The positive effects of union canvassing on individual-level union member voter turnout within union-friendly environments have been well documented. Yet, whether unions increase turnout among their membership under constrained circumstances has remained unexamined. Furthermore, there is little consensus on whether union canvassing effects are generalizable to populations with heterogeneous political attributes and individual characteristics. This paper identifies the mechanisms that might explain how union canvassing can be effective under conditions characterized by anti-union legislative actions, adversarial judicial decisions, and right-wing populist rhetoric. We use canvassing and turnout data taken from the 2016 Democratic state and Cook County primary election in Illinois, and our results show that, despite constrained political circumstances relative to those found in previous studies, union canvassing achieved positive union membership turnout effects. This study also tests the moderating effects of individual political attributes (ideology and vote propensity) and voter characteristics (income and ethnicity). The most salient finding is that the effects are more potent for ideologically conservative registered Democrat voters, highlighting the imperative of recognizing the ideological heterogeneity among union members and suggesting specific resource allocation strategies under politically constrained conditions.
AnsolabehereStephenHershEitan. 2012. “Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate.” Political Analysis20 (4): 437–59. https://doi.org/10/f4b3g5.
2.
ArceneauxKevinKousserThadMullinMegan. 2012. “Get Out the Vote-by-Mail? A Randomized Field Experiment Testing the Effect of Mobilization in Traditional and Vote-by-Mail Precincts.” Political Research Quarterly65 (4): 882–94. https://doi.org/10/b2vt6h.
3.
ArceneauxKevinNickersonDavid W.. 2009. “Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re-Analysis of 11 Field Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science53 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10/bzpk5w.
4.
BarretoMatt A. 2005. “Latino Immigrants at the Polls: Foreign-Born Voter Turnout in the 2002 Election.” Political Research Quarterly58 (1): 79–86. https://doi.org/10/chtnh5.
5.
BarretoMatt A.PedrazaFrancisco I.. 2009. “The Renewal and Persistence of Group Identification in American Politics.” Electoral Studies28 (4): 595–605. https://doi.org/10/c3jx2f.
6.
BarretoMatt A.VillarrealMarioWoodsNathan D.. 2005. “Metropolitan Latino Political Behavior: Voter Turnout and Candidate Preference in Los Angeles.” Journal of Urban Affairs27 (1): 71–91. https://doi.org/10/bp4cqt.
7.
BarretoMatt A.WoodsNathan D.. 2006. “Latino Voting Behavior in an Anti-Latino Political Context: The Case of Los Angeles County.” In Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States, edited by Segura Gary M.Shaun Bowler, 148–69. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
8.
BedollaLisa GarcíaMichelsonMelissa R.. 2012. Mobilizing Inclusion: Transforming the Electorate through Get-out-the-Vote Campaigns. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
9.
BennettMark W. 2012. “Review of Labor and Employment Law Decisions from the US Supreme Court’s 2011–2012 Term.” ABAJ Lab. & Emp. L28: 169.
10.
BrunoRobertZulloRolandManzoFrankDicksonAlison. 2015. “The Economic Effects of Adopting a Right-to-Work Law: Implications for Illinois.” Labor Studies Journal40 (4): 319–61. https://doi.org/10/ghhd78.
11.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
CarnesNicholas. 2012. “Does the Numerical Underrepresentation of the Working Class in Congress Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly37 (1): 5–34. https://doi.org/10/fxn4gj.
13.
CasselCarol A. 1979. “Change in Electoral Participation in the South.” The Journal of Politics41 (3): 907–17. https://doi.org/10/dnf58m.
14.
ConwayM. Margaret. 2000. Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: Cq Press.
15.
DevinatzVictor G. 2011. “The Continuing Controversy Over Right-to-Work Laws in the Early Twenty-First Century.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal23 (4): 287–93. https://doi.org/10/dnhg25.
16.
DiGraziaJosephDixonMarc. 2020. “The Conservative Upsurge and Labor Policy in the States.” Work and Occupations47 (4): 439–65. https://doi.org/10/ghh8fb.
17.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. 1st ed.Boston: Harper and Row.
18.
