Bicameralism and Geographic Politics: Allocating Funds in the House and Senate

Because they represent different kinds of constituencies—states versus parts of states—senators and House members have different incentives in constructing federal distributive programs. In order to claim credit for providing particularized benefits, House members need to use policy tools—earmarks and narrow categorical programs—that target funds to their constituencies. Senators, by contrast, are able to claim credit for the large formula grants that distribute the bulk of intergovernmental grant money. Examining House‐Senate interactions in one of the largest distributive programs, federal aid to states for surface transportation, I show that the different bases of representation in the House and Senate structure the chambers' preferences on distributive programs and affect the outcomes of interchamber conflicts.     

Driving Legislators' Policy Preferences: Constituent Commutes and Gas Taxes

Understanding differential policy costs across constituencies, and how they link to legislators' policy preferences, can facilitate policy changes that solve pressing problems. We examine the role of policy costs on constituents by studying legislator support for taxing gasoline. Analysis of survey responses from US state legislators, as well as of their voting records, shows that legislators whose constituents would be most affected by an increased gas tax—those whose constituents have longer commutes—are more likely to oppose higher gas taxes. Separately estimating the impact of time spent driving to work versus using public transit shows that the effect of commute times comes from those who have long drives, not from those who ride public transit, highlighting how the policy costs to constituents is a major driver in legislators' considerations. We finish the article by discussing the implications of our findings for combating climate change and for understanding policy feedbacks.     

Children and community: A reply to Jonathan Schonsheck's “Deconstructing Community Self-Paternalism”

Schonsheck attacks views which seek to justify the majority of citizens of a society passing legislation that is designed to serve the purpose of preventing their own first order preferences from changing over time (or being corrupted). The issue that I think is more important is a related one, but not precisely the same. It is not whether it is morally permissible for the majority of members of a society to pass legislation designed to prevent their own individual preferences from changing over time, but whether it is morally permissible for them to pass legislation for the sake of preventing the community's preferences from changing over time. As some people mature and acquire preferences and others die, no individual's already-formed preferences have to change for the community's preferences to change. The arguments concerning these two issues are the same, or at least similar, but putting the matter the way I do, raises the question of influencing the preferences of children. I argue that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a community's doing this and that Schonsheck's arguments to the contrary either are not convincing, or apply in some cases but not in others.     

The Calculus of Cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate

We investigated why a legislator would be willing to vote “yea” on final passage of a bill but would choose not to cosponsor that bill. We tested a series of hypotheses regarding the cosponsorship decisions of individual senators, using a dataset that includes every major initiative that was introduced and received a floor vote in the Senate between 1975 and 2000. We found that senators are more likely to cosponsor bills when their preferences diverge from the Senate median but are closer to those of the bill's sponsor. Also, senators are more likely to cosponsor bills when they sponsor a higher number of bills overall, when they become more connected with colleagues, and when their constituents increase demand for legislation within particular policy areas. Senators are less likely to cosponsor bills if they received a higher percentage of the general election vote in their most recent election.     

Public values, health inequality, and alternative notions of a "fair" response

The fact that disadvantaged people generally die younger and suffer more disease than those with more resources is gaining ground as a major policy concern in the United States. Yet we know little about how public values inform public opinion about policy interventions to address these disparities. This article presents findings from an exploratory study of the public's values and priorities as they relate to social inequalities in health. Forty-three subjects were presented with a scenario depicting health inequalities by social class and were given the opportunity to alter the distribution of health outcomes. Participants' responses fell into one of three distributive preferences: (1) prioritize the disadvantaged, (2) equalize health outcomes between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, and (3) equalize health resources between advantaged and disadvantaged groups. These equality preferences were reflected in participants' responses to a second, more complex scenario in which trade-offs with other health-related values - maximizing health and prioritizing the sickest - were introduced. In most cases, participants moderated their distributive preferences to accommodate these other health goals, particularly to prioritize the allocation of resources to the very sick regardless of their socioeconomic status.     

UK further education sector journey to compliance with the general data protection regulation and the data protection act 2018

The Further Education sector provides training and qualifications to 2.2million young people and adults annually and in the process collect a wealth of data which must be properly managed to ensure it is processed in a fair and transparent manner, maintaining compliance with good information governance and data protection legislation. This article shares the findings of a study which explored the content of General Data Protection Regulation action plans, first hand accounts from data practitioners and the views of students as provides embraced the new legislation.The article demonstrates how a sector which fills the void between schools and universities is unique in the challenges they face when ensuring compliance with data protection laws. These challenges include the application of legislation, noting key differences between the nations of the United Kingdom, and the moral duties placed upon the provider by parents who expect open dialogue with the education provider, consistent as happened with lower levels of education. This must be balanced with the student's right to data privacy and control over who can access their educational records .     

