Do appeals to Black voters necessarily detract white voters from supporting the left? Extant studies have yielded mixed answers to this question by examining voter turnout data. We use two survey experiments to test how framing politicians as either supportive of or hostile to the #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) and #SayHerName (SHN) movements affected the willingness of voters to support them during the 2020 Senate runoff elections in Georgia. We find that Democratic-leaning respondents in both a national sample of Black respondents and a sample of White respondents in Georgia were more likely to support politicians whom we framed as supportive of the BLM and SHN movements. These findings illustrate the potential potency of messaging strategies grounded in racial justice themes for mobilizing Democratic-leaning voters in American elections.

Drawing from an interpretivist framework, this paper proposes Black Embodied Political Subjectivity (BEPS) as a conceptual framework that foregrounds the body, affect, and historical memory as critical to political subjectivity. BEPS draws on Black political thought to challenge dominant epistemologies that prioritize disembodied rationality and abstract ideological commitments over lived, felt, and corporeal political experiences. Rather than treating the body as an inert vessel or secondary site of politics, BEPS argues that the body is central to the ways Black people negotiate, contest, and reconstitute power in lived political contexts.

In this article, we extend the discussion of Arab name discrimination from the social and economic arena to the electoral arena. We ask the following question: Do candidates with Arab and Turkish-sounding names face electoral disadvantages? We answer this question using a random sample of 100 German municipal elections comprising more than 6,400 candidates. We find that councilors with Arab/Turkish-sounding names make up less than 0.2% of all councilors. We further discover that this underrepresentation stems largely, but not solely, from a lack of supply of Arab/Turkish candidates. There is also some electoral discrimination in that candidates with Arab/Turkish-sounding name get relegated to less beneficial list positions. However, voters seem not to further discriminate against Arab/Turkish-sounding names.

This article demonstrates how political science, particularly the emerging field of American Political Economy (APE), can more robustly theorize and study the political economy of systemic racism by drawing on insights from critical race theories, including intersectionality and racial capitalism, and post/anti-colonial theory. A paired case study of the foreclosure “noncrisis” of the 1990s and the coerced sterilization of incarcerated women in California during the early 2000s highlights three key contributions of critical race theories: (1) intersectionality reveals nonuniformity, unintended consequences of purportedly progressive policy, and underscores the importance of margins-to-center resistance; (2) feudal-colonial roots illuminate how racialized hierarchies become institutionalized in law and policy, often without explicit racial language; and (3) racial capitalist logics explain how administrative tools, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, reproduce racial hierarchy through markets. This framework offers APE a more historically grounded, power-conscious, and theoretically expansive approach to systemic racism and underscores the urgency of resisting efforts to suppress such scholarship.

This article contributes to the understanding of the racial politics underpinning nation branding through a two-step mixed-method analysis of the Image Bank of Sweden, an online promotional material provided through the branding platform Sharing Sweden. First, an exploratory quantitative analysis reveals a paradox: while White individuals overwhelmingly dominate the images of Sweden, Black and Asian individuals appear at rates disproportionate to their actual demographic presence – particularly in contexts related to education and student life. Second, a multi-modal discourse analysis of images and texts shows how the representations of higher education and student life mobilize racialized bodies to project an image of Sweden as diverse, modern, and globally competitive. At the same time, White students’ portrayal is accompanied by messages of Swedish traditions, reinforcing existing views of Sweden as a White nation. Ultimately, we argue that such portrayals reproduce the logics of tokenistic multiculturalism and commodification of racial difference and whiteness within the aesthetic economy of nation branding.

This study examines intergroup bias among members of the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland—a high-status ethnolinguistic minority group. Drawing on social identity theory and intergroup threat theory, the study explores ingroup favoritism and identifies key predictors of individual-level bias. Using survey data from 1,096 Swedish-speaking Finns, the study uses trait-based evaluations of both ingroup and outgroup members. Results show that intergroup bias is prevalent, particularly in the form of ingroup favoritism for positive traits. Analyses reveal that strong ethnolinguistic identity and perceived intergroup threat significantly predict higher levels of bias, while language identity, Finnish language proficiency, and intergroup contact show no consistent relationships. These findings suggest that even in socially stable and egalitarian contexts, perceived threats to group identity can sustain intergroup bias.

