Research

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.

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.

This study investigates whether minority (Black and Latine) Congressmembers are more inclined than White legislators to engage in cooperative behaviors via bill cosponsorship, both within their own racial and ethnic groups and with White legislators. Building upon theories of social identity and marginalized electoral vulnerability, I examine whether minority legislators strategically cosponsor bills introduced by White legislators more frequently than White legislators cosponsor bills introduced by minority legislators. By analyzing cosponsorship patterns from multiple congressional sessions and employing fixed-effects Seemingly Unrelated Negative Binomial Regression (SUNBR) models, I provide a nuanced understanding of how identity influences legislative collaboration.

This study examines whether racial differences in legislative behavior, specifically bill sponsorship and cosponsorship, exist between Minority (Black and Latino) and Non-minority (White) legislators in the U.S. Congress, even after accounting for electoral conditions such as district competitiveness and changes in House majority control. Using data from the 95th to the 117th Congresses, I employ Propensity Score Matching (PSM) using Gradient Boosting (GB) to create comparable groups of Minority and White legislators. Following matching, I implement a Multilevel Model (MLM) with fixed effects for congressional sessions to analyze how individual-level factors, district characteristics, and temporal political environments influence bill sponsorship and cosponsorship. This study’s findings aim to provide a nuanced understanding of how race and electoral conditions interact to shape legislative strategies over time, contributing to the broader discourse on representation and policymaking in a diverse political landscape.

This audit experiment examines the responsiveness of Mexican legislators to constituents from different racial groups through an email experiment using simulated constituents with racially coded names. Legislators were randomly assigned to receive the same message from one of three constituent profiles: Indigenous, mestiza, or European. The findings reveal that legislators responded more frequently and were more likely to engage with the Indigenous profile compared to the mestiza and European profiles. This study fills a notable gap in the literature by centering indigeneity in audit experiments, which has been largely overlooked. Additionally, it represents the first audit study to explore racial discrimination in the context of Mexican politics.

This study explores the relationship between perceptions of procedural and distributive justice and burnout among local government employees, using data from a 2018 survey of over 1,000 employees in Los Angeles County. Testing the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, we applied a series of OLS regressions to examine the impact of fairness perceptions on burnout outcomes. The results show that lower perceptions of procedural fairness are strongly associated with higher levels of emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. While distributive fairness also affects burnout, its influence is less pronounced. Significant variations are observed across gender and racial groups, with women of color experiencing the highest levels of emotional exhaustion and cynicism. These findings underscore the importance of procedural fairness in reducing burnout and highlight the need for equitable processes to improve employee well-being and retention in local government settings.

The extant literature on bureaucratic delegation outlines the political conditions under which principals should delegate discretion to agents and offers a variety of procedural and ex-post mechanisms for controlling agent behavior. These studies, however, often focus on bureaucrats at the federal level. This national focus obscures how theories of political control translate into environments in which bureaucrats have tremendous discretion, as is true for policing. To what extent are efforts to reduce the discretion of street-level bureaucrats successful in affecting bureaucratic behavior? We address the question by assessing the impact of a 2022 departmental change in the criteria needed for LAPD officers to conduct pretextual stops, in effect reducing police discretion by requiring evidence of both a traffic violation and “articulable information.” Using traffic stop data from the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 and employing a synthetic difference-in-difference design to construct a synthetic LAPD from departments across California, we find that the policy change on average reduced the proportion of pretextual stops conducted by ten percentage points. Consistent with street-level bureaucracy theory, however, our evidence suggests that officers exert considerable influence over the implementation of policy and the threat of departmental sanctions.

This study explores how police officers, as street-level bureaucrats, shape public perceptions of policy representation and state legitimacy. While racial disparities in policing are well-documented, less attention is given to how these disparities influence public attitudes. Through a mixed-methods approach, we examine survey data and interviews from Los Angeles residents about their experiences and expectations during traffic stops. Despite sharing similar preferences for respectful and fair treatment, Black and Latino residents report significantly more negative experiences compared to White residents, and perceive a greater gap between their expectations and actual police behavior. These findings highlight that while policy expectations may be consistent across racial groups, the experiences of Black and Latine communities with police differ significantly. This study underscores the need to consider not just formal policies but also the actions of street-level bureaucrats in shaping public attitudes toward the state.

Does the top-two primary increase ideological heterogeneity in parties in state legislatures? We argue and find that the possibility of same-party elections in the top-2 leads to greater diversity within party caucuses in state legislatures; in contrast to closed primary systems. In closed primaries, party caucuses are less ideologically diverse as reelection incentives for all members within the caucus are similar. In top-two states, party caucuses will have greater ideological diversity as some candidates will face primary reelection incentives to move to the extreme; while other candidates will face general election reelection incentives. We test this using a synthetic control model. We find causal evidence that the top-two primary has increased ideological diversity in both the majority and minority party caucuses in some legislative chambers. This effect persists for Democratic party caucuses after adoption of top-two, but this effect for Republican party caucuses is only for a few time periods before it reverts back to pre-treatment lower ideological heterogeneity. Implications for the top-2 and top-4 systems are discussed..

This article aims to investigate how legislators from different racial backgrounds frame and communicate about racial issues such as systemic racism, racial equity, and minority rights on social media and public statements. It will compare the tone sentiment and framing (policy-oriented, personal, narrative) used by Black, Latine, Asian-American, and White legislators in their discussions on race.

This study investigates how legislators prioritize non-rollcall activities—such as constituency service, district outreach, media relations, and fundraising—when anticipating different levels of electoral competition. It also examines how these priorities differ across racial identities, with a focus on how minority legislators may face unique electoral pressures. Using a randomized survey experiment, members of Congress will be primed to expect either a highly competitive or very safe election and asked to rank the importance of various non-rollcall activities for ensuring their electoral success. The findings will provide insights into the intersection of race, electoral strategy, and legislative behavior, contributing to broader discussions about representation and the diverse strategies legislators employ outside of roll-call votes.