Urban Drug Problems, Policymakers and the General Public

The main focus of this paper is: how strong are people's opinions and policy preferences on the issue of drugs and drug users influenced by their own exposure to drug problems? From a general population survey conducted in eleven European cities, it is concluded that opinions and policy preferences are influenced only to a limited degree by exposure. The people who are not exposed to drug problems in their neighbourhood are more strongly inclined towards a repressive approach than the people who are affected by drug nuisance. Personal experiences with illicit drugs play an important part in the viewpoints. People who have tried drugs themselves lean far more strongly towards a health approach. That tendency is even stronger among those who are exposed to drug-related nuisance.     

Self‐selection or Socialization? A Dynamic Analysis of Committee Member Preferences

Theories on committee power assert that legislators self‐select to committees and therefore have preferences regarding the policy issues under the committees' jurisdictions that differ from the preferences of noncommittee members. I argue that preference outliers may be shaped both by processes of self‐selection and by endogenous processes within committees. Contrary to previous examinations of committee member preferences, the study utilizes a dynamic approach to examine the development of preferences over time in order to separate self‐selection from endogenous processes. Analyzing the development in the spending preferences of 859 Danish local politicians over three different election periods, I find that politicians increasingly prefer spending on their committees' jurisdictions over time, but their preferences do not change to the same extent on policy issues beyond their committees' jurisdictions. The findings point to the importance of endogenous processes in committees. Hence, committees may be outliers for very different reasons than those proposed by mainstream theory.     

Role Conflict in Community Corrections

A study was conducted to determine whether prior research had accurately conceptualised community correctional officers' experience of role conflict on the basis of officers' role preferences. It was hypothesised that officers who were welfare workers or punitive officers would experience inter-role conflict while those who attempted to combine the welfare and punitive roles (protective agents) would experience intra-role conflict and role ambiguity. Furthermore, an exploration of how inter-role conflict, intra-role conflict, role ambiguity, and officers' role preferences were related to occupational burnout was conducted. It was found in this study that officers' preferences for the role of welfare worker, protective agent, or punitive officer were not related to the level of inter-role conflict, intra-role conflict, or role ambiguity experienced by officers. Officers' role preferences were not related to burnout. Inter-role conflict and intra-role conflict were associated with emotional exhaustion. These findings call into question the whole tradition in the community corrections literature of inferring role conflict from officers' role preferences and necessitate that the whole issue of whether officers experience role conflict be revisited by employing direct measures of role conflict.     

New Labour’s communitarianism,supporting families and the ‘rationality mistake’: Part II

In Part I of this study, we argued that New Labour is keen to use legislation to promote what it sees as desirable family forms and to discourage other, less-favoured family practices. The codification of this approach in the 1998 Green Paper Supporting Families - and, in particular, the 'New Deal for Lone Parents' - was compared with recent empirical research on how people make decisions about their moral economies. We concluded that the government's approach is subject to a 'rationality mistake' - people do not make decisions in the way the government assumes and hence legislation can be inefficient or even oppressive. Here, we examine this contention further, this time focusing on chapter 4 of the Green Paper, indicatively entitled 'Strengthening marriage'. Using recent empirical research on mothers' views on marriage and cohabitation, we find further evidence of the 'rationality mistake', where the government has misunderstood the ways in which people make decisions about partnering and hence misplaces the role of family law. We conclude that supportive and flexible legislative frameworks are needed that recognize the varying ways in which people take moral economic decisions.     

Facing Your Criminal Record: Expungement and the Collateral Problem of Wrongfully Represented Self

While substantial sociolegal research has analyzed the deleterious effects of criminal records on life outcomes, little has examined the records themselves, or their relationship to the people they represent. In this article I take a novel tact, treating criminal records as the material, textual documentations of an individual's past. I then observe expungement seekers—people who encounter their own records—to understand their reactions. From this data, I use inductive theories of symbolic interactionism to theorize another collateral effect of the criminal record: it represents people in ways that depersonalize their social identities, and prevents them from communicating corrective self‐understandings to the governing bodies that author the records. I conclude with my main theoretical contribution: “having a criminal record,” literally, means having a textual proxy that the state has authored on its own terms, without input from the people whom it permanently represents, and while concealing from those people the apparatus behind authorship. As a consequence, the criminal records system serves as a barrier to reciprocal communication between ex‐arrestees and a legal system that represents them in ways that they may want to contest. This “wrongful representation” is a collateral effect of having a criminal record that impedes the ability of ex‐arrestees to manage or repair their relationship with the state that has punished them.     

