To what extent do national partisan cues exert influence over local voting behavior? Despite being an “immigrant welcoming city,” in November, 2019, Tucson, Arizona, voters rejected Prop. 205—the Tucson Families Free and Together Initiative. We leverage theories of elite partisan cues to explain why voters in a progressive city voted against such an initiative. In contrast to Democratic support for sanctuary cities at the national level, we argue that mixed cues from local Democratic elites contributed significantly to a surprising rejection of the initiative. Using aggregate-level data and a framing experiment, we find that the local political environment split Democratic votes (50% favored, 50% opposed) while keeping Republican voters—who received consistent elite cues of opposition—uniformly against the proposition. This study illustrates how local partisan elite cues can shape ballot initiative voting outcomes, even to the point of overriding negative partisanship and national co-partisan consensus on the same issue.
AbramowitzAlan.2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
2.
AbramowitzAlan. I.WebsterSteven. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of Us Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
3.
AbramowitzAlan. I.WebsterSteven. W.. 2018. “Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties But Behave Like Rabid Partisans.” Political Psychology39: 119–35.
4.
AronowPeter M.BaronJonathonPinsonLauren. 2019. “A Note on Dropping Experimental Subjects Who Fail a Manipulation Check.” Political Analysis27(4): 572–89.
5.
BarretoMattCollingwoodLorenGarcia-RiosSergioOskooiiKassra A.. 2019. “Estimating Candidate Support in Voting Rights Act Cases: Comparing Iterative Ei and Ei-r C Methods.” Sociological Methods & Research. 1-34, 0049124119852394.
6.
BenoitKennethWatanabeKohei WangHaiyanNultyPaulObengAdamMüllerStefanMatsuoAkitaka. 2018. “quanteda: An R Package for the Quantitative Analysis of Textual Data.” Journal of Open Source Software3(30): 774.
7.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.CookFay Lomax. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior36(2): 235–62.
8.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 2000. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.
9.
BullockJohn G.2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in An Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 496–515.
10.
CasellasJason P.WallaceSophia Jordan. 2020. “Sanctuary Cities: Public Attitudes Toward Enforcement Collaboration Between Local Police and Federal Immigration Authorities.” Urban Affairs Review 56(1): 32-64. doi:1078087418776115.
11.
CollingwoodLorenJochimAshleyOskooiiKassra A. R. . 2018. “The Politics of Choice Reconsidered: Partisanship, Ideology, and Minority Politics in Washington’s Charter School Initiative.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly18(1): 61–92.
12.
CollingwoodLorenO’BrienBrian Gonzalez. 2019. Sanctuary Cities: The Politics of Refuge. USA: Oxford Univ. Press.
13.
CollingwoodLorenO’BrienBrian GonzalezTafoyaJoe R.. 2020. “Partisan Learning Or Racial Learning: Opinion Change on Sanctuary City Policy Preferences in CA and TX.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 5.1: 92.129.
14.
CollingwoodLorenOskooiiKassraGarcia-RiosS.BarretoM.. 2016. “eicompare: Comparing Ecological Inference Estimates Across Ei and Ei: R C.” The R Journal8(2): 92–101.
15.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics”. In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid, 1–74. New York: Free press.
16.
DelaneyKevinEcksteinRick. 2008. “Local Media Coverage of Sports Stadium Initiatives.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues32(1): 72–93.
17.
DelgadoMelvin.2018. Sanctuary Cities, Communities, and Organizations: A Nation At a Crossroads. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
18.
GerberAlanGreenDonald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. WW Norton.
19.
GilensMartinMurakawaNaomi. 2002. “Elite Cues and Political Decision-making.” Research in micropolitics6: 15–49.
20.
Gonzalez O’BrienBenjaminCollingwoodLorenEl-KhatibS. O.. 2019a. “The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Undocumented Immigration.” Urban Affairs Review55(1): 3–40.
21.
Gonzalez O’BrienBenjaminlizabeth HurstEReedyJustinCollingwoodLoren. 2019b. “Framing Refuge: Media, Framing, and Sanctuary Cities.” Mass Communication and Society: 1–23.
22.
GorenPaulFedericoChristopher M.KittilsonMiki Caul. 2009. “Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression.” American Journal of Political Science53(4): 805–20.
23.
HopkinsDaniel J.2018. The Increasingly United States: How and why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
24.
HoutMichaelMaggioChristopher. 2021. “Immigration, Race, and Political Polarization.” Daedalus150(2): 40–55.
25.
JohnstonChristopher D.NewmanBenjamin J.VelezYamil. 2015. “Ethnic Change, Personality, and Polarization Over Immigration in the American Public.” Public Opinion Quarterly79(3): 662–86.
26.
Karp Jeffrey A.1998. “The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns.” Citizens as legislators3: 149–65.
27.
KingGary.2013. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior From Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
28.
KlarSamara.KrupnikovYannaRyanJohn Barry. 2018. “Affective Polarization Or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a Dislike for the Opposing Party From a Dislike of Partisanship.” Public Opinion Quarterly82(2): 379–90.
29.
LangCorreyPearson-MerkowitzShanna. 2015. “Partisan Sorting in the United States, 1972–2012: New Evidence From a Dynamic Analysis.” Political Geography48: 119–29.
LauOlivia, KellermannMicheal (2019) eiPack: Ecological Inference and Higher-Dimension Data Management. R package version 0.1-9.
32.
LeechNancy and OnwuegbuzieAnthony J.. 2008. “Qualitative Data Analysis: A Compendium of Techniques and a Framework for Selection for School Psychology Research and Beyond.” School Psychology Quarterly23(4): 587.
33.
LenzGabriel S.2013. Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
34.
LevenduskyMatthew. S.2010. “Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.” Political Behavior32(1): 111–31.
35.
LupiaArthur.1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.
36.
MaglebyDavid.1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
37.
MasonLilliana.2015. “I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59(1): 128–45.
38.
MasonLilliana.2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
39.
NicholsonStephen P.2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American journal of political science56(1): 52–66.
40.
OskooiiKassraDreierSarah K.CollingwoodLoren . 2018. “Partisan Attitudes Toward Sanctuary Cities: The Asymmetrical Effects of Political Knowledge.” Politics & Policy46(6): 951–84.
41.
RogersToddMiddletonJoel. 2015. “Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-randomized Field Experiment Showing that they are.” Political Behavior37(3): 567–93.
42.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge Univ. 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.