Despite extensive research on discrimination, little is known about how disclosing invisible attributes, such as religion, socio-economic class, and sexual orientation, affects others’ discriminatory attitudes. This study examines the case of Zainichi Koreans in Japan, descendants of Korean migrants who remained in Japan after World War II under special permanent residency status. Zainichi Koreans face a dilemma: whether to disclose their ethnic identity by using a Korean name (honmy$\bar o$) or attempt to conceal it with a Japanese pseudonym (ts$\bar u$mei). Using two conjoint experiments with hypothetical job applicants, we find strong discriminatory attitudes against Zainichi Koreans based solely on their names. However, these biases are significantly reduced among individuals with frequent social contact with Zainichi Koreans. Our findings underscore the need to further move beyond visible attributes in research on discrimination and social contact. More broadly, this study provides a framework for examining bias against invisible identities in diverse global contexts.

Population resettlement, an integral part of settler colonialism, has also been practiced in post-colonial countries to obtain territorial control over the contested territories. Studies analyze resettlements in relation to settler-colonial and post-colonial states. The resettlement policies of the Nepali state, which has remained independent throughout its history, are outside their attention. Nepal relocated its dominant Hill Hindu high-caste people to the Tarai region to enhance economic growth and development. However, settlement projects hindered languages, cultures, customary laws, and natural resources of the Madhesi and the Tharu Indigenous Peoples, ultimately displacing them from their ancestral territories. In response, ethnic and Indigenous Peoples intensified their demands for autonomy and self-rule, which they considered as measures to prevent further erosion of their collective rights. This finding contests the prevailing theoretical explanations that population resettlement projects weaken ethnic solidarity, illustrating that settlement projects can also become a reason for heightening autonomy movements.

What explains the attitudes of diasporas toward their ancestral homeland? One answer suggests some pull toward the country of origin (“ancestral homeland”) based on a shared cultural identity. In contrast, another explanation looks at how host country (“contemporary homeland”) politics surrounding the “perpetual foreigners” can push the diaspora toward their ancestral homeland. In this paper, we recognize that the link between the diaspora and the ancestral homeland is malleable. Specifically, we focus on the linguistic link—which can vary both spatially and temporally. We argue that when individuals of the diaspora do not speak the ancestral homeland language with their family at home, the primordial ethnic bond is weakened, and thus, they are less positive toward their ancestral homeland. We test our argument by focusing on the ethnic Chinese diaspora globally. Using the Sinophone Borderlands Survey, we identify and test whether those who speak Standard Chinese at home are more pro-China than their coethnics who speak a non-Standard Chinese vernacular. The results highlight that while the ethnic Chinese diaspora is more positive toward China than the non-ethnic Chinese respondents, what matters is whether a, and if so, which, Chinese vernacular is spoken.

This study explores how four prominent Indian American Republican leaders: Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Kash Patel, and Harmeet Dhillon navigate and represent their ethnic, religious, and immigrant identities within a party shaped by conservative and assimilationist norms, and the strategies they employ to downplay their differences with conservative ideologies while reinforcing their alignment with conservatism. Using Postcolonial Theory and DesiCrit, this qualitative, multiple case study examines their rhetorical and visual strategies, speeches, debates, interviews, news, and imagery. The analysis uncovers patterns of representation and ideological framing that these leaders use to mobilize or erase ethnic and cultural identities. Findings indicate that while these figures project racial diversity, their calibrated performances rarely disrupt dominant power structures, exposing the paradox of representation in conservative politics. This inquiry foregrounds the conditional nature of inclusion and the constraints placed on racialized subjects within systems that remain tethered to normative whiteness and Christian hegemony.

What makes someone belong to an ethnic group? This article examines how individuals organize and prioritize ethnic attributes frequently used to denote membership and asks when simplified measurement strategies provide a reasonable approximation of ethnic identity in practice. Using original survey data from two online experiments fielded in 2024, I analyze respondents’ evaluations of eight common identity attributes among White, Black, and Latino Americans. Drawing on principal components analysis, multidimensional preference scaling, and circular-linear regression, I show that while some identities are well approximated by a single dominant dimension, others exhibit weaker alignment and greater heterogeneity in how attributes are prioritized. These differences have direct implications for measurement: reliance on any single attribute can meaningfully capture some identities while systematically misrepresenting others. More broadly, the findings underscore the need for group-sensitive measurement strategies when studying ethnic identity and its political and social consequences.

