Corrupt politicians are expected to be held accountable when they are caught doing wrong, but does prosecuting politicians affect their co-partisans? I leverage variation in criminal corruption charges among Mexican governors after the legislative elections of 2015 to identify their consequences on votes received by legislators in 2018. I find a robust association: legislative candidates in districts of criminal governors received between 3 and 6% less votes than candidates in districts with no criminal governors. These findings suggest that criminal trials affect parties even in places where corruption is pervasive and trust in the judicial process is extremely low. This electoral punishment of co-partisans, which I call ‘guilt by association,’ helps the role that criminalization of corruption can play in enforcing vertical accountability.
AdamsJSimonWWlezienC (2021) Elite interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions. American Journal of Political Science65(1): 101–114.
2.
AscencioSJKerevelYP (2021) Party strategy, candidate selection, and legislative behavior in Mexico. Legislative Studies Quarterly46(3): 713–743.
3.
AutorDH (2003) Outsourcing at will: The contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. Journal of Labor Economics21(1): 1–42.
4.
BalánM (2011) Competition by denunciation: The political dynamics of corruption scandals in Argentina and Chile. Comparative Politics43(4): 459–478.
5.
BataillonG (2015) Narcotráfico y Corrupción: las Formas de La Violencia En México En El Siglo XXI. Nueva Sociedad255: 54–68.
6.
BauhrMCharronN (2018) Insider or outsider? Grand corruption and electoral accountability. Comparative Political Studies51(4): 415–446.
7.
BeattyTKMShimshackJP (2011) School buses, diesel emissions, and respiratory health. Journal of Health Economics30(5): 987–999.
8.
ChangECCGoldenMAHillSJ (2010) Legislative malfeasance and political accountability. World Politics62(02): 177–220.
9.
CharronNBågenholmA (2016) Ideology, party systems and corruption voting in European democracies. Electoral Studies41: 35–49.
10.
ChongAAnaLDe LaO, et al. (2015) Does corruption information inspire the fight or quash the hope? A field experiment in Mexico on voter turnout, choice, and party identification. The Journal of Politics77(1): 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/678766
11.
ColomboCSteenbergenMR (2020) Heuristics and biases in political decision making.Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
CorneliusWA (2019) Political liberalization in an authoritarian regime: Mexico, 1976-1985. In Gentleman, J ed. Mexican Politics in Transition. New York: Routledge, 15–39.
13.
DownsA (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy65(2): 135–150.
14.
DruryACKrieckhausJLusztigM (2006) Corruption, democracy, and economic growth. International Political Science Review27(2): 121–136.
15.
EggersACTuñónGDafoeA (2024) Placebo tests for causal inference. American Journal of Political Science68(3): 1106–1121.
16.
FerejohnJAKuklinskiJH (1990) Information and Democratic Processes. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
17.
Fernández-VázquezPBarberáPRiveroG (2016) Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals. Political Science Research and Methods4(2): 379–397.
18.
FerrazCFinanF (2008) Exposing corrupt politicians: the effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics123(2): 703–745.
19.
FerrerS (2023) Opposition fragmentation facilitates electoral accountability: Evidence from a survey experiment. Party Politics29(1): 112–124.
20.
Fundar (2018) Fue un mal año. No, menos, como seis. Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación AC. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/y92k6pgj
21.
GalvánM (2018) En 10 Meses de 2018, México Suma más de 24,000 Homicidios Dolosos. ADNPolítico, November. https://tinyurl.com/y89fhxoo
22.
García-SotoS (2018) Perdimos Por Corrupción Y Mal Gobierno: PRI. Mexico city: El Universal. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/ybvlmsnp
23.
GreeneKFSánchez-TalanquerM (2017) Authoritarian legacies and party system stability in Mexico. In Mainwaring, S. Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 201–226.
24.
GrynaviskiJD (2006) A bayesian learning model with applications to party identification. Journal of Theoretical Politics18(3): 323–346.
25.
GuardadoJ (2009) La identidad partidista en México: Las dimensiones políticas de la competencia en las elecciones presidenciales de 2000 y 2006. Politica y Gobierno16(1): 137–175.
26.
HellwigTSamuelsD (2008) Electoral accountability and the variety of democratic regimes. British Journal of Political Science38(1): 65–90.
27.
Hernández-RodríguezR (2003) The renovation of old institutions: State governors and the political transition in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society45(4): 97–127.
