Congressional Performance,Incumbent Behavior,and Voting in Senate Elections

Conventional wisdom suggests that individual members of Congress have no real incentive to act in ways that might improve public evaluations of their collective body. In particular, the literature provides no clear evidence that public evaluations of Congress affect individual races for Congress, and little reason to expect that voters would hold specific individuals responsible for the institution's performance. We suggest that this conventional wisdom is incorrect. Using multiple state‐level exit polls of Senate voting conducted by Voter News Service in 1996 and 1998, we arrive at two key findings. First, we find that evaluations of Congress do have a significant effect on voting within individual U.S. Senate races across a wide variety of electoral contexts. Second, we find that punishments or rewards for congressional performance are not distributed equally across all members, or even across members of a particular party. Instead, we find that the degree to which citizens hold a senator accountable for congressional performance is significantly influenced by that senator's actual level of support for the majority party in Congress, as demonstrated on party votes.     

Critiquing the U.S. characterization,attribution and retaliation laws and policies for cyberattacks

This paper critiques the U.S. characterization, attribution, and retaliation laws and policies for cyberattacks. Characterization, attribution, and retaliation are part of the most important aspects of responding to cyberattacks. The U.S. does not have a clearly defined characterization process, other than the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s Threat Table which characterizes the different motivations for carrying out cyberattacks by cyber threat actors. This Threat Table has hardly changed since 2005, yet, cyber threat actors continually develop their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and conceal their real motivations for carrying out cyberattacks. Like characterization, the U.S. does not have a known attribution procedure, nor is a single agency tasked with the function of attribution. Different agencies – the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) – and even private sectors companies, participate in the attribution process. This invites potential contradiction and interference with the attribution process. Though, unlike characterization and attribution, the U.S. retaliation policies are contained in different documents, none has the preciseness required to be effective. This paper thus, makes recommendations for each of these aspects of cyberattack response.     

They watch for color: mixed-status couples experience with the police

This research qualitatively examines experiences with the police for 42 interracial mixed-status couples, living or originating mainly from the Southern United States. Race-based policing operates within a structure of racist nativism where white skin is a marker of U.S. citizenship, and brown skin is an indication of being foreign-born. Law enforcement at all levels, including the local level, situated their attention toward Latino immigrant men, especially those perceived as working-class, when compared to white U.S. citizen wives. The penalties for racial profiling included family strain through detention and deportation of Latin-American born men. In addition to human rights violations for undocumented Latino immigrants, U.S. citizens are serving as collateral damage in an already broken immigration system that racially profiles Latino immigrant men. Couples’ precariousness situations contest the rhetoric that police are only protecting citizens’ national security. Framed by racist nativism, the findings have implications for anti-oppressive, evidence-based immigration policy.     

Statement of Ralph G. Steinhardt,Professor of Law,before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary,U.S. House of Representatives

Conclusion The Alvarez-Machain decision demonstrates that there is no simple division between international law, on the one hand, and domestic or constitutional law, on the other. It is a domestic matter that U.S. citizens are suddenly vulnerable to reciprocal exercises of power by foreign states. It is a domestic matter if the decision compromises the international cooperation on which the drug war depends. It will certainly be no consolation to those whose lives depend on winning that war that the case involved a single, relatively obscure treaty with a single foreign country. It is a constitutional matter if the Court will no longer exercise independent judgment in the interpretation of the supreme law of the land or will view as optional agreements the rest of the world considers comprehensive and binding.And as we reflect on the importance of treaties in such areas as trade or-especially after President Yeltsin's visit last week-arms reduction, it becomes clear that treaties-though international in origin-are usually domestic in their impact. The Supreme Court's disposition in Alvarez-Machain seems radically at odds with this nation's long-term, sophisticated self-interest in assuring the domestic sanctity of international agreements.This statement was presented in a slightly altered form to the Subcommittee on June 22, 1992. Professor Steinhardt is Associate Director of the International and Comparative Law Program at the National Law Center, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; B.A., Bowdoin College 1976; J.D., Harvard University 1980.Professor Steinhardt appeared with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California in its representation of Dr. Alvarez-Machain in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in the Supreme Court of the United States.     

Northern Democrats and Party Polarization in the U.S. House

Abstract: Over the last 25 years, there has been a steady increase in party voting in the U.S. House, with much of this increase attributed to changes in the South. We argue that changes in the North are also important. Democrats now win a higher percentage of elections in the North, and a larger percentage of the congressional party comes from the North. Northern Democrats became steadily more liberal in the 1980s and 1990s, which increased the liberal record of the entire party. We examine two factors in the rise in liberal voting in the North. First, Democrats now win more seats in urban, lower‐income, nonwhite districts that tend to generate liberal voting records. Second, there has been an increase in the number of districts that tend to produce liberal‐voting Democrats. Together, these changes have resulted in more liberal Democratic Party voting and greater polarization between the parties.     

