Within the current context of state governments searching for roles in the response to terrorism, we explore the nature of state policy response to recent domestic threats to government operations. We employ a general model of state diffusion of innovative policies in an effort to understand state adoption of laws against the use of frivolous liens. The use of such liens by right-wing Patriot groups grew in the 1990s, leading us to focus on key issues related to policy diffusion—the extent of the problem or threat, and the characteristics of regional response. To test specific hypotheses we use Event History Analysis on a state-level dataset from 1995 to 1999. Our results suggest that state adoption of lien laws is mostly driven by regional forces, including the regional threat posed by Patriot groups and the adoption of lien laws by other states in the region, rather than national forces or factors internal to a state. We conclude that previous research has been too limited in its conceptualization of regional influences and that these same forces will likely drive future state-level response to the threat of terrorism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, Mahalley D., Carrie Pettus, and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2004. “Making the National Local: Specifying the Conditions for National Government Influence on State Policymaking”State Politics and Policy Quarterly4(3): 318-344.
2.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones.Eds. 2002. Policy Dynamics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.”American Journal of Political Science42(4): 1260-1288.
5.
Bergstein, Brian. 2004. “States Weigh Common Terror Database,”The Associated Press 31 January 2004.
6.
Berry, Frances Stokes and William D. Berry. 1999. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.”Theories of the Policy Process. ed. Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
7.
Berry, Frances Stokes and William D. Berry. 1990. “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis.”American Political Science Review84(1): 395-415.
8.
Bundy, Jennifer.“Bill Targets Harassment by Militias.”Associated Press 4 March 1999.
9.
Clines, Francis X.“Widening Fears, Few Clues as 6th Death is Tied to Sniper,”The New York Times, 5 October 2002, p. A1-A1.
10.
Crothers, Lane. 2003. Rage on the Right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby Ridge to Homeland Security. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
11.
Davis, Andy.“False Liens to Increase, Some Worry.”Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 24 February 2002.
12.
Dempsey, Eileen.“Common Law Tactics Are Condemned: Judges Report Receiving Threats From Activists.”The Columbus Dispatch 9 December 1995.
13.
Dettro, Chris.“Common-Law Advocates Clog Courts.”The State Journal-Register 2 March 1997.
14.
Donohue, Laura K., and Juliette N. Kayyem. 2002. “Federalism and the Battle Over Counterterrorist Law: State Sovereignty, Criminal Law Enforcement, and National Security.”Studies in Conflict & Terrorism25: 1-18.
15.
Eyestone, Robert. 1977. “Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation.”American Political Science Review71(2): 441-447.
16.
Gibson, James L.1989. “The Policy Consequences of Political Intolerance: Political Repression During the Vietnam War Era.”The Journal of Politics51(1): 13-35.
17.
Gibson, James L.1988. “Political Intolerance and Political Repression During the McCarthy Red Scare.”American Political Science Review82(2): 511-529.
18.
Griffin, Denise and L. Cheryl Runyon. 2000. The Radical Common Law Movement and Paper Terrorism: The State Response. Washington, D.C.: National Council of State Legislatures.
19.
Haider-Markel, Donald P.2001. “Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s.”State Politics and Policy Quarterly1(1): 5-26.
20.
Haider-Markel, Donald P.1998. “The Politics of Social Regulatory Policy: State and Federal Hate Crime Policy and Implementation Effort.”Political Research Quarterly51(1): 69-88.
21.
Haider-Markel, Donald and Sean O’Brien. 1997. “Creating a ‘Well Regulated Militia’: Policy Responses to Paramilitary Groups in the American States.”Political Research Quarterly50 (3): 551-565.
22.
Hays, Scott P.1996. “Patterns of Reinvention: The Nature of Evolution During Policy Diffusion.”Policy Studies Journal24(4): 551-566.
23.
Hewitt, Christopher. 2003. Understanding Terrorism in America: From the Klan To Al Qaeda. Independence, KY: Routledge.
24.
Jones, Bryan D.1994. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Kingdon, John W.1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
26.
King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.”Political Analysis10(2): 137-163.
27.
Long, Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28.
Lowry, William. 1992. The Dimensions of Federalism: State Governments and Pollution Control Policies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
29.
Meier, Kenneth and Brudney, Jeffrey. 1993. Applied Statistics for Public Administration. 3rd ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
30.
Mintrom, Michael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
31.
Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.”American Journal of Political Science41 (3): 738-770.
32.
Mooney, Christopher Z.2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.”Political Research Quarterly54(1): 103-124.
33.
Mooney, Christopher Z. and Mei-Hsien Lee. 1995. “Legislating Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform.”American Journal of Political Science39(3): 599-627.
34.
Myers, Roger.“House Passes Legislation to Quash Bogus Liens.”Topeka Capitol-Journal 10 April 1998.
35.
O’Brien, Sean P. and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 1998. “Fueling the Fire: Social and Political Correlates of Citizen Militia Activity.”Social Science Quarterly79(2): 456-465.
36.
Peck, Dana.“Bill Would Outlaw Harassment by Lien.”Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL) 29 May 1997.
37.
Pindyck, Robert and Daniel Rubinfeld. 1998. Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. Dubuque, IA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
38.
Riepenhoff, Jill.“Help On Way For Officials: Proposal Covers Common-Law Tactic.”The Columbus Dispatch 5 March 1995.
39.
Rochefort, David A., and Roger W. Cobb.Eds. 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas.
40.
Rodgers, Jim, and Tim Kullman. 2002. Facing Terror: The Government’s Response To Contemporary Extremists in America. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
41.
Sharkansky, Ira. 1970. Regionalism in American Politics. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
42.
Snow, Robert. 1999. The Militia Threat: Terrorists Among Us. New York, NY: Plenum Trade.
43.
Stern, Kenneth. 1997. Force Upon The Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
44.
Stone, Deborah A.1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.”Political Science Quarterly104(2): 281-300.
45.
Walker, Jack L.1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States.”American Political Science Review63 (4): 880-899.