Local prosecutors in the United States have significant discretion in the criminal legal system and have traditionally wielded their power in a way that contributes to mass incarceration. Since 2016, however, “progressive” prosecutors have been elected in growing numbers on pledges to mitigate the racialized harms of mass incarceration. While scholars tie progressive prosecutors’ elections to the Movement for Black Lives (BLM), less is known about countermovement efforts—including recalls, impeachments, and suspensions, examples of extra-electoral challenges—opposing these prosecutors. To address this gap, I constructed an original database of all local prosecutors in 2012 and/or 2022 in the country’s 300 most populous jurisdictions. Findings reveal that extra-electoral challenges disproportionately target women of color, disproportionately occur in Republican-controlled states, and have nearly tripled over the last decade. I argue that extra-electoral challenges constitute a novel movement repertoire used by the political right to challenge racial justice efforts following BLM.

Felon disenfranchisement, while ostensibly race neutral, bars more Black Americans from voting than White Americans. This has promulgated claims that felon disenfranchisement is used to limit Black political influence. However, we lack systematic evidence tying perceptions of racial political power to support for disenfranchising felons. Utilizing the racial threat framework, we argue that White Americans who perceive Black Americans as too politically powerful will be more supportive of disenfranchising felons, particularly right-leaning White Americans. Using data from the 2020 and 2024 ANES, we find perceptions of political threat are associated with greater support for felon disenfranchisement. In further support for the political racial threat hypothesis, we find perceptions of Black political power increase support among those on the political right while decreasing support among the political left. Importantly, these results hold after controlling for economic and symbolic threat, general Black affect, crime spending preferences, and Black population size. These results suggest political racial threat significantly influences support for felon disenfranchisement among White Americans, and conditionally on political leanings, underscoring the role of political racial threat in whether White Americans think felons should be allowed to vote.

This project investigates how skin tone and gender of Black political candidates work together to influence White Americans’ evaluations. Drawing on the colorism literature and group position theory, I develop a theoretical framework anticipating how the skin tone of Black candidates may influence White voters’ perceptions. Two survey experiments were conducted on nationally representative samples. Both studies highlight that skin tone is meaningful to White voters’ evaluations, but in nuanced ways based on gender. Specifically, the darker-skinned Black female candidate is evaluated more positively than her lighter-skinned female and darker-skinned male counterpart across multiple domains, including vote choice and expected job performance. These findings suggest that gender can attenuate the negative stereotypes typically associated with darker skin tone in some contexts. These findings underscore the importance of theorizing about race as a multidimensional construct, with implications for understanding hierarchy, intergroup relations, and electoral politics in a diversifying American racial landscape.

Existing research on descriptive representation maintains that political candidates often receive more political support from in-group voters than their out-group competitors. Scholars claim this is due in large part to the assumption that descriptive candidates have a greater inclination to act in ways that benefit their shared identity group. This paper explores the other side of these heightened expectations and asks—How do voters evaluate a descriptive representative whose actions are perceived as being at odds with group expectations? Moreover, how do those evaluations compare to out-group candidates who behave in similarly? Using an experimental test, we examine the costs leveraged against political candidates who meet voters’ expectations and those who do not, and seeing whether the shared identity conditions voters’ evaluations. In doing so, we provide a more holistic view of the ways in which descriptive representation matters to voters.

This article examines how intersectional ideologies and experiences of marginalization affect the extent to which African Americans support or oppose the marginalization of LGBTQ+ communities. We posit that awareness of the race-gender positionality of African American women, as well as the unique positionalities of other marginalized African American subgroups, is critical to understanding the conditions under which Black Americans embrace LGBTQ+ rights and communities. Using the Black respondent subsample of the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Study, we test the extent to which intersectional theories explain African American cross-group consciousness with LGBTQ+ persons and support for LGBTQ+ rights and communities. In doing so, we distinguish multiple mechanisms through which identity intersections affect African American1 political attitudes, and we find that, though intersecting marginalized identities can be critical to fomenting African Americans’ support for the rights and concerns of LGBTQ+ communities, not all intersections lead to a more inclusive Black politics.

