State governments are increasingly challenging the national government and pursuing state rules in opposition to national laws. I am interested in whether the public supports this strategy. Do people want state governments to deliver policy outcomes that better fit the interests of state constituents—even if it undercuts the authority of the national government? Or are citizens critical of state actions that challenge national laws? I find that most Americans do not believe that states should be allowed to block the enforcement of federal laws they disagree with. Opposition to state challenges increases with support for the rule of law. Using experiments, I explore whether people are less likely to support policy outcomes when they are described as challenging national provisions. I find limited evidence that people evaluate state policies differently when described as contrary to national laws. People support national supremacy in the abstract and accept state resistance to national mandates in practice.
ArceneauxKevin. 2005. “Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States?” Publius35 (2): 297–311.
2.
ArceneauxKevin. 2006. “The Federal Face of Voting: Are Elected Officials Held Accountable for the Functions Relevant to Their Office?” Political Psychology27 (5): 731-754.
Bulman-PozenJessica. 2014. “Partisan Federalism.” Harvard Law Review127 (4): 1077–1146.
5.
Bulman-PozenJessicaGerkenHeather K.. 2009. “Uncooperative Federalism.” The Yale Law Journal118 (7): 1256–1310.
6.
CutlerFred. 2004. “Government Responsibility and Electoral Accountability in Federations.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism34 (2): 19–38.
7.
DinanJohn. 2020. ““The Institutionalization of State Resistance to Federal Directives in the 21st Century.”.” The Forum18 (1): 3–23.
8.
DinanJohnHeckelmanJac C.. 2020. “Stability and Contingency in Federalism Preferences.” Public Administration Review80: 234–243.
9.
DohertyDavid. 2015. “How Policy and Procedure Shape Citizens' Evaluations of Senators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly40 (2): 241–272.
10.
DownsWilliam M.1999. “Accountability Payoffs in Federal Systems? Competing Logics and Evidence from Europe’s Newest Federation.” Publius29: 87–110.
11.
FeeleyMalcolm M.RubinEdward. 2008. Federalism: Political Identity and Tragic Compromise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
12.
FlavinPatrickShufeldtGregory. 2023. “What Does the Public Think about State Government Preemption of Local Policymaking?” State and Local Government Review55 (4): 333–347.
13.
GlaserJames M.BerryJeffrey M.SchildkrautDeborah J.. 2023. “Ideology and Support for Federalism in Theory—And in Practice.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism53 (4): 511–535.
14.
GrumbachJacob. 2022. Laboratories against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
GrumbachJacob M.MichenerJamila. 2022. “American Federalism, Political Inequality, and Democratic Erosion.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science699 (1): 143–155.
16.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
JacobsNicholas. 2017. “An Experimental Test of How Americans Think about Federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism47 (4): 572–598.
18.
JenningsM. Kent. 1967. “Pre-Adult Orientations to Multiple Systems of Government.” Midwest Journal of Political Science11 (3): 291–317.
19.
JenningsM. KentZeiglerHarmon. 1970. “The Salience of American State Politics.” American Political Science Review64 (2): 523–535.
20.
JohnsonMartinBracePaulArceneauxKevin. Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitudes.Social Science Quarterly. 2005; 86(1): 87–108.
21.
JohnsRobert. 2011. “Credit Where It’s Due? Valence Politics, Attributions of Responsibility, and Multi-Level Elections.” Political Behavior33 (1): 53–77.
22.
KamCindy D.MikosRobert A.. 2007. “Do Citizens Care about Federalism? An Experimental Test.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4 (3): 589–624.
23.
KarchAndrewRoseShanna. 2019. Responsive States: Federalism and American Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
KennedyRyanCliffordScottBurleighTylerWaggonerPhilip D.JewellRyanWinterNicholas J. G.. 2020. “The Shape of and Solutions to the MTurk Quality Crisis.” Political Science Research and Methods8 (4): 614–629.
25.
KincaidJohnColeRichard L.. 2014. “Is Federalism Still the ‘Dark Continent’ of Political Science Teaching? Yes and No.” PS: Political Science & Politics47 (4): 877–883.
26.
KoniskyDavid. 2011. “Public Preferences for Environmental Policy Responsibility.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism41 (1): 76–100.
27.
LevyJacob T. 2007. “Federalism, Liberalism, and the Separation of Loyalties.” American Political Science Review101 (3): 459–477.
28.
MerrimanBen. 2019. Conservative Innovators: How States Are Challenging Federal Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
MirasNicholas S.RouseStella M.. 2022. “Partisan Misalignment and the Counter-Partisan Response: How National Politics Conditions Majority-Party Policy Making in the American States.” British Journal of Political Science52 (2): 573–592.
NugentJohn D. 2009. Safeguarding Federalism: How States Protect Their Interests in National Policymaking. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
33.
OlsonAdamCallaghanTimothyKarchAndrew. 2018. “Return of the “Rightful Remedy”: Partisan Federalism, Resource Availability, and Nullification Legislation in the American States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism48: 495–522.
34.
PachecoJulianna. The Thermostatic Model of Responsiveness in the American States.State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 2013; 13(3): 306–332.
35.
ReadJames H.AllenNeal. 2012. “Living, Dead, and Undead: Nullification Past and Present.” American Political Thought1 (2): 263–297.
36.
RendlemanHunterRogowskiJon C.. 2024. “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Federalism.” Political Behavior46: 111–134.
37.
RichardsonLilliard E.Jr.KoniskyDavid M.MilyoJeffrey. 2012. “Public Approval of U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly37 (1): 99–116.
38.
RoederPhillip W.1994. Public Opinion and Policy Leadership in the American States. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
39.
SchneiderSaundra. 2008. “Who’s to Blame? (Mis)perceptions of the Intergovernmental Response to Disasters.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism38: 715–738.
40.
SchneiderSaundra K.JacobyWilliam G.. 2003. “Public Attitudes Toward the Policy Responsibilities of the National and State Governments: Evidence from South Carolina.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly3 (3): 246–269.
41.
SchneiderSaundra K.JacobyWilliam G.LewisDaniel C.. 2011. “Public Opinion toward Intergovernmental Policy Responsibilities.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism41: 1–30.
SmithSteven S.ParkHong Min. 2013. “Americans’ Attitudes about the Senate Filibuster.” American Politics Research41 (5): 735–760.
44.
ThompsonLykeEllingRichard. 1999. “Let Them Eat Marblecake: The Preferences of Michigan Citizens for Devolution and Intergovernmental Service-Provision.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism29 (1): 139–154.
45.
Times Mirror. 1990. “Times Mirror Poll #1990–PS0590: Spring 1990 Political Update.” In: Princeton Survey Research Associates. Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
46.
WeissertCarol S. 2023. Rethinking Federalism Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing.
47.
WlezienChristopherSorokaStuart N.. 2011. “Federalism and Public Responsiveness to Policy.” Publius41 (1): 31–52.
48.
WolakJennifer. 2016. “Core Values and Partisan Thinking about Devolution.” Publius46 (4): 463–485.
49.
WolakJennifer. 2020. Compromise in an Age of Party Polarization. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
