Search

Quality deer management (QDM) is the preeminent framework by which white-tailed deer are managed in the eastern USA. Historic differences surrounding the cultures, traditions, and regulations of deer hunting exist regionally between the Midwest and Southeast, yet no published study has investigated regional differences in attitudes and opinions of QDM among deer hunters. We surveyed 9,301 deer hunters across two Midwestern states (Missouri and Ohio) and two Southeastern states (Louisiana and South Carolina) and found that hunters across regions held similar motivations for deer hunting, as well as similar attitudes and opinions of strategies and expected outcomes of QDM. However, there existed several mismatches between the practices and ideology associated with QDM among Southeastern hunters. Southeastern hunters held greater support for greater antlered bag limits, protection of does, and supplemental feeding. We postulate that these mismatches are largely driven by regional differences in cultures, traditions, and regulations surrounding deer hunting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2020 redistricting cycle closely resembled recent cycles in many ways, but also differed substantially in others. I, therefore, begin by discussing some of the new, unique features of redistricting. Next, I extend existing work on the impact of different redistricting methods to 2022 and discuss how the trends in the most recent cycle compare to years past. From there, I discuss how the most recent redistricting plans could impact future elections. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of ideas for future research in the areas of gerrymandering, redistricting reform, and laws around how lines are drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 2020 election cycle, numerous national, state, and local organizations mounted campaigns designed to counter mis- and disinformation about election activities and to foster public trust in election processes. Local and state election offices focused intently on creating and disseminating accurate messages about when, where, and how to vote. Despite these efforts, trust in the 2020 election remained confoundingly low. This research analyzes this disconnect between messages from election offices and public trust by testing messages collected from election officials around the country using focus groups and a national panel survey experiment. We find that in focus groups, neutral messages that evoke local connections tested better than other types of messages. Further, messenger characteristics influenced whether participants trusted the messages. Using messages based on these findings, we fielded a survey experiment during the 2022 midterm election cycle, finding that the interaction between baseline trust, racial identification, and identification with the messenger moves trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the U.S. House and Senate differ in many significant ways, perhaps the most important is the ability of House leaders to control the legislative process through the usage of special rules, which establish the terms of debate on a bill and can limit the number and content of amendments allowed. House members of both the majority and minority party have complained about their recent increased usage. In contrast, the Senate lacks a comparable tool and scholars have reported sharp increases in the number of floor amendments being proposed. In this paper, we examine the increase in proposed floor amendments in the Senate; arguing that, in addition to an increased value from electoral position-taking, the procedures employed in the House influence the floor behavior of senators. Specifically, we find that senators are more likely to offer amendments to bills that were passed under a restrictive rule in the House. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many challenges to governments around the world. The federal structure within the United States has further complicated effective responses to mitigate the personal and economic effects of COVID. Here, we argue that the Trump administration's approach to federalism—highlighted by the pandemic—is incapable of efficiently and effectively addressing state needs and those needs are only going to grow as a result, further exacerbating the problem. This form of federalism, which we dub "transactional federalism," is likely to have deleterious effects on state infrastructure, much of which is already in need. The long-term effects of transactional federalism are likely to weaken state efforts to address critical infrastructure needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Politicians routinely campaign on a large platform of new policies and policy changes they hope to pursue once in office. Presidents, however, are unique in their ability to accomplish this given the multiple avenues by which they can enact policy change. Using each presidential agenda between 1964 and 2010, we evaluate the circumstances under which a president's policy goal is realized via an executive order or a law passed by Congress. Previous studies have only considered these avenues independently, but when we consider them in concert with one another, new patterns emerge. Our results indicate that a president's proposal is most commonly addressed in tandem with Congress through the traditional legislative process. However, the level of polarization, presidential approval, the composition of government, and the type of issue being addressed increase the probability of a proposal being addressed unilaterally via executive order rather than by passing a law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]