This study examines how racial identity affects legislative responsiveness in Mexico using an email-based audit experiment. Emails from simulated Indigenous, Mestiza, and European-White constituents were sent to all 626 federal legislators to test whether perceived identity shapes replies and their quality. Contrary to expectations, Indigenous-named constituents received significantly higher response rates that were more personalized and helpful than their European-White counterparts, while Mestiza-named constituents showed no significant differences in response rates. We found no coalition-based differences, though power was limited, and responsiveness declined in districts with larger Indigenous populations, revealing how national inclusion norms may be moderated by local demographic and political dynamics.

In the US Congress, a key signal of a legislator’s effectiveness is their sponsorship of bills, but minority representatives, particularly women of color, often face institutional and informal barriers to sponsoring legislation. In new research, I explore how minority representatives work around these constraints by cosponsoring bills. I find that newly elected minority members are likely to have a 20 percent higher cosponsorship rate compared to their white predecessors, and that this rate is even greater for legislators who are women of color.

How do race, ethnicity, and gender shape a legislator’s approach to bill sponsorship and cosponsorship? This paper examines how institutional marginalization influences the legislative strategies of racial and gender minority representatives. Constrained by systemic barriers that limit their ability to sponsor legislation, minority legislators prioritize cosponsorship to achieve policy goals, build coalitions, and demonstrate responsiveness to their constituencies. Using the quasi-experimental context of the 2016 and 2018 U.S. congressional elections, I apply the synthetic difference-in-differences estimator and find that minority legislators sponsor fewer bills but cosponsor significantly more than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Additionally, race-gendered effects reveal that women of color sponsor significantly less legislation than non-minority legislators and men of color. These patterns cannot be explained by factors like freshman status or primary election competitiveness. The findings highlight the strategic adaptations of minority legislators to navigate structural inequities and amplify their legislative influence. This study is the first to use a causal inference approach to explore the intersection of race, gender, and sponsorship and cosponsorship of congressional bills, contributing to a deeper understanding of legislative behavior among marginalized groups.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is frequently promoted as an alternative to Plurality Voting, with the goal of enhancing democratic representation. As its gained traction across various jurisdictions—ranging from states like Alaska and Maine to cities like New York and San Francisco—the impact of RCV on minority communities has become a critical area of research and debate. While the adoption and awareness of RCV continue to expand, scholars have increasingly raised concerns about its effectiveness in fulfilling its promises of improved representation and equity. Some of the literature has shown that RCV often falls short in addressing these goals, particularly for underrepresented minority groups. As such, there is a growing need to critically assess RCV's limitations and explore alternative voting methods that may more effectively promote fair representation. One such alternative is Approval Voting, which presents a promising approach to overcoming the shortcomings of RCV. Approval Voting could offer a more equitable solution, especially in terms of its impact on minority voters.

The America (Mis)Represented: 2022 Election Report investigates the prevalence and consequences of vote splitting in the United States’ 2022 election cycle. Vote splitting—where multiple candidates divide the vote in plurality systems—frequently results in non-majority winners, undermining representative outcomes. Analyzing 5,662 national primary elections, the report finds that 11.9% exhibited vote-splitting dynamics, with pronounced effects in states such as New Hampshire, Arizona, and California. Voter dissatisfaction has intensified, with public confidence in democracy dropping from 41% in 2021 to 31% by 2024. Logistic regression analyses reveal that open-seat and competitive races are significantly more prone to vote splitting. The report advocates for reforms such as approval voting, which mitigates vote distortion and better captures voter preferences. Evidence from simulations, including California’s 2024 Senate primary, suggests that such reforms could lead to more representative electoral outcomes.

How has the legalization of recreational marijuana shaped opioid overdose deaths in Colorado? While prior research has examined the effects of medical cannabis laws, less is known about the public health consequences of broader marijuana policy liberalization. In this study, I use the synthetic control method to estimate the effect of Colorado’s 2014 policy change, comparing the state to a data-driven composite of similar states from 1999 to 2017. Using CDC WONDER data, I construct a counterfactual scenario in which Colorado did not legalize recreational cannabis, incorporating relevant predictors of opioid mortality. I supplement this approach with a difference-in-differences estimate and conduct placebo inference tests to assess robustness. The results suggest a 5% decline in opioid overdose deaths following legalization, but this effect is not statistically significant. These findings offer limited evidence that recreational marijuana access meaningfully reduced opioid-related mortality in Colorado, underscoring the need for more nuanced evaluations of drug policy reform.