EnosRyan D.FowlerAnthonyVavreckLynn. 2014. “Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate.” The Journal of Politics76 (1): 273–88. https://doi.org/10/f54pzs.
19.
FeigenbaumJamesHertel-FernandezAlexanderWilliamsonVanessa. 2018. “From the Bargaining Table to the Ballot Box: Political Effects of Right to Work Laws.” w24259. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24259.
20.
FingerLeslie K.HartneyMichael T.. 2021. “Financial Solidarity: The Future of Unions in the Post-Janus Era.” Perspectives on Politics19 (1): 19–35. https://doi.org/10/gmdm5v.
21.
FiremanBruceGamsonWilliam A.. 1977. “Utilitarian Logic in the Resource Mobilization Perspective.” In The Dynamics of Social Movements, edited by ZaldMayer N.McCarthyJohn D., 8–45. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop.
22.
FiscellaKevinFremontAllen M. 2006. “Use of Geocoding and Surname Analysis to Estimate Race and Ethnicity.” Health Services Research41 (4 Pt 1): 1482–500. https://doi.org/10/c3rnv9.
23.
FiskCatherine L.PoueymirouMargaux. 2014. “Harris V. Quinn and the Contradictions of Compelled Speech.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review48 (2): 439–92.
24.
FragaBernard L.2018. The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
FrankLarryWongKent. 2004. “Dynamic Political Mobilization: The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.” WorkingUSA8 (2): 155–81. https://doi.org/10/br58dp.
26.
FreemanRichard. 2003. “What Do Unions Do … to Voting?” w9992. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w9992.
27.
FrymerPaulGrumbachJacob M.. 2021. “Labor Unions and White Racial Politics.” American Journal of Political Science65 (1): 225–40. https://doi.org/10/gg3mqf.
28.
GamsonWilliam A.1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GanzMarshall Louis. 1993. “Voters in the Crosshairs.” The American Prospect16 (Winter): 100–9.
30.
GerberAlan S.GreenDonald P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” The American Political Science Review94 (3): 653–63. https://doi.org/10/dc44rq.
31.
Harris v. Quinn. 2014. 134 S. Ct. 896.
32.
HillygusD. Sunshine. 2005. “Campaign Effects and the Dynamics of Turnout Intention in Election 2000.” The Journal of Politics67 (1): 50–68. https://doi.org/10/crphfb.
33.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. 2018. 138 S. Ct. 2448.
34.
KellyJohn. 1998. Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long Waves. 1st ed. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203213940.
35.
KerrisseyJ.SchoferE.. 2013. “Union Membership and Political Participation in the United States.” Social Forces91 (3): 895–928. https://doi.org/10/f4pzfr.
36.
KimDukhong. 2016. “Labor Unions and Minority Group Members’ Voter Turnout.” Social Science Quarterly97 (5): 1208–26. https://doi.org/10/f9f628.
37.
KlandermansBert. 1989. “Introduction: Social Movement Organizations and the Study of Social Movements.” International Social Movement Research2: 1–17.
38.
KrishnanGopal V.SingerZviZhangJing. 2021. “Audit Partner Ethnicity and Its Relation to Client Assignment, Audit Quality, and Discrimination.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3647321. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3647321&download=yes.
LamareJ. Ryan. 2010b. “The Interactive Effects of Labor-Led Political Mobilization and Vote Propensity on Turnout: Evidence from Five Elections: Effects of Labor-Led Mobilization and Vote Propensity on Turnout.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society49 (4): 616–39. https://doi.org/10/fw64bk.
41.
LamareJ. Ryan. 2010a. “Union Influence on Voter Turnout: Results from Three Los Angeles County Elections.” ILR Review63 (3): 454–70. https://doi.org/10/gf8hfp.
42.
LarcineseValentino. 2009. “Information Acquisition, Ideology and Turnout: Theory and Evidence From Britain.” Journal of Theoretical Politics21 (2): 237–76. https://doi.org/10/bgvd5j.
43.
