections so they are held on the same day as national contests — can substantially increase participation. Considerable research shows that on-cycle November elections generally double local voter turnout compared to stand-alone local contests. But does higher turnout mean a more representative electorate? On that critical question, the evidence is slim and mixed. We combine information on election timing with detailed micro-targeting data that includes voter demographic information to provide the first direct test of how election timing influences voter composition in city elections. We find that moving to on-cycle elections in California leads to an electorate that is much more representative in terms of race, age, and partisanship — especially when these local elections coincide with a presidential election. Our results suggest that on-cycle elections can improve local democracy.
​
​
-
When we understand the source of policy opposition in legislators’ constituencies, then we can design policy interventions that facilitate policy change to solve pressing problems. Using original survey data from U.S. state legislators, we find that those legislators whose constituents would be most affected by an increased gas tax – those whose constituents drive more – are more likely to oppose increases to the gas tax. Raising taxes on gasoline is an important policy tool for reducing carbon to mitigate climate change because transportation accounts for nearly a quarter of the world’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. This unique data on lawmakers reveals the potential for investments in public transit to have both direct effects on carbon emissions and indirect effects by enabling policy change that would otherwise be made difficult by the responsiveness of decision makers to the costs their constituents would pay for carbon mitigation.
​​
​
-
This chapter provides recent data on group differences in the political participation of Black Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans in the United States and discusses advances in our understanding of the processes (e.g., mobilization, legal reforms, experiences of minorities with the carceral state) and mechanisms (e.g., resources, group consciousness, identity) that account for such differences. The reviewed research focused on, and in light of similar studies conducted outside of, the United States supports the argument that political participation of marginalized groups reflects the costs and benefits imposed by the broader political and historical contexts in addition to the typical individual-level factors considered in standard participation models. Thus, generalizing our understanding of race, ethnicity and participation across different political systems and social contexts requires a nuanced understanding of country-specific histories and efforts to draw broad, systematic comparative conclusions regarding race and ethnicity as determinants of participation can be highly problematic.
Work under review
*= graduate student coauthor ; **= undergraduate student coauthor
"Exposure to Crime and Political Participation." with David Doherty, Mena Whalen, and Dana Garbarski
Invited to Revise and Resubmit at American Political Science Review
-
Does exposure to crime mobilize or demobilize political participation? We report findings from a pre-registered design that leverages data from an original survey of 21 major U.S. cities, as well as data from five waves of the Cooperative Election Study (CES). We assess the relationships between both personal victimization and hyper-local (ZCTA-level) crime rates and two outcomes: turnout---including validated turnout---and non-electoral participation. We find that personal victimization is associated with higher levels of non-electoral engagement but significantly lower levels of turnout. The magnitude of the negative estimated effects of victimization on turnout exceed the positive effects associated with common get-out-the-vote efforts. We find only limited evidence that crime rates are associated with participation. Our findings offer new, comprehensive evidence regarding the nature of the relationship between exposure to crime and political participation. They also illustrate the importance of distinguishing between types of exposure, as well as types of participation.
​
-
Who wins and loses on national policy issues? Political scientists have put forward three competing accounts that emphasize, alternately, the persistent influence of advantaged groups, the importance of the median voter, or the rising dominance of partisan loyalists. Each of these three traditions highlights a distinct source of influence and offers a distinct prediction about who wins and loses. In this paper, we assess the contrasting expectations of these theories using a new approach that examines the role of multiple individual voter characteristics alongside party control of government. To do so, we link national policy outcomes over a nearly twenty-year recent period to over 500,000 responses from the Cooperative Election Study on 134 salient bills. Averaged over time, disparities across social groups appear muted. But this masks a deeper pattern: policy responsiveness shifts dramatically with partisan control. Under Republican governance, White, wealthy, male, and Evangelical Americans are more likely to see their preferences enacted than their counterparts. Under Democrats, responsiveness favors Black, secular, and college-educated Americans and religious minorities. In both cases, policy winners are electoral loyalists of the party in power. These findings challenge both the idea of stable group-based privilege and the median voter model. Instead, we reveal a pattern of conditional representational disparities, where partisan control powerfully shapes who wins and loses. In an era of heightened polarization, the aims and electorates of the parties look very different, and so too do the groups that get what they want under each.
