One reason popular reforms like expanding universal gun background checks or legal immigration reform fail to be enacted may be because opponents to these reforms see them as higher priority issues than supporters. Given that those who care deeply about an issue are more likely to vote, donate, or engage politically based on the issue, lawmakers may be more responsive to passionate minority opponents than to passive majority supporters, especially when these differences are polarized along partisan lines.
Over the past two decades, local governments have played an increasingly active role in enacting policies impacting immigrants. In the face of congressional gridlock and minimal federal guidance on immigrant integration, municipal governments initially responded to growing numbers of immigrants by enacting policies aimed at welcoming new arrivals. However, since 2022, the U.S.
Mass deportation has become a defining feature of the current American immigration debate. Support for mass deportation among the American public has steadily risen over the past two decades, climbing from 21-percent in 2006 to 47-percent in 2024. A large body of scholarship examines public attitudes toward immigration admissions (i.e. what kind of immigrants Americans want to let in), however, we know comparatively little about attitudes towards removals.
This grant is funded in part by the Spencer Foundation.
One potential reason for opposition to race-conscious policies is differing ideas of what diversity entails. While conservatives often define diversity as viewpoint-based (e.g., political attitudes), liberals typically emphasize demographic diversity (e.g. race). Psychologist Teri Kirby and political scientist Mary Scudder will examine whether different conceptions of diversity are related to differences in support for race-conscious policies. They will conduct archival analysis and survey experiments for their study.
Social science research has shown that immigrants, including those without legal status, commit violent crimes and property crimes at significantly lower rates than native-born Americans. Yet, over the last thirty years, significant federal resources have been devoted to systematically targeting “criminal aliens.” Today, the conflation of administrative immigration status with criminality has reached new levels, with heightened and more indiscriminate enforcement that disregards suspected criminal involvement.
Persuasion is notoriously difficult. Decades of research has shown that exclusionary attitudes—prejudice against out groups and opposition to policies that would promote their wellbeing—are difficult to change. Many scholars have argued that building rapport can overcome resistance to changing beliefs. However, recent experimental evidence has cast doubt on that claim.
Partisan hostility has become a defining feature of contemporary American democracy. Democrats and Republicans increasingly view one another not merely as political opponents, but as morally suspect, untrustworthy, and even dangerous. Most efforts to reduce partisan polarization focus on intergroup contact, that is, exposing partisans to the other side. Less attention has been paid to how intraparty norms impact polarization.
This project argues that mid-20th-century racial politics—particularly efforts by subnational officials to limit Black mobility during the Second Great Migration—shaped metropolitan transit governance and produced long-lasting disparities in transit quality and integration. Using novel historical and contemporary data, the study traces how racial change influenced the creation of fragmented transit institutions, higher racial concentration in transit ridership, and persistent differences in public evaluation of transit systems.
Working-class Americans make up most of the labor force but hold only a small share of legislative seats. This project investigates where working-class candidates are filtered out in the electoral pipeline and whether elected officials’ class backgrounds shape policy behavior. It builds new datasets of occupational histories for roughly 50,000 state legislative candidates (2010–2024) and 22,000 state legislators (2000–2024), linked to election returns, contributions, bill sponsorship, and labor vs. business interest-group ratings.
A large body of scholarship has shown that concentrated wealth distorts the policy agenda, reduces support for redistributive programs, and privileges the preferences of the affluent. Yet much of this work treats inequality as a divide between elites and the mass public. Far less attention has been paid to inequality within the political elite itself, particularly among elected officials. Political scientist Darrian Stacy will examine how personal wealth among U.S. Senators shapes patterns of lawmaking, committee activity, and political representation.