National Policies, Agendas, and Polarization in American State Legislatures: 2011 to 2014

Abstract

Why are some states polarized and others not? This article argues that state legislators are provided with more information by lobbyists and the media about national policies, or state-level bills that are prominent in the national political discourse. Compared with state-specific issues, this additional information encourages legislators to vote along party lines to secure reelection or prepare for a run for higher office. It identifies national policies using lobbying registrations in state legislatures and Congress to show there is more party difference on roll-call votes on national policies in 25 states over 2011 to 2014. It also argues that the notoriety of national issues may encourage party leaders to put these bills on the agenda to build their party brand, or for individual legislators to raise their profiles. It finds that states with more national agendas have more polarized sessions.

Interest group lobbying and partisan polarization in the United States: 1999–2016

“…To identify where the parties are cohesive and opposed to one another, I collected the universe of floor votes for the following legislative venues and years: the US Congress (1999-2014), 4 and the Colorado (2011), Ohio (2011-2014), and Wisconsin (2009-2014 state legislatures. 5 The sample only includes regular bills from regular legislative sessions, 6 dropping resolutions and bills from special sessions.…”

“…15 Holding all other factors in Equation 2 at their means. 16 See Garlick (2017) for a description of Ohio's SB 5 in 2011. 17 However, it is worth noting that Wisconsin had a similar bill (AB 11) to restrict public sector collective bargaining in a special session in 2011 that is not included in this sample of regular sessions.…”

“…Holyoke (2019) provides estimates the interest group population in all 50 states disaggregated by group type, which can be adapted to the classification used in this analysis.20Replication data fromGarlick (2017) shows the average party difference of 27 states using data from the OpenStates project which can be added to aggregated estimates from the states being used in this analysis to provide a 30 state sample of average party difference dating back to approximately 2009, and discusses the sample's representation along a number of…”

“… 20 Replication data from Garlick (2017) shows the average party difference of 27 states using data from the OpenStates project which can be added to aggregated estimates from the states being used in this analysis to provide a 30 state sample of average party difference dating back to approximately 2009, and discusses the sample's representation along a number of dimensions. The 30 states in the sample are AK, AL, CA, CO, HI, IA, ID, IN, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, and WI.…”

Nationalization and Its Consequences for State Legislatures

“…Hinchliffe and Lee (2016) show that this increase in polarization is associated with party competition, which in many states may be a related to nationalization. Examining the nationalization of the interest group environment in particular, Garlick (2017) demonstrates that when national interest groups take part in legislative debate, party loyalty increases on key roll-call votes. In this article, I consider the impact of nationalized electorates on state legislative behavior.…”