​​
-
Mass shootings are among the most visible and tragic events in American public life, yet their impact on policymaking remains unclear. While theory and anecdotes suggest that American lawmakers— motivated by constituent opinion, media attention, and the urgency of local tragedy—should respond legislatively to shootings in their jurisdiction, recent evidence raises doubts about whether such events generate sufficient electoral or institutional incentives for change. Using a comprehensive dataset on sponsorship and voting on firearms legislation across nearly all U.S. states from 2009–2022, we find little consistent evidence that in-district mass shootings affect policymaker behavior. These findings suggest that even highly salient and localized tragedies may be insufficient to shift legislative action, posing a challenge to theories of democratic responsiveness and crisis-driven policy change.
​
-
A formidable corpus of scholarship explores the role of economic self-interest in shaping public support for redistribution. One striking feature of this literature is its near exclusive reliance on reported preferences in surveys, with little-to-no research analyzing revealed preferences in the form of actual voting on redistribution. Leveraging 7 redistributive ballot initiatives across 6 American states and a total of N=66,820 observations of revealed support for redistribution, we find consistent evidence that the economic standing of precinct voters is systematically related to their support for redistribution. Critically, we find that the exercise of self-interest is non-linear across the income distribution; while lower to upper-middle income precincts are each significantly more supportive of redistribution than upper income precincts, maximum support is observed among precincts with higher densities of middle income households. Finally, we observe the largest class differential in support for redistribution in more heavily Republican precincts​.
​
"Bringing the Middle Back In: On-cycle Elections May Reduce Polarization." with Zoltan Hajnal and William Holzer**
-
Political polarization threatens American democracy, shaping institutions at every level. We evaluate a potential “bottom-up” remedy: increasing moderate and nonpartisan voter participation in local politics through election consolidation—holding local contests on the same cycle as state or national elections. Critics worry consolidation could import national partisan animosity into local politics. Yet millions of Americans, who disproportionately hold moderate views and weak partisan attachments, regularly abstain from off-cycle municipal elections. Drawing on model-enhanced voter files, we find that election consolidation substantially boosts turnout among moderate and nonpartisan voters. Additionally, analysis of local candidate data and national surveys of municipal officials suggests on-cycle local elections may be associated with less ideologically extreme mayoral candidates and officeholders. By broadening participation and moderating candidate selection, election consolidation offers a straightforward yet potentially powerful tool to reduce polarization in local government—one with meaningful implications for the future of American democracy.
​
-
Polls show that men are less likely to support gun restrictions than women, but do voter preferences translate into elite behavior? Specifically, do women legislators approach gun policy differently than their male counterparts? To answer this question, we use a novel dataset of hand-coded state firearm legislation in six politically diverse states (California, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Texas), constructing a 12-year panel dataset. Our results demonstrate that descriptively, women generally sponsor more gun-control and fewer gun-rights bills than men, even after accounting for partisanship. Using multiple staggered difference-in-differences specifications, we find women are no more likely than men to advance gun-control bills, yet they do sponsor fewer efforts to expand gun rights. Our findings imply that electing more women may not substantially increase efforts to tighten gun laws but could curb gun rights expansion, showcasing how gender may shape legislation through agenda restraint rather than by promoting active policymaking.
"Economies Based on Extractive Industry Limit Women’s Electoral Opportunities." with Olga Avdeyeva
-
Does natural resource abundance impede women’s political representation? We leverage census and district-level election data on U.S. state legislative elections to explore if workforce concentration in extraction shapes female candidate entry and victory. We find a negative association between resource abundance and women’s candidate entry and electoral victory. We then explore supply and demand explanations by sequentially controlling for ideological versus demographic correlates of industry concentration. The results suggest that both supply and demand side explanations operate to explain the relationship, however, ideology primarily stand out. Finally, we find that the growth in gas and oil production is associated with more conservative ideologies, fewer women with college degrees, and fewer women in the labor force ten years later. While we recognize that all correlates are confounded, we find a sizable mediating effect of ideology on women’s empowerment in resource-rich regions, which may be partially downstream from resource concentration.
​
In progress
"Racial Boundaries of Protection: How Victims' Race and Ethnicity Shape Political Responses to Mass Shootings." Book Project.
​​​​
"Who Represents Me? The Impact of Descriptive Representation on Substantive Representation in the US Federal Government." with Zoltan Hajnal, Jacob Hacker, and Mackenzie Lockhart.
​
"Exposure to Crime and Views of the Carceral State ." with David Doherty, Mena Whalen, and Dana Garbarski
Presented at the 2025 Harvard Bloomberg Center for Cities Conference
​
"Senators Good, Senate Bad: How the Senate Shapes Disparities." with Zoltan Hajnal, Jacob Hacker, and Mackenzie Lockhart.
Presented at SPSA 2025
"Studying Elite Blame Attribution after Mass Shootings using Big Twitter Data." with Haotian Chen*, Jack Kappelman*, and Amanda Mauri
