Despite a long history of nonpartisanship, the Nebraska state legislature has polarized rapidly within the past decade. Using interviews and campaign finance records, we examine politics in the modern Unicam to investigate nonpartisan polarization. We find that newly instituted term limits created opportunities for the state’s political parties to recruit and finance candidates in an increasingly partisan fashion. Social network analysis suggests that there is a growing level of structure to campaign donations, with political elites increasingly less likely to contribute across party lines. The results offer a compelling example of parties overcoming institutions designed to eliminate them.
AldrichJohn H.1995. Why Parties?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BaileyDeliaSinclairBetsy. 2009, April. “Partisan Polarization via Term Limits: Political Networks in the California Assembly.” Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
3.
BawnKathleenCohenMartyKarolDavidMasketSethNoelHansZallerJohn. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics10 (3): 571–97.
4.
BeerCaroline. 2001. “Assessing the Consequences of Electoral Democracy: Subnational Legislative Change in Mexico.” Comparative Politics33 (4): 421–40.
5.
CainBruce E.KousserThad. 2004. Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
6.
Campaign Finance Institute, and Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet. 2006. Small Donors and Online Giving: A Study of Donors to the 2004 Presidential Campaigns. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
7.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CranmerSkyler J.DesmaraisBruce A.2011. “Inferential Network Analysis with Exponential Random Graph Models.” Political Analysis19: 66-86.
11.
CranmerSkyler J.DesmaraisBruce A.MenningaElizabeth J.2012. “Complex Dependencies in the Alliance Network.” Conflict Management and Peace Science29 (3): 279–313.
12.
DiermeierDaniel1995. “Commitment, Deference, and Legislative Institutions.” American Political Science Review89 (2): 344–55.
13.
DominguezCasey Byrne Knudsen. 2005. “Before the Primary: Party Participation in Congressional Nominating Processes.” Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Oakland.
14.
GalvinDaniel J.2012. “The Transformation of Political Institutions: Investments in Institutional Resources and Gradual Change in the National Party Committees.” Studies in American Political Development26 (1): 50-70.
15.
GerberElisabeth R.MortonRebecca B.1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization14 (2): 304–24.
16.
HassellHans J. G.2013, May. “The Non-existent Primary-ideology Link, or Do Open Primaries Actually Limit Party Influence in Primary Elections?” Presented at the 13th Annual State Politics and Policy Conference, Iowa City, IA.
17.
KanthakKristinMortonRebecca. 2001. “The Effects of Electoral Rules on Congressional Primaries.” In Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation, eds. GalderisisPeterLyonsMike. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield: 116-31.
18.
KurtzKarl T.CainBruce E.NiemiRichard G.2007. Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case of Term Limits. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
19.
ManningEric. 2004. “The Effects of a Nonpartisan and Partisan Legislature on Legislative Output: The Case of Minnesota.” Presented at the Annual Conference of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans.
20.
MasketSeth E.2009. No Middle Ground: How Informal Party Organizations Control Nominations and Polarize Legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
MasketSeth E.2011. “The Circus That Wasn’t: The Republican Party’s Quest for Order in the 2003 California Gubernatorial Recall.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly11 (2): 124–48.
22.
MasketSeth E.NoelHans. 2012. “Serving Two Masters: Using Referenda to Assess Partisan Versus Dyadic Legislative Representation.” Political Research Quarterly65 (1): 104-23.
23.
McGheeEricMasketSethShorBorisMcCartyNolan. 2014. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology.” American Journal of Political Science58 (2): 337–51.
24.
MitauTheodore. 1960. Politics in Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
25.
NiemiRichard G.PowellLynda W.2004. “Time, Term Limits, and Turnover: Trends in Membership Stability in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly29 (3): 357–81.
26.
SchattschneiderE. E.1942. Party Government. Westport: Greenwood Press.
27.
SchulteGrant. 2014. “Nebraska Lawmakers Vote to Override Budget Vetoes.” Associated Press State Wire, April1.
