CURRENT PROJECTS
My research interests include methodology, public opinion, judicial politics, and the sociology of the discipline. Below you will find summaries of my current projects.
Current Research Projects:
“Democracy Labs: How To Teach Polarizing Issues in Introduction to American Politics” with Emily M. Farris and Joseph Anthony
Democratic decision-making requires informed deliberation, where solutions to public problems are developed through an exchange of ideas characterized by reason-giving, consideration of others’ perspectives, and inclusive participation. A common learning outcome for many universities’ Introduction to American Politics courses is the development of students’ civic or citizenship skills in order to prepare students for this kind of participation in public life. In this project, we describe how we have created a semester-long project for introductory American Politics courses that we entitle “Democracy Labs,” which allows students to gain an in-depth understanding of a polarizing issue (gun control) and practice civil discourse. We describe in detail the semester project and how three professors have adapted this assignment across different classrooms. Drawing on data from an end-of-the-semester survey and a pre/post survey of students, we discuss the ability of Democracy Labs to assist students achieve these civic skills.
“Bad Blood: The Changing Nature of Specific and Diffuse Judicial Support” with Alixandra Yanus and Heather Ondercin
The American judiciary has recently come under fire for its politicization, ethical violations, and contributions to Americans' eroding trust in political institutions. Since it's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Clinic (2022), the Supreme Court as an institution has received its lowest ratings for public trust since the 1960s. These events have led political leaders, including outgoing president Joe Biden, to call for wholesale judicial reform. Using original panel survey data from a representative sample of Americans collected in spring 2024, we examine how Americans changed their attitudes toward the judiciary in response to Trump v. Anderson (2024), a case that addressed significant questions of political and institutional power. We observe significant change in trust and legitimacy between the two waves of our survey. Additionally, Democrats and Republicans changed their trust and legitimacy at different rates. Those who agree with the Trump v. Anderson decision increased their trust and viewed the Supreme Court as more legitimate.
“The Effect of State Judicial Selection Method on Public Support for the US Supreme Court” with Alixandra Yanus and Jack Spencer.
Most empirical studies and positive theory of judicial legitimacy in the United States find that viewing courts as political institutions undermines judicial legitimacy. However, nearly all these studies ignore important aspects of federalism and the dual court system, including the relationship between state and national courts and the varied mechanisms used to select state court judges. We posit that variations in state judicial selection mechanisms may affect citizens' expectations of judges and, by extension, their views of the US Supreme Court. Using data from a nationally representative sample collected in spring 2024, our analysis reveals that citizens in states with partisan judicial elections have higher levels of trust in and satisfaction with the US Supreme Court. However, state selection system does not alter citizens' views on judicial legitimacy. These findings shed greater light on citizens' learned expectations of the judiciary and the interdependence of the state and federal courts.
“The Politics of Scandals: The Case of Supreme Court Nominations, 1877-2022” with Albert H. Rivero, Jeffrey Segal, and Charles Cameron
We examine the role of scandals in the politics of Supreme Court nominations, 1877-2022. We argue that when a nominee’s opponents control the process, they often delay it in the hope of uncovering a scandal. If they succeed in finding a scandal, they further delay the process in order to exploit the scandal and damage the nominee’s prospects of confirmation. Evidence from a Markov model of the confirmation process, estimated on weekly data on the emergence of scandals, supports this view. We then examine the impact of scandals on roll call voting. Scandals reduce support for a nominee among the President’s co-partisans, though modestly. But they galvanize opposition among the President’s partisan opponents, especially in tandem with divided party government. We then estimate the expected aggregate support for nominees, in the presence and absence of scandals, given the size of the president’s majority in the Senate. Scandal-wracked nominations face a substantial chance of failure, but only in periods of divided government. These findings suggest some lessons about the strategic, partisan manipulation of scandals during periods of ideological tension in American government.
Current Research Projects:
“Democracy Labs: How To Teach Polarizing Issues in Introduction to American Politics” with Emily M. Farris and Joseph Anthony
Democratic decision-making requires informed deliberation, where solutions to public problems are developed through an exchange of ideas characterized by reason-giving, consideration of others’ perspectives, and inclusive participation. A common learning outcome for many universities’ Introduction to American Politics courses is the development of students’ civic or citizenship skills in order to prepare students for this kind of participation in public life. In this project, we describe how we have created a semester-long project for introductory American Politics courses that we entitle “Democracy Labs,” which allows students to gain an in-depth understanding of a polarizing issue (gun control) and practice civil discourse. We describe in detail the semester project and how three professors have adapted this assignment across different classrooms. Drawing on data from an end-of-the-semester survey and a pre/post survey of students, we discuss the ability of Democracy Labs to assist students achieve these civic skills.
“Bad Blood: The Changing Nature of Specific and Diffuse Judicial Support” with Alixandra Yanus and Heather Ondercin
The American judiciary has recently come under fire for its politicization, ethical violations, and contributions to Americans' eroding trust in political institutions. Since it's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Clinic (2022), the Supreme Court as an institution has received its lowest ratings for public trust since the 1960s. These events have led political leaders, including outgoing president Joe Biden, to call for wholesale judicial reform. Using original panel survey data from a representative sample of Americans collected in spring 2024, we examine how Americans changed their attitudes toward the judiciary in response to Trump v. Anderson (2024), a case that addressed significant questions of political and institutional power. We observe significant change in trust and legitimacy between the two waves of our survey. Additionally, Democrats and Republicans changed their trust and legitimacy at different rates. Those who agree with the Trump v. Anderson decision increased their trust and viewed the Supreme Court as more legitimate.
“The Effect of State Judicial Selection Method on Public Support for the US Supreme Court” with Alixandra Yanus and Jack Spencer.
Most empirical studies and positive theory of judicial legitimacy in the United States find that viewing courts as political institutions undermines judicial legitimacy. However, nearly all these studies ignore important aspects of federalism and the dual court system, including the relationship between state and national courts and the varied mechanisms used to select state court judges. We posit that variations in state judicial selection mechanisms may affect citizens' expectations of judges and, by extension, their views of the US Supreme Court. Using data from a nationally representative sample collected in spring 2024, our analysis reveals that citizens in states with partisan judicial elections have higher levels of trust in and satisfaction with the US Supreme Court. However, state selection system does not alter citizens' views on judicial legitimacy. These findings shed greater light on citizens' learned expectations of the judiciary and the interdependence of the state and federal courts.
“The Politics of Scandals: The Case of Supreme Court Nominations, 1877-2022” with Albert H. Rivero, Jeffrey Segal, and Charles Cameron
We examine the role of scandals in the politics of Supreme Court nominations, 1877-2022. We argue that when a nominee’s opponents control the process, they often delay it in the hope of uncovering a scandal. If they succeed in finding a scandal, they further delay the process in order to exploit the scandal and damage the nominee’s prospects of confirmation. Evidence from a Markov model of the confirmation process, estimated on weekly data on the emergence of scandals, supports this view. We then examine the impact of scandals on roll call voting. Scandals reduce support for a nominee among the President’s co-partisans, though modestly. But they galvanize opposition among the President’s partisan opponents, especially in tandem with divided party government. We then estimate the expected aggregate support for nominees, in the presence and absence of scandals, given the size of the president’s majority in the Senate. Scandal-wracked nominations face a substantial chance of failure, but only in periods of divided government. These findings suggest some lessons about the strategic, partisan manipulation of scandals during periods of ideological tension in American government.
