The controversial presidential election of 2000 triggered a wide variety of electoral reforms in many states. We examine the impact of a state's politics, ethnicity, and fiscal health on the passage of these reforms. Using state-level data from 2001 and 2002, we find that the partisan make-up of state government frequently influenced the fate of these reforms. States with a divided government or high party competition tended not to adopt several key electoral reforms, while partisanship and the interaction of partisanship and minority representation influenced the adoption of others. Fiscal constraints and institutional arrangements had less impact on reform adoption. Overall, our findings suggest that electoral reforms were shaped more by political factors than by fiscal concerns or any objective need for reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonPaul R.AldrichJohn H.RohdeDavid W.. 2002. Change and Continuity in the 2000 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2.
AltJames E.LowryRobert C.. 2000. “A Dynamic Model of State Budget Outcomes under Divided Partisan Government.” Journal of Politics62: 1035–69.
3.
AlvarezR. MichaelGarcia BedollaLisa. 2003. “The Foundations of Latino Voter Partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 Election.” Journal of Politics65: 31–49.
4.
BarrilleauxCharles. 1997. “A Test of the Independent Influences of Electoral Competition and Party Strength in a Model of State Policy Making.” American Journal of Political Science41: 1462–6.
5.
BarrilleauxCharlesHolbrookThomasLangerLaura. 2002. “Electoral Competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy.” American Journal of Political Science46: 415–27.
6.
BerryFrances Stokes. 1994. “Sizing up State Policy Innovation Research.” Policy Studies Journal22: 442–56.
7.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 1992. “Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity.” American Journal of Political Science36: 715–42.
8.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 1999. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. SabatierPaul. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
9.
BerryWilliam D.BerkmanMichael B.SchneidermanStuart. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review94: 859–74.
10.
BriansCraig LeonardGrofmanBernard. 2001. “Election Day Registration's Effect on U.S. Voter Turnout.” Social Science Quarterly82: 170–83.
11.
BuchlerJustinJarvisMatthewMcNultyJohn E.. 2004. “Punch Card Technology and the Racial Gap in Residual Votes.” Perspectives on Politics2: 517–35.
ClarkeWes. 1998. “Divided Government and Budget Conflict in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly23: 5–22.
14.
CitrinJackSchicklerEricSidesand J.. 2003. “What If Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science47: 75–90.
15.
DrinkardJim. 2002. “Window of Opportunity Closing on Fixing Election System,” USA Today 16 September, 6A.
16.
GrayVirginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study.” American Political Science Review67: 1174–85.
17.
GrayVirginiaHansonRussell L., eds. 2004. Politics in the American States. 8th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
GrecoDonald E.2003. “Political Elites, Political Contexts, and Electoral Reform: An Analysis of Electoral Reform in the Aftermath of Election 2000.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
HeroRodney E.TolbertCaroline J.. 1996. “A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the States of the U.S.” American Journal of Political Science40: 851–71.
21.
HightonBenjaminWolfingerRaymond E.. 1998. “Estimating the Effects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.” Political Behavior20: 79–104.
22.
HillKim Q.LeighleyJan E.. 1996. “Political Parties and Class Mobilization in Contemporary United States Elections.” American Journal of Political Science40: 787–804.
23.
HillKim Q.LeighleyJan E.. 1999. “Racial Diversity, Voter Turnout, and Mobilizing Institutions in the United States.” American Politics Quarterly27: 275–95.
24.
HolbrookThomas M.Van DunkEmily. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review87: 955–62.
25.
JewellMalcolm E.MorehouseSarah M.. 2001. Political Parties and Elections in the American States. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26.
ImaiKosukeKingGary. 2004. “Did Illegal Overseas Absentee Ballots Decide the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election?” Perspectives on Politics2: 537–49.
27.
KingJames D.2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly25: 327–43.
28.
KnackStephenWhiteJames. 2000. “Election-Day Registration and Turnout Inequality.” Political Behavior22: 29–44.
29.
KnackStephenKropfMartha. 2002. “Who Uses Inferior Voting Technology?” PS: Political Science and Politics35: 541–8.
30.
McCaughlinAbraham. 2000. “Shifting Allegiance of Hispanic Voters,” Christian Science Monitor, 5 July, 2.
31.
MebaneWalter R.Jr.2004. “The Wrong Man Is President! Overvotes in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida.” Perspectives on Politics3: 525–35.
32.
MartinezMichael D.HillDavid. 1999. “Assessing the Impact of the National Voter Registration Act on Midterm Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
33.
MooneyChristopher Z.2001. “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion.” Political Research Quarterly54: 103–24.
National Governors Association.2001. “Table No. A-4. General Fund Nominal Percentage Expenditure Change, Fiscal 2001 and Fiscal 2002.” In The Fiscal Survey of the States. Washington, DC: NGA.
39.
The New York Times (Editorial).2004. “Budgeting for Another Florida,” 8 February, 14.
40.
RanneyAustin. 1976. “Parties in State Politics.” In Politics in the American States, eds. JacobHerbertVinesKenneth, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
41.
ReedJohn Shelton. 1998. “The South's Three Personas.” The Public Perspective9: 43–4.
42.
SabatierPaul A., ed. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
43.
SchwartzPaul. 2002. “Voting Technology and Democracy.” New York University Law Review77 (3): 625–81.
44.
SquirePeverill. 1988. “Career Opportunities and Membership Stability in Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly13: 65–82.
45.
SquirePeverill. 1997. “Another Look at Legislative Professionalization and Divided Government in the States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly22: 417–32.
46.
SquirePeverill. 2000. “Uncontested Seats in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly15: 131–46.
47.
TomzMichaelVan HouwelingRobert P.. 2003. “How Does Equipment Affect the Racial Gap in Voided Ballots?” American Journal of Political Science47: 46–60.
48.
United States Census Bureau.2001. “Table No. 23. Resident Population by Hispanic or Latino Origin: 2000.” In Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
49.
United States Census Bureau.2001. “Table No. 24. Resident Population by Race and State: 2000.” In Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
50.
United States Census Bureau.2001. “Table No. 429. State Government—Revenue by State: 2000.” In Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
51.
Van AttaDonJr.2000. “Republican Open a Big Drive to Appeal to Hispanic Voters,” The New York Times, 14 January, 12A.
52.
VlahosKelley Beucar. 2003. “Latino Vote Growing in Size and Power,” Fox TV News, 1 July.
53.
WalkerJack L.1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review63: 880–99.
54.
WalshEdward. 2002. “Election Reform Bill Is Passed by Senate; $3.86 Billion Allotted for Improvements,” Washington Post, 17 October, A01.
55.
Washington Post.2002. “Conferees Reach a Pact on Election Law Reforms; U.S. to Spend $3.9 Billion over 3 Years for Changes,” 5 October, A05.
56.
WolfingerRaymond E.RosenstoneSteven J.. 1980. Who Votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