A key component of the authoritarian worldview is social conformity, which manifests in a need to minimize threats to social order. This desire for stability often leads authoritarians to hold systematic and approving attitudes toward law enforcement. Previous scholarship suggests that authoritarianism is linked to attitudes shaped by the social dominance of one’s group identity. We extend this framework to Hispanic populations, whose identities historically fall outside the dominant social order, to examine whether authoritarianism predicts support for law enforcement. Using data from the 2020 American National Election Study (ANES), we employ regression models to examine the relationship between authoritarianism, ethnicity, and attitudes toward law enforcement. Results indicate that authoritarians express more favorable views of law enforcement across non-Hispanic white and Hispanic respondents, with a stronger effect among Hispanics. Positive feelings toward whites are also associated with higher levels of authoritarianism and greater support for police, underscoring the importance of white identity salience in shaping political attitudes. These findings demonstrate that authoritarianism functions as a psychological orientation emphasizing order and conformity rather than a defensive response to marginalization. Our results contribute to understanding how racial identity salience and acculturation processes shape the relationship between worldview and support for state authority.

Media attention to policing has brought a proliferation of narratives seeking to contextualize incidents of police violence. Here, we test whether exposure to such narratives shift Americans’ opinion or behavior. To do so, we first identify and track the media prevalence of two of these narratives: one focused on racial bias in policing and a second focused on the dangers of the profession. Despite the presence of these narratives in media, we find, experimentally, that public opinion about police violence is stable, regardless of the media narrative used. Finally, to better understand these null results, we use a content analysis of open-ended responses to uncover the demographic and ideological characteristics that are most more deterministic of their reactions to police violence. Altogether, these findings indicate attitudes about policing and planned political participation are ossified and unresponsive to media narratives.

A large body of research shows that members of Congress disproportionately represent the interests of copartisans and affluent Americans. Is there also racial disparity in representation? I draw on three standards of political equality—proportionality, race-conscious egalitarianism, and pluralism—and assess the extent to which minority representation satisfies each. To do so, I match roll-call votes in the U.S. House of Representatives to survey data fielded prior to each vote (2006–2016) and use multilevel regression and poststratification to estimate racial subgroups’ opinions. I then examine how closely House members’ voting aligns with these opinions, focusing on districts where White and minority preferences differ. My analysis rules out “coincidental representation’ driven by similar opinions across groups and accounts for how much of each racial group’s national population resides in each district. Among districts where racial group opinions differ, I find strong support for the proportionality over the race-conscious egalitarian standard: Racial minority representation is substantially greater in majority–minority districts than in those that are not. However, I find strong evidence for the race-conscious egalitarian standard among Democratic legislators and moderate evidence for the pluralist standard among all legislators, as voting tends to align with racial minority opinion on explicitly race-targeted bills.

In an era of globalization, increasingly interconnected labor markets have intensified competition for skilled talent, particularly among countries in the Global North such as Canada. While Canada’s immigration policy prioritizes education and professional experience, these same credentials are often devalued upon arrival, as systemic barriers limit access to commensurate employment. This study examines the employment experiences of skilled, racialized immigrants in British Columbia, exploring how institutional narratives of meritocracy conceal exclusion, credential systems reinforce epistemic hierarchies, and settlement services pathologize migrant experiences. Using a qualitative design with four focus group discussions (n = 18), the study integrates critical migration theory, intersectionality, and decolonial social work to analyze the structural marginalization of skilled, racialized immigrants. Findings reveal a central paradox: the very system that celebrates global talent simultaneously erodes its value through credential gatekeeping, discriminatory hiring practices, and labor market practices that privilege local over global expertise. By situating these barriers within broader colonial and epistemic hierarchies, the study argues that integration must be understood not as individual adaptation but as institutional transformation. It contributes to critical debates on skilled migration, equity, and the reproduction of colonial logics within Canada’s labor market.