LeighleyJan E.NaglerJonathan. 2013. Who Votes Now?: Demographics, Issues, Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
MacdonaldDavid. 2021. “When Does Inequality Demobilize? New Evidence from the American States.” Electoral Studies70: 102282. https://doi.org/10/gmdm56.
MastersMarick F.GibneyRaymondZagenczykThomas J.. 2009. “Worker Pay Protection: Implications for Labor’s Political Spending and Voice.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society48 (4): 557–77. https://doi.org/10/c7v8qb.
NicholsonStephen P.SeguraGary M.. 2005. “Issue Agendas and the Politics of Latino Partisan Identification.” In Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States, edited by SeguraGary M.BowlerShaun, 51–71. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
55.
NickersonDavid W. 2006. “Volunteer Phone Calls Can Increase Turnout: Evidence From Eight Field Experiments.” American Politics Research34 (3): 271–92. https://doi.org/10/dm6zrs.
56.
NickersonDavid W. 2007. “Quality Is Job One: Professional and Volunteer Voter Mobilization Calls.” American Journal of Political Science51 (2): 269–82. https://doi.org/10/bgkbzg.
57.
NickersonDavid W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” The American Political Science Review102 (1): 49–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/27644497.
58.
NivenDavid. 2001. “The Limits of Mobilization: Turnout Evidence from State House Primaries.” Political Behavior23 (4): 335–50. https://doi.org/10/c82rr6.
59.
PanagopoulosCostas. 2011. “Timing Is Everything? Primacy and Recency Effects in Voter Mobilization Campaigns.” Political Behavior33 (1): 79–93. https://doi.org/10/cgxcf4.
60.
PantojaAdrian D.RamírezRicardoSeguraGary M.. 2001. “Citizens by Choice, Voters by Necessity: Patterns in Political Mobilization by Naturalized Latinos.” Political Research Quarterly54 (4): 729–50. https://doi.org/10/bcp72w.
61.
RadcliffBenjaminDavisPatricia. 2000. “Labor Organization and Electoral Participation in Industrial Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 132–41. https://doi.org/10/btvq4m.
62.
RamírezR. 2005. “Giving Voice to Latino Voters: A Field Experiment on the Effectiveness of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601 (1): 66–84.
63.
RamírezRicardo. 2007. “Segmented Mobilization: Latino Nonpartisan Get-Out-the-Vote Efforts in the 2000 General Election.” American Politics Research35 (2): 155–75. https://doi.org/10/d6sn8h.
64.
RhodesJesse H.SchaffnerBrian F.. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science12 (2): 185–204. https://doi.org/10/gbzgw8.
65.
RikerWilliam H.OrdeshookPeter C.. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” The American Political Science Review62 (1): 25–42. https://doi.org/10/fjd37k.
66.
ScottSteve. 2000. “Competing for the New Majority Vote.” California Journal31 (1): 16–23.
Tam ChoWendy K.1999. “Naturalization, Socialization, Participation: Immigrants and (Non-) Voting.” The Journal of Politics61 (4): 1140–55. https://doi.org/10/fwdt7t.
69.
TeixeiraRuy A.1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
70.
TurnerJohn C.HoggMichael A.OakesPenelope J.ReicherStephen D.WetherellMargaret S.. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
71.
UhlanerCarole J. 1989. “Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups.” American Journal of Political Science33 (2): 390–422. https://doi.org/10/czx8k8.
72.
VerbaSidneyNieNorman H.KimJae-on. 1987. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
WasserMichaelLamareJ. Ryan. 2013. “Unions as Conduits of Democratic Voice for Non-Elites: Worker Politicization from the Shop Floor to the Halls of Congress.” Nev. LJ14: 396.
75.
WolfingerRaymond E.RosenstoneSteven J.. 1980. Who Votes?. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
76.
WoodAbby K.ElmendorfChristopher S.SpencerDouglas M.. 2019. “Mind the (Participation) Gap: Vouchers, Voting, and Visibility.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3354826. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3354826.
77.
ZulloRoland. 2004. “Labor Council Outreach and Union Member Voter Turnout: A Microanalysis from the 2000 Election.” Industrial Relations43 (2): 324–38. https://doi.org/10/cf6wf5.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
