State judicial elections in the United States have become increasingly expensive, raising concerns about the influence of campaign contributions on judicial impartiality. This study examines individual donations – specifically from attorneys, non-attorneys, and business donors – in state supreme court elections from 2000 to 2023. The analysis reveals that attorneys predominantly support candidates with judicial experience and Democratic affiliation, while non-attorneys and business donors favor Republican candidates and high-profile races. These patterns underscore distinct motivations among donor groups and offer insights into the evolving dynamics of judicial campaign finance.

Do retrospective and prospective messages about judicial candidates influence participation in individual state high court races? To answer this question, I examine the effect of television ads for judicial candidates on ballot rolloff in state high court elections from 2000 to 2018. I find that increased exposure to ads with higher proportion of retrospective messages has diminishing returns, as more exposure to these ads increases the average rolloff per judicial election and per judicial race. Despite concerns about candidates announcing what they will do once they are elected, I find no relationship between prospective messages and voter participation given increased exposure to ads containing such messages. These results suggest that exposure to a candidate’s record may both mobilize and fatigue voters, and that concerns about prospective rhetoric may be exaggerated.

Bureaucratic agencies hold enormous power to affect citizens’ lives through agency rulemaking. These rules hold the force of law, though the officials writing them do not serve in elected positions. Resulting concerns about bureaucratic policymaking have given rise to prolific literature on political control by executives and legislatures seeking to limit the opportunity for moral hazard. I contend that other factors may restrain rulemaking that do not arise directly from other government institutions. Specifically, I assess whether and how state political culture checks bureaucratic power by affecting the number and content of regulatory proposals. Using a large dataset containing the nearly 200,000 proposed regulations from agencies in every US state over a 10-year period, I test the degree to which states with varying cultures utilize bureaucratic rulemaking. I then evaluate whether culture impacts the topics covered by regulation using a subset of six states representing each cultural type. Findings suggest that agencies in traditionalistic states issue fewer regulations than those in moralistic or individualistic states, but proposed rules in individualistic states cover a broader range of policy areas. These results deepen our understanding of the factors influencing regulatory politics, expanding the universe of bureaucratic control beyond government institutions to the broader environment.

In July of 2024, signatures for placing an anti-gerrymandering initiative on the November ballot were certified by the Ohio Secretary of State. The proposed initiative would have replaced a bipartisan redistricting commission with a citizens’ redistricting commission. Though the initiative ultimately failed, polls leading up to the general election showed Ohioans strongly supported redistricting reform. Using a survey of likely voters in Ohio, the research presented here identifies the factors that explain support for redistricting reform. While there is a strong body of research on redistricting, this research is unique because the survey data come from likely voters during an actual redistricting campaign. The findings show that identifying threats to democracy as the most important election issue, awareness of the redistricting issue, identification with the Democratic Party, and liberal ideology are all positively associated with support for redistricting reform. The findings demonstrate how voters are influenced by partisanship on salient issues and how issue awareness interacts with partisanship to determine support for redistricting. This article concludes with a discussion of the context of the ballot initiative in Ohio.

In 1997, Malcolm Jewell published a review of state legislative research stating that there were great “difficulties and possibilities of doing comparative work.” Much of this difficulty lies with data and accessibility. As such, many of the foundational works in state politics, and particularly in U.S. legislatures, were rooted in single-state or small sample studies. In the 25 years since State Politics & Policy Quarterly started publication, comparative studies have become more common, allowing for better tests of “laboratories of democracy.” In this review essay, we document the extent to which state legislative studies have moved beyond single-state studies to larger comparative examinations. We outline the significant developments in the literature and highlight much of the notable research that has increased our understanding of state legislatures.

Once a focus of political science, interest group studies lost prominence before a resurgence over the past 25 years. Today, scholars around the globe are paying more attention to interest groups, and studies of interest group politics in the American states are leading the way due to uniquely transparent disclosure regulations for lobbyists and institutional variation across state governments. This review charts the theoretical and methodological contributions that fueled this evolution and highlights lessons to be gleaned from contemporary American state scholarship. Findings include how structural power is a source of leverage for lobbyists, how interest groups venue shop within a state government from the legislature to bureaucracy and even elected agencies, and how sometimes the enactment of legislation is only the beginning of group influence.