Peculiar Institutions: Slavery,Sectionalism, and Minority Obstruction in the Antebellum Senate

This article examines obstruction in the U.S. Senate, focusing on political conflict in the antebellum period. I consider different theories that predict when obstruction should occur and conduct individual‐level analysis of the use of and support for dilatory tactics. The analysis investigates how the costs of obstruction, the probability that obstruction succeeds, the policy preferences of the senator, and the salience of legislation relate to decisions to obstruct. I find that both sectional and partisan factors influence obstruction, with the former being especially important for legislation related to slavery. In particular, Southern senators' concerns about being in the minority led them to obstruct to protect their interests in slavery.     

Vladimir Shapoval: "The CEC Is Destined to Be the Scapegoat"

"The law is harsh, but it is the law"—the well-known ancient Roman saying is entirely suitable as a brief synopsis of the Lb.ua interview with the chairman of the Central Election Commission (CEC), Vladimir Shapoval.

"Any electoral legislation, I emphasize, any, will always be 95 percent the product of political expediency. Always. This way gives them an advantage—so be it." This is how he calmly parried my emotional "How can the advantage of the strong be codified in the law (!), and the weak essentially have no chance? What can you do, how can it be?" "All this ‘whining and crying,’ say, the law is this and that in substance, I do not accept it. The laws were adopted—so we will follow them. You cannot get away from it," he added.

It might seem to someone who does not know Vladimir Nikolaevich that the chief vote-counting official is being clever, "covering up" the "distortions" of the authorities "at the local level." He is in fact speaking frankly. The chairman of the Central Election Commission formed on the eve of the 2007 preterm parliamentary elections by a "coalition"—a retired Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) justice, and a doctor of legal sciences who is an active member of the High Council of Justice (HCJ), he can permit himself that. Shapoval contrives to call things by their names: "How the law is written is another matter. And its parts are written abominably," he states bluntly.

In view of this, my discussion with Shapoval—formally tied to the start of a local elections campaign—went far beyond the bounds of a discussion of the legislation on this topic, and even the specifics of the campaign. The more so as I had already discussed this in detail with CEC Deputy Chairman Andrei Magera. Vladimir Nikolaevich, without concealing his indignation, related just what the HCJ is really afraid of (and it turned out it was not at all, or more precisely not only, what they are portraying it to be). Relying on nine years of experience as a CCU justice, he elucidated the risks of the invalidation of the 2004 constitutional reform by the current Constitutional Court—"only those who have face can lose it." Sketching out the situation in the body politic, he summed up, "If the Party of Regions (PoR) does not win the local elections, many questions will arise."     

Do blind people see race? Social, legal, and theoretical considerations

Although the meaning, significance, and definition of race have been debated for centuries, one thread of thought unifies almost all of the many diverging perspectives: a largely unquestioned belief that race is self-evident and visually obvious, defined largely by skin color, facial features, and other visual cues. This suggests that “seeing race” is an experience largely unmediated by broader social forces; we simply know it when we see it. It also suggests that those who cannot see are likely to have a diminished understanding of race. But is this empirically accurate?I examine these questions by interviewing people who have been totally blind since birth about race and compare their responses to sighted individuals. I not only find that blind people have as significant an understanding of race as anyone else and that they understand race visually, but that this visual understanding of race stems from interpersonal and institutional socializations that profoundly shape their racial perceptions. These findings highlight how race and racial thinking are encoded into individuals through iterative social practices that train people to think a certain way about the world around them. In short, these practices are so strong that even blind people, in a conceptual sense, “see” race. Rather than being self-evident, these interviews draw attention to how race becomes visually salient through constitutive social practices that give rise to visual understandings of racial difference for blind and sighted people alike. This article concludes with a discussion of these findings' significance for understanding the role of race in law and society.     

Constructing a New Scottish parliament for the ‘Europe of regions’: Can institutional engineering assure subsidiarity?

The creation of an elected parliament in Scotland raises questions for legislative scholars, among them how a parliamentary body representing a stateless nation within a member state of the European Union can influence and implement European legislation. One version of the ‘principle of subsidiarity’ states that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen, encouraging assemblies throughout the EU to articulate and implement their own preferences in key policy areas. Reporting findings from a survey of the Scottish parliament's first cohort of legislators, this article identifies conflicting perceptions of subsidiarity, charts how best to pursue it, and evaluates the institutional norms, rules and procedures put in place to help secure it. Data demonstrate that preferences vary by level of MSP knowledge about European policy, by party membership and by method of election. Low levels of legislator knowledge combined with internal divisiveness constitute barriers to institutional strength in the pursuit of subsidiarity.     

