Why are some states polarized and others not? This article argues that state legislators are provided with more information by lobbyists and the media about national policies, or state-level bills that are prominent in the national political discourse. Compared with state-specific issues, this additional information encourages legislators to vote along party lines to secure reelection or prepare for a run for higher office. It identifies national policies using lobbying registrations in state legislatures and Congress to show there is more party difference on roll-call votes on national policies in 25 states over 2011 to 2014. It also argues that the notoriety of national issues may encourage party leaders to put these bills on the agenda to build their party brand, or for individual legislators to raise their profiles. It finds that states with more national agendas have more polarized sessions.
AldrichJ. H.BattistaJ. S. C. (2002). Conditional party government in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 164-172.
2.
AldrichJ. H.RohdeD. W. (2000). The republican revolution and the house appropriations committee. The Journal of Politics, 62, 1-33.
3.
AnsolabehereS.RoddenJ.SnyderJ. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102, 215-232.
4.
AnziaS. F.JackmanM. C. (2013). Legislative organization and the second face of power: Evidence from U.S. state legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 75, 210-224.
5.
BarberM. (2016). Ideological donors, contribution limits, and the polarization of state legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 78, 1-21.
6.
BaumM. A.GroelingT. (2008). New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication, 25, 345-365.
7.
BaumgartnerF. R.GrayV.LoweryD. (2009). Congressional influence on state lobbying activity. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 552-587.
8.
BawnK.CohenM.KarolD.MasketS.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10, 571-597.
9.
BerryJ. M. (1999). The new liberalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
10.
BinderM.KoganV.KousserT. (2011). How GAVEL changed party politics in Colorado’s general assembly. In DaumC.DuffyR.StraayerJ. (Eds.), State of change: Colorado politics in the twenty-first century (pp. 153-172).Denver, CO: University Press of Colorado.
11.
BinderS. A. (2003). Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
12.
BowenD. C.GreeneZ. (2014). Should we measure professionalism with an index? A note on theory and practice in state legislative professionalism research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14, 277-296.
13.
BroockmanD. E.SkovronC. (2013). What politicians believe about their constituents: Asymmetric misperceptions and prospects for constituency control (Working paper). University of California, Berkeley.
14.
ButlerD. M.NickersonD. W. (2011). Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6, 55-83.
15.
CarsonJ. L.KogerG.LeboM. J.YoungE. (2010). The electoral costs of party loyalty in congress. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 598-616.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DarrJ. P. (2016). Presence to press: How campaigns earn local media. Political Communication, 33, 503-522.
19.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS.KennamerJ. D. (1994). Effects of the news media environment on citizen knowledge of state politics and government. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 71, 443-456.
20.
EndaJ.MatsaK. E.BoylesJ. L. (2014). America’s shifting statehouse press. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
21.
Eshbaugh-SohaM. (2006). The conditioning effects of policy salience and complexity on American political institutions. Policy Studies Journal, 34, 223-243.
22.
FennoR. F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
23.
GarrettK. N.JansaJ. M. (2015). Interest group influence in policy diffusion networks. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15, 387-417.
24.
GormleyW. T. (1986). Regulatory issue networks in a federal system. Polity, 18, 595-620.
25.
GroelingT. (2010). When politicians attack: Party cohesion in the media. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. F. (2014). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
HallR. L.DeardorffA. V. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100, 69-84.
28.
HardenJ. J.KirklandJ. H. (2016). Do campaign donors influence polarization? Evidence from public financing in the American states. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41, 119-152.
29.
HersheyW.MaganC. (2011, February10). “GOP has Statehouse clout to change collective bargaining.” Dayton Daily News, p. A5.
30.
Hertel-FernandezA. (2014). Who passes business’s “model bills”? Policy capacity and corporate influence in U.S. state politics. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 582-602.
31.
HinchcliffeK.LeeF. E. (2016). Party competition and conflict in state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(2), 172-197.
32.
JackmanM. C. (2014). Parties, median legislators, and agenda setting: How legislative institutions matter. The Journal of Politics, 76, 259-272.
33.
JochimA. E.JonesB. D. (2013). Issue politics in a polarized congress. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 352-369.
34.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
KarchA. (2006). National intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 34, 403-426.
36.
KeyV. O. (1966). American state politics: An introduction. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
37.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, volume 45. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
38.
KiousisS.McCombsM. (2004). Agenda-setting effects and attitude strength political figures during the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 31, 36-57.