Yea or Nay: Do Legislators Benefit by Voting Against Their Party?

This article asks whether legislators are able to reap electoral benefits from opposing their party on one or more high‐profile issues. Using data from a national survey in which citizens are asked their own positions on seven high‐profile issues voted on by the U.S. Senate, as well as how they believe their state's two senators have voted on these issues, I find that senators generally do not benefit from voting against their party. Specifically, when a senator deviates from her party, the vast majority of out‐partisans nonetheless persist in believing that the senator voted with her party anyhow; and while the small minority of out‐partisans who are aware of her deviation are indeed more likely to approve of and vote for such a senator, there are simply too few of these correctly informed citizens for it to make a meaningful difference for the senator's overall support.     

Losing,but Accepting: Legitimacy,Positivity Theory,and the Symbols of Judicial Authority

How is it that the U.S. Supreme Court is capable of getting most citizens to accept rulings with which they disagree? This analysis addresses the role of the symbols of judicial authority and legitimacy—the robe, the gavel, the cathedral‐like court building—in contributing to this willingness of ordinary people to acquiesce to disagreeable court decisions. Using an experimental design and a nationally representative sample, we show that exposure to judicial symbols (1) strengthens the link between institutional support and acquiescence among those with relatively low prior awareness of the Supreme Court, (2) has differing effects depending upon levels of preexisting institutional support, and (3) severs the link between disappointment with a disagreeable Court decision and willingness to challenge the ruling. Since symbols influence citizens in ways that reinforce the legitimacy of courts, the connection between institutional attitudes and acquiescence posited by Legitimacy Theory is both supported and explained.     

Senate Apportionment as a Source of Political Inequality

Political scientists have long known that the equal representation of states in the U.S. Senate and the placement of state lines might disadvantage politically relevant groups, granting some citizens greater voting weight in the chamber. Yet we lack systematic, longitudinal evidence that identifies the groups disadvantaged by Senate malapportionment, the sources of this disadvantage, and probes the policy consequences. In this article, I compare each state's liberalism and racial composition with its relative voting weight in the Senate over time. Additionally, I examine whether roll‐call coalitions in the Senate map onto these patterns of state ideology and racial composition.     

A Recent Look at U.S. Prisoners in Mexican Border Prisons

There is little analysis of the impact of the United States on Mexican prisons. This research examines the presence of United States citizens and the “War on Drugs” in Tamaulipas, Mexico, prisons. There has been a marked increase in the number of U.S. citizens, and prisoners, in general, in Tamaulipas prisons in the last three years (90% of these are incarcerated for drug trafficking). This increase is attributed to Mexican President Salinas' active support for the “War on Drugs” and success in capturing narcotics traffickers. This has led to overcrowding in Tamaulipas border prisons, in comparison with Victoria located in the interior. We also interviewed U.S. prisoners located in Reynosa State prison. The majority indicated abuse at the hands of Federal Judicial Police while arrested, and were planning to transfer out of Mexico through the Mexican-U.S. treaty exchange.     

Pursuing justice,respecting the law

Conclusion In the 1980s, despite the rise of terrorist attacks worldwide, the international community failed to respond cooperatively. When U.S. citizens were the focus of attacks, even friendly countries had little incentive to risk the safety of their citizens or the tenets of their foreign policy to prosecute terrorists. In response, the United States passed statutes providing for extraterritorial jurisdiction over acts committed abroad against U.S. citizens and then engaged in a series of dramatic seizures to enforce these measures. Unfortunately, these abductions were generally not defensible under international law and, in any event, could not be used when a terrorist was located within the territory of a major friendly country. In large part unexpectedly, however, the statutes have rendered such extraordinary measures unnecessary while still remedying what was a visible failure of international criminal cooperation.Even without threatening international abductions, the United States can use the Hostage Taking Act and the Terrorist Prosecution Act to demand extradition and to undertake independent investigations of violations of federal laws. These efforts put pressure on governments that have custody over terrorists. The international and the diplomatic consequences of neither extraditing nor prosecuting have proven sufficient to encourage U.S. allies to prosecute terrorists themselves. Surprisingly, therefore, the statutes have turned out to be effective because they encourage prosecutions of terrorists abroad, thereby remedying a failure in international cooperation and helping to ensure a consistent, strong, international response to acts of terrorism despite the continued inability of the United States to obtain custody of those attacking its citizens.This is a revised version of a paper presented at an international workshop on Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, organized jointly by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany, May 21–25, 1991.Class of 1993, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.     