Doing family

This paper draws on how constructions of ‘the migrant family’ in political discourse influence migrants' and their families' lives. In specific national contexts, ‘the migrant family’ is determined according to the national and European debates and expressed by their respective rules and regulations. By ‘doing family’, migrants and their families develop strategies in order to fit these requirements of living a certain family life. Fulfilling specific norms and perceptions which are not necessarily required for the majority of society is a precondition to succeed. Who is and who is not part of the family, who holds responsibility — such aspects have to be proved and repeatedly reproduced by migrants and their families. This not only affects their position in society, but also has strong implications on their lives as a couple and family, since it requires the continuous adaptation and reconstructions of their everyday reality.     

“It's Just Black,White, or Hispanic”: An Observational Study of Racializing Moves in California's Segregated Prison Reception Centers

This article takes as its launching point a 2005 U. S. Supreme Court case, Johnson v. California (543 U.S. 499), which ruled that the California Department of Corrections' unwritten practice of racially segregating inmates in prison reception centers is to be reviewed under the highest level of constitutional review, strict scrutiny. Relying on observational data from two California prison reception centers, this research is grounded in an interactionist perspective and influenced by Smith's work on “institutional ethnography.” I examine how racialization occurs in carceral settings, arguing that officers and inmates collaborate to arrive at a “negotiated settlement” regarding housing decisions. They do so working together (but not always in agreement) to shape how an inmate is categorized in terms of ‘race’/ethnicity and gang/group affiliation, within a framework established by official Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation paperwork and related institutional understandings of housing needs. The findings demonstrate that administrators, officers, and inmates alike have influence over the process by which people are categorized and ‘race’ is produced, even as they derive their power from different sources and are both enabled and constrained by the relationship between them. I conclude that California prisons are, as Wacquant has put it, “the main machine for ‘race making’” (2005:128), and that the fuel for that machine—a series of patterned, negotiated settlements—happens in real time, “on the ground,” and with important consequences for inmates, officers, and administrators.     

Lifetime conviction risk—a synthetic cohort approach

How common are convictions? The stigma of a criminal record can have serious social and financial consequences for the individual. It is a fundamental question in relation to any policy how many people will be affected by it. For example, if it is desirable to make sentencing generally stricter, or restrict ex-offenders' employment opportunities, how many people will that apply to? Little is known about how many people acquire a criminal record over their life-course. In this paper, I apply life-table methods to a synthetic cohort to calculate the lifetime conviction risk. The findings show that a substantial proportion of the population will be convicted of a crime at some point. Not surprisingly, the figures for men are substantially higher than for women.     

Attitudes of people with disabilities toward physician-assisted suicide legislation: broadening the dialogue

This article presents the methods, findings, and implications of a participatory action research project that attempted to shed additional light on the debate over death with dignity (DWD) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legislation. In-depth, qualitative interviews with forty-five physically disabled residents of the San Francisco Bay Area, conducted by others with disabilities, revealed a wide breadth of opinions about and attitudes toward such legislation. For close to half of the participants, the desire for autonomy in making end-of-life decisions was a primary concern, yet fear that PAS legislation could violate this autonomy in various ways was a deep concern as well. Also reported were widespread accounts of disability-based discrimination and frequent expressions of fear about openly discussing positions that diverge from the official, publicly held opinions of disability leaders who oppose such legislation. The findings support those of a recent Harris poll demonstrating considerable diversity of opinion about PAS legislation among people with disabilities. The findings further suggest the need for additional research on the apparent disjunction between the diversity of attitudes held by those interviewed and the more unified position taken by many disability activists. Use of the study findings to promote greater dialogue within the community and to better position people with disabilities to take their place at the policy table also is discussed. In addition, the findings are seen as reinforcing the need for the public health community to become more engaged in this central ethical debate.     

The House of Lords and homeless people's rights

For the past 20 years, there has been legislation enshrining certain rights for homeless people. This essay is an assessment of the judiciary's role towards homeless people as far as it applies to the most senior court, the House of Lords. It describes the nature of those issues where the House of Lords have had the opportunity to discuss the operation of the homeless persons legislation. It also seeks to explore the reasons why the approach taken has been restrictive. The House of Lords has played an important part in interpreting the homeless rights legislation. The restrictive role of their Lordships is contrasted with other areas where the court has taken rather more generous perspectives on the rights of vulnerable people. It canvasses the various reasons why this should have occurred and notes that limited assistance can be gleaned from traditional approaches to this judicial task. It suggests that the concept of differential politicization throws useful light on the process.