Signing Statements, Gridlock, and Presidential Strategy

Abstract

Why do presidents use signing statements? Past research has approached presidential strategy in using such statements from both policy-oriented and institutionally oriented perspectives. However, scholars have not adequately addressed the consequences of congressional ideology and gridlock on the use of presidential signing statements. This article considers congressional composition and offers two different perspectives on presidential strategy: a separation of powers perspective (i.e., presidents use signing statements to protect their office from congressional encroachment) and a political perspective (i.e., presidents use signing statements to counteract the actions of an adversarial Congress). I find that political factors are more important: under conditions of unified government, gridlock predicts fewer substantive signing statements than under conditions of divided government. The results suggest a theory of unilateral power, which posits that presidents are strategic and will change their use of particular policy-shaping tools depending on various political circumstances.

Presidential action and the Supreme Court: The case of signing statements

“…Consequently, the effects of ideological conflict with Congress on the exercise of presidential power, a relationship widely explored in the literature, may be conditioned on other political factors (e.g. see Kennedy, 2014).…”

“…Some studies find that divided government increases the probability that the president issues a signing statement (Berry, 2009; Kelley and Marshall, 2008, 2009, 2010), while other studies find that divided government has mixed or no effects (Kelley et al, 2013; Ostrander and Sievert, 2012; Sievert and Ostrander, 2017). Yet, some suggest that these relationships should also account for the internal fragmentation of Congress (Kennedy, 2014; Moraguez, n.d.). In addition, scholars have consistently found that presidents are more likely to issue statements on legislation that is significant and related to appropriations or foreign policy (Berry, 2009; Kelley et al, 2013; Kelley and Marshall, 2008, 2009, 2010; Ostrander and Sievert, 2012; Sievert and Ostrander, 2017).…”