39.
KirklandJ. H. (2014). Ideological heterogeneity and legislative polarization in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 97, 533-546.
40.
KogerG.MasketS.NoelH. (2009). Partisan webs: Information exchange and party networks. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 633-653.
41.
LapinskiJ. S. (2013). The substance of representation: Congress, American political development, and lawmaking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
LapinskiJ. S.LevenduskyM.WinnegK.JamiesonK. H. (2016). What do citizens want from their member of congress?Political Research Quarterly, 69, 535-545.
43.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M.GreenJ. C.HerreraR.CoopermanR. (2010). Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. American Political Science Review, 104, 324-346.
44.
LeeF. E. (2008). Agreeing to disagree: Agenda content and Senate partisanship, 1981-2004. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33, 199-222.
45.
LenzG. S. (2013). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
LewisJ. B.LinzerD. A. (2005). Estimating regression models in which the dependent variable is based on estimates. Political Analysis, 13, 345-364.
47.
LindstädtR.Vander WielenR. J. (2014). Dynamic elite partisanship: Party loyalty and agenda setting in the U.S. house. British Journal of Political Science, 44, 741-772.
48.
LoweryD.GrayV.BaumgartnerF. R. (2011). Policy attention in state and nation: Is anyone listening to the laboratories of democracy?Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(2), 286-310.
49.
LowiT. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298-310.
50.
MaestasC. (2000). Professional legislatures and ambitious politicians: Policy responsiveness of state institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 663-690.
51.
MasketS. E.MillerM. G. (2015). Does public election funding create more extreme legislators? Evidence from Arizona and Maine. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15, 24-40.
52.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
McCannP. J. C.ShipanC. R.VoldenC. (2015). Top–down federalism: State policy responses to national government discussions. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45, 1-31.
54.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization?American Journal of Political Science, 53, 666-680.
55.
McGheeE.MasketS.ShorB.RogersS.McCartyN. (2014). A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 337-351.
56.
McLaughlinJ. P.WolfgangP.LeckroneJ. W.GollobJ.BossieJ.JenningsJ.AthertonM. J. (2010). The Pennsylvania policy database project: A model for comparative analysis. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10(3), 320-336.
57.
MillerL. L. (2010). The perils of federalism: Race, poverty, and the politics of crime control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
58.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45-56.
59.
NormanG. R.StreinerD. L. (2003). PDQ statistics, volume 1. Shelton, CT: People’s Medical Publishing House.
60.
NyhanB.McGheeE.SidesJ.MasketS.GreeneS. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40, 844-879.
61.
PersilyN. (2015). Introduction in Solutions to political polarization in America. In PersilyN. (ed.) (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 357-384.
63.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2000). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64.
RiceS. A. (1925). The behavior of legislative groups: A method of measurement. Political Science Quarterly, 40(1), 60-72.
65.
RogersS. (2013). Accountability in state legislatures: How parties perform in office and state legislative elections (Working paper). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
66.
RosenthalA. (1998). The decline of representative democracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
67.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1935). Politics, pressures and the tariff: A study of free private enterprise in pressure politics, as shown in the 1929-1930 revision of the tariff. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
68.
SchicklerE.PearsonK. (2009). Agenda control, majority party power, and the house committee on rules, 1937-52. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 455-491.
69.
SeawrightJ.GerringJ. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 294-308.
70.
ShorB.McCartyN. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105, 530-551.
71.
ShorB.McCartyN. (2015). Aggregate state legislator Shor-McCarty ideology data, June 2015 update. doi:10.7910/DVN/K7ELHW
72.
SinclairB. D. (1977). Determinants of aggregate party cohesion in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1901-1956. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2, 155-175.
73.
SkocpolT. (2004). Voice and inequality: The transformation of American civic democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 3-20.
SnyderJ. M.GrosecloseT. (2000). Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 193-211.
76.
SquireP. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7, 211-227.
77.
TarrG. A. (2001). Laboratories of democracy? Brandeis, federalism, and scientific management. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 31, 37-46.
78.
ThomsenD. M. (2014). Ideological moderates won’t run: How party fit matters for partisan polarization in congress. The Journal of Politics, 76, 786-797.
79.
“Union-bashing, now in Ohio. ” (2011, April4). The New York Times, p. A22.
80.
UslanerE. M.WeberR. E. (1979). U.S. state legislators’ opinions and perceptions of constituency attitudes. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4, 563-585.