The New Face of Legal Inequality: Noncitizens and the Long‐Term Trends in Sentencing Disparities across U.S. District Courts, 1992–2009

In the wake of mass immigration from Latin America, legal scholars have shifted focus from racial to ethnic inequality under the law. A series of studies now suggest that Hispanics may be the most disadvantaged group in U.S. courts, yet this body of work has yet to fully engage the role of citizenship status. The present research examines the punishment consequences for non‐U.S. citizens sentenced in federal courts between 1992 and 2009. Drawing from work in citizenship studies and sociolegal inequality, I hypothesize that nonstate members will be punished more severely than U.S. citizens, and any trends in Hispanic ethnicity over this period will be linked to punitive changes in the treatment of noncitizens. In line with this hypothesis, results indicate a considerable punishment gap between citizens and noncitizens—larger than minority‐white disparities. Additionally, this citizenship “penalty” has increased at the incarceration stage, explaining the majority of the increase in Hispanic‐white disparity over the past two decades. As international migration increases, these findings call for greater theoretical and empirical breadth in legal inequality research beyond traditional emphases, such as race and ethnicity.     

A comparison of Chinese and the U.S. police cadets’ occupational attitudes

While police attitudes and behaviors have been the subject of a large number of studies conducted since the 1960s, very few studies had assessed Chinese police officers’ work-related attitudes and compared them with those of the U.S. police cadets. Using survey data collected from 263 Chinese and American police cadets, the research empirically tested whether Chinese and American police cadet attitudes differed across four attitudinal dimensions: aggressive patrol, order maintenance, legal restrictions, and distrust of citizens. Bivariate and multivariate results showed that Chinese cadets displayed occupational outlooks that distinguished them from their American counterparts. Chinese cadets supported aggressive patrol and were more distrustful of citizens than their American counterparts. American cadets were more favorable of order maintenance activities and more accepting of legal restrictions compared with Chinese cadets. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.     

Granting the Right to Vote for the European Parliament to Resident Third‐Country Nationals: Civic Citizenship Revisited

The EU grants rights to third‐country nationals (TCNs) and strives to approximate their rights to those of Union citizens. Up to now, the approximation has extended to social and economic matters. This article investigates whether political rights, notably voting rights for the European Parliament (EP), should also be approximated. To this end, the analysis applies Dahl's democratic principles of ‘coercion’ and ‘all affected interests’ as well as Bauböck's principle of ‘stakeholding’ to the position of TCNs in the EU. Against that background, it explores the relevance of arguments for and against granting TCNs the right to vote in European elections and submits that voting rights should be granted to long‐term resident TCNs. The author then proposes including TCN voting rights in the legal framework for EP elections and concludes by suggesting the use of the concept of civic citizenship to express political approximation of TCNs to EU citizens.     

Citizenship Status and Arrest Patterns for Violent and Narcotic-Related Offenses in Federal Judicial Districts along the U.S./Mexico Border

Media reports routinely reference the drug-related violence in Mexico, linking crime in communities along the Southwest U.S. Border to illegal immigrants. The primary purpose of the current research is to examine whether the media assertions can be supported. Logistic regression models were run to determine the impact of citizenship on the likelihood of disproportionate arrest for federal drug and violent crimes, along the U.S./Mexico border. In arrests for homicide, assault, robbery, and weapons offenses, U.S. citizens were disproportionately more likely than non-citizens to be arrested. The only federal crime where non-citizens were disproportionately more likely to be arrested than were U.S. citizens was for marijuana offenses. Results of the current study challenge the myth of the criminal immigrant.     

Slavery,Partisanship, and Procedure in the U.S. House: The Gag Rule, 1836–1845

From the 24th through the 28th Congresses, the House of Representatives operated under versions of a “gag rule” that blocked petitions dealing with abolition and related matters. This article presents the gag rule as not only a historically important window into slavery deliberations in Congress but also a case study in majority party restrictions of minority rights—and in the boundaries that constituency politics can place on majority power. Through analysis of vote choices and voting changes over time, I demonstrate that the gag rule's partisan origins gave way as northern members voted against party and with specific constituency pressures as well as general sectional sentiment. The gag rule shows the power of electoral considerations and constituency in the early U.S. House, and it also illustrates the force that constituency can have over majority procedural maneuvering.     