28.
Hernandez-TrilloFJarillo-RablingB (2008) Is local beautiful? Fiscal decentralization in Mexico. World Development36(9): 1547–1558.
29.
HuckfeldtRSpragueJ (1990) Social order and political chaos: The structural setting of political information. In: FerejohnJKuklinskiJ (eds). Information and Democratic Processes. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
30.
IyengarS (1990) Shortcuts to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In: FerejohnJKuklinskiJ (eds). Information and Democratic Processes. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
31.
KhanM (1996) The efficiency implications of corruption. Journal of International Development8(5): 683–696.
32.
KlasnjaMTuckerJA (2013) The economy, corruption, and the vote: Evidence from experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies32(3): 536–543.
33.
KostadinovaT (2009) Abstain or rebel: Corruption perceptions and voting in East European elections. Politics & Policy37(4): 691–714.
34.
KumlinSEsaiassonP (2012) Scandal fatigue? Scandal elections and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe, 1977-2007. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 263–282.
35.
LangstonJ (2006) The birth and transformation of the dedazo in Mexico. In: HelmkeGLevitskyS (eds). Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
LangstonJ (2010) Governors and their deputies: New legislative principals in Mexico. Legislative Studies Quarterly35(2): 235–258.
37.
LechnerM (2011) The estimation of causal effects by difference-in-difference methods. Foundations and Trends® in Econometrics4(3): 165–224.
38.
LeeuwJMeijerE (2008) Introduction to multilevel analysisHandbook of Multilevel Analysis. Berlin: Springer, 1–75.
39.
LeiningerARudolphL (2025) Can individual MPs damage their party’s brand? Quasi-experimental evidence from a public procurement corruption scandal. The Journal of Politics87(3): 1189–1194.
40.
LevitskyS (2018) Latin America’s shifting politics: Democratic survival and weakness. Journal of Democracy29(4): 102–113.
41.
LupuN (2013) Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 49–64.
42.
LupuN (2016) Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MagaloniB (2006) Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
ManinBPrzeworskiAStokesS (1999) Introduction. In: PrzeworskiAStokesSManinB (eds) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–26.
45.
Martín ReyesJ (2024) La Muerte Judicial Del ‘Plan B’: Certeza Inmediata y Riesgos Futuros. Estudios Sociologicos42: 1–18.
46.
MedinaLFStokesS (2007) Monopoly and monitoring: An approach to political clientelism. In: KitscheltHStevenIWilkinson (eds). Patrons, Clients, and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 68–83.
47.
PannicoR (2020) Parties are always right: The effects of party cues and policy information on attitudes towards EU issues. West European Politics43(4): 869–893.
48.
PavaoN (2018) Corruption as the only option: The limits to electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics80(3): 996–1010.
49.
Redacción (2019) Peña Nieto Y Videgaray, Acusados De Corrupcion En Contubernio Con Cesar Duarte. Huffington Post. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/y79m59kp
50.
RennoLR (2008) Rewarding the corrupt? Reelection and scandal involvement in the Brazilian 2006 legislative elections. Colombia Internacional68(December): 98–106.
51.
RosasGLangstonJ (2011) Gubernatorial effects on the voting behavior of national legislators. The Journal of Politics73(2): 477–493.
52.
RudolphLDäublerT (2016) Holding individual representatives accountable: the role of electoral systems. The Journal of Politics78(3): 746–762.
53.
ScheinerE (2006) Democracy Without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-Party Dominant State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SchleiterPVoznayaAM (2014) Party system competitiveness and corruption. Party Politics20(5): 675–686.
55.
SeleeAD (2011) Decentralization, Democratization, and Informal Power in Mexico. Pennsylvania: Penn State Press.
56.
SnyderJJamesMTingMM (2002) An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science46: 90–110.
57.
TavitsM (2007) Clarity of responsibility and corruption. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 218–229.
58.
VeraSB (2020) Accepting or resisting? Citizen responses to corruption across varying levels of competence and corruption prevalence. Political Studies68(3): 653–670.
59.
Weitz-ShapiroR (2012) What wins votes: Why some politicians opt out of clientelism. American Journal of Political Science56(3): 568–583.
60.
Zepeda-LecuonaGR (2017) Índice estatal de desempeño en las procuradurías y fiscalías. Mexico city: ImpunidadCero. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/3h9rv8c2
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.
