2007 Conference Program - Midwest Political Science Association

39-2 CONSEQUENCES OF PARTISAN POLARIZATION
Room Montrose 1, 7 th Floor, Thur at 12:45 pm
Chair Robert P. Van Houweling, University of California, Berkeley
Paper Partisanship in One Minute Speeches in the 108th Congress
Kathryn Pearson, University of Minnesota
Wendy Rahn, University of Minnesota
Logan Dancey, University of Minnesota
Overview: In a content analysis of one-minute speeches on the
House floor, we demonstrate through members' words that
partisanship is social and emotional, in addition to strategic, in the
108th Congress.
Paper Partisanship without Ideology: Using Votes to Shape Party
Reputations for Competence
Frances E. Lee, University of Maryland
This paper analyzes the parties’ use of the roll-call record to
improve their own collective reputations on "good government"
causes (and to undermine their opposition’s reputation for
competence or uprightness).
Paper Polarization and the Congressional Agenda
Laurel M. Harbridge, Stanford University
Overview: I examine how elite polarization in Congress has
translated into the level of partisanship in the congressional
agenda and how institutional features of Congress temper agenda
partisanship.
Paper Legislative Conflict and Policy Productivity in Congress, 1873-
2004
Lawrence C. Dodd, University of Florida
Scot D. Schraufnagel, University of Central Florida
Overview: Congress’s capacity to enact landmark legislation
confronts a central dilemma: too much intra-institutional conflict
inhibits landmark productivity -- but so does too little conflict.
Moderate levels of conflict foster landmark productivity.
Paper Party, the Distribution of Preferences, and Bill Passage Length
in Congress
Andrew J. Taylor, North Carolina State University
Overview: I test partisan and partyless hypotheses about bill
passage length in Congress using survival analysis. I show that a
partisan understanding of the distribution of member preferences
helps explain bill passage length, but a chamber one does not.
Disc. Kevin A. Roust, University of California, San Diego
Robert P. Van Houweling, University of California, Berkeley
39-15 CONGRESSIONAL POLICY MAKING IN
MULTIPLE DOMAINS
Room Suite 9-142, 9 th Floor, Thur at 12:45 pm
Chair Wendy Schiller, Brown University
Paper U.S. Defense Budget Allocations for Weapons Production
from 1904-2006
Rebecca U. Thorpe, University of Maryland
Overview: This project assesses whether U.S. Defense budget
allocations convey increasing levels of spending for weapons
contracts at the expense of standard military operations.
Paper Explaining Bipartisanship in Foreign Policy: Spectacles
Revised
Jianying Wang, University of Missouri, Columbia
Overview: This paper explains how domestic economy situation
changes the bipartisan presidential support in the House in
economy-related foreign policies. The observation period is from
1953 through 1998.
Paper Playing the Field: Committee Referrals of Abortion-Related
Proposals
Scott Ainsworth, University of Georgia
Thad E. Hall, University of Utah
Overview: Our work focuses on how the legislative strategies
employed by members have evolved over time. With attention to
the members' internal and external environments, we ask: Under
what circumstances are abortion related measures introduced.
Paper A Congressional Politics Theory of the Size of Government
Robi Ragan, University of Georgia
Overview: This paper incorporates three models of Congressional
policy making into a larger model of the size of the redistribution
system in the U.S., and then empirically tests the implications of
these models.
Paper Equal Representation? Race and Legislators’ Support for
Civil Rights
Jeffrey W. Ladewig, University of Connecticut
Michelle M. Dube, University of Connecticut
Overview: An examination of the effects of constituents' and
legislators' demographic characteristics on their support for civil
rights legislation.
Disc. Wendy Schiller, Brown University
41-2 DECIDING TO DECIDE: GRANTING CERT ON
THE SUPREME COURT
Room Montrose 7, 7 th Floor, Thur at 12:45 pm
Chair Sara C. Benesh, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Paper The Will of the Minority: The Rule of Four on the United
States Supreme Court
Jason M. Roberts, University of Minnesota
Timothy R. Johnson, University of Minnesota
Songying Fang, University of Minnesota
Overview: In this paper we develop a formal model that seeks to
explain why a majority of justices are willing to allow a minority
to determine the Court’s agenda. We then use data from the 1946-
1985 to test the predictions of our model.
Paper Litigant Status and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme
Court
Ryan C. Black, Washington University, St. Louis
Christina L. Boyd, Washington University, St. Louis
Overview: We test whether litigant status affects the likelihood of
granting discretionary review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Paper U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Votes: A Social Choice
Explanation
Quan Li, University of Central Florida
Danette Brickman, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Overview: This paper examines Supreme Court justices’ choices
between sophisticated voting and sincere voting in certiorari
decisions as a result of uncertainty generated by the Court’s group
context.
Paper Strategic Opinion-Minded Justices During Certiorari
Ehud N. Sommer, SUNY, Stony Brook
Overview: My research question - to what extent justices' potential
future influence on the opinion writing process guides the vote
they cast on Cert?
Paper Litigant Status and the Certiorari Decision
Wendy L. Watson, University of North Texas
Overview: This paper considers the effect of petitioners' in forma
pauperis status and pro se status on the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision to accept petitions for review in criminal cases.
Disc. Sara C. Benesh, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Harold Spaeth, Michigan State University
41-15 COURTS AND PUBLIC OPINION II: SUPPORT
FOR THE COURTS (Co-sponsored with Public
Opinion, see 25-23)
Room Burnham 1, 7 th Floor, Thur at 12:45 pm
Chair Elliot E. Slotnick, Ohio State University
Paper The Supreme Court, Foreign Law, and its Consequences for
Public Support
Brett Curry, Georgia Southern University
Banks Miller, Ohio State University
Overview: We employ an experimental design to investigate the
extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court’s reliance of foreign law
impacts public support for the Court and its decisions.
Paper U.S. Supreme Court Nominations, Legitimacy Theory, and the
American Public: A Dynamic Test of the Positivity Bias
Hypothesis
James L. Gibson, Washington University, St. Louis
Gregory A. Caldeira, Ohio State University
Overview: Based on a three-wave nationally representative panel
survey, the purpose of this paper is specifically to test hypotheses
about the causes of changes in attitudes toward the United States
Supreme Court.
Page | 101