Social background and citizen–legislator congruence in candidate-centred systems

Legislatures are arenas where diverse policy preferences are honed into practical policy proposals. Given that legislative membership is a result of free democratic elections, there is an assumption that the attitudes and opinions of MPs are representative of the population as a whole. Thus, pre-legislative bargaining is founded on an unbiased sample of public opinion. However, considerable opinion incongruence exists between citizens and the political elite in many systems, potentially undermining this ideal democratic starting point for legislative business. Candidate-centred voting systems offer the potential to remedy this disconnect. While citizens tend to emphasise personal characteristics as an explanation for vote choice in one of the most candidate-centred systems in existence, proportional representation-single transferable vote, the disconnect of opinion congruence between citizens and elites persists. This paper finds that citizens’ emphasis on MPs’ personal characteristics when choosing representatives causes significant opinion congruence between citizens and elites on a demographic basis, particularly for under-represented groups such as women, younger citizens and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but aggregate congruence is undermined by the lack of demographic diversity among MPs.     

Patenting and Invention Activity of U.S. Scientists and Engineers in the Academic Sector: Comparisons with Industry

Analyses have been performed of the patenting and invention activity of U.S. scientists and engineers (S&Es) in the academic sector and comparisons have been made with their counterparts in industry. The analyses are based upon survey questions concerning patent applications, grant awards and commercialization outcomes from two 1995 National Science Foundation (NSF) nationally representative workforce surveys. A series of new indicators – patent activity rates, patent activity shares and patent success rates – has been defined and utilized to examine patent activity by employment sector, educational field, demographic variables, status and location of university faculty, technological area, and selected S&E job characteristics. It is recommended that NSF collect data on patenting activity, including commercialization outcomes, in its surveys of the S&E workforce at least every four years. Data should also be collected on university-industry collaboration in patent activity in the U.S., and between S&Es in the U.S. and other countries.     

Relational Legal Consciousness of U.S. Citizenship: Privilege,Responsibility, Guilt,and Love in Latino Mixed‐Status Families

Based on interviews with 100 members of mixed‐status families in Los Angeles, California, this article analyzes how U.S. citizen children practice and understand citizenship in the context of punitive laws targeting their loved ones. Participants' narratives of citizenship as privilege, responsibility, and guilt reveal that despite normative conceptions of citizenship as a universally equal status, citizenship intersects with key social markers to determine the contours and inequalities of substantive citizenship. Specifically, U.S. citizens in mixed‐status families make sense of their juridical category when they navigate unrealistic aspirations from relatives, maintain silence about undocumented family members' legal status, manage their fear of family separation through deportation, and take on financial and logistical responsibilities prematurely to help relatives. In each of these ways, family proves to be a key site for the social and relational production of citizenship.     

Collegial Influence and Judicial Voting Change: The Effect of Membership Change on U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Understanding the source of voting changes by appellate judges provides an important window into the factors that shape the votes of the judges more generally. We argue that membership changes, by altering the collegial context in which judges make their choices, affect the information environment, long-term collegial considerations, and short-term strategic calculations. As a result, membership change should lead to greater uncertainty and more frequent voting changes among continuing justices in the term following a replacement. We test this proposition by looking at vote change by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate analyses: justices' votes on search-and-seizure cases since Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and on the progeny of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) . Our results support the argument that the collegial context helps explain changes in voting choices. Our analysis suggests that collegial considerations are an important component of judges' behavior and merit further evaluation in a cross-national context.     

Ignorance is bliss: self-regulation and Ag-Gag laws in the American meat industry

Abstract

In America, we like to say that we live in a democracy. Yet, it is difficult to believe that the majority would allow current practices to continue if citizens knew how the food animals they eat are treated – both during their short lives and during slaughter. The problem is that the citizens don’t know, and it is not a case of willful blindness. Take a moment to recall what you know about our meat industry. Can’t think of much? That is the goal of the meat industry: out of sight, out of mind. In several states, so called ‘Ag-Gag’ laws are designed to keep the truth from the public. In those states, it is a felony to obtain a job with the intent of being a whistle blower. The meat industry knows that if it were to be exposed, the public would demand better treatment of animals, a demand that would decrease profits for the meat industry. This paper will explain these ‘Ag-Gag’ laws in detail, explore their effect on our society, shed light on the practices that the meat industry tries – very successfully – to hide from voters and consumers, and examine the scary results that can occur when an industry is allowed to regulate itself.