Research

Peer-Reviewed Publications

1. Identity Politics? Black Voters and the Logic of Co-Racial Voting in American Elections. Conditionally accepted, American Political Science Review. (with Tina LaChapelle, Corrine McConnaughy, Melanye Price, and Ismail K. White) (Draft available upon request).
   Abstract

   For decades, scholars and commentators have debated whether political decisions rooted in shared identity undermine democratic accountability. This paper engages with this question by explaining the logic of co-racial voting in American elections and arguing that it can be a reasonable and appropriate use of identity in politics. We begin by developing a conceptual model that leverages the dynamic nature of the democratic voting process to better understand Black voters’ support for co-racial representatives. We then assess the model using two original dynamic experimental designs and observational data from the 2007-2024 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our results indicate that although Black Americans initially prefer co-racial representatives, they readily update their evaluations of representatives based on performance. This process, which we call heuristic co-racial voting with updating, suggests that identity-based political judgments are not fixed but are reasonable starting points for political decisions made under uncertainty.

2. Federalism and Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective. 2025. Perspectives on Politics 23(1): 15–34. (with Robert R. Kaufman and R. Daniel Kelemen).
   Abstract

   As a wave of backsliding has swept across both new and established democracies, scholars have sought to identify formal and informal institutions that can act as guardrails of democracy. But while informal norms, party structures, and formal institutions such as separation of powers have all been singled out as potential bulwarks against democratic backsliding, the literature has had less to say about what role, if any, federalism might play in stopping democracies from sliding into autocracy. While some constitutional designers and scholars have argued that federalism can help to prevent the emergence of a national tyranny, most contemporary research has emphasized the damaging effects federalism can have on democracy. In this article, we assess the relationship between federalism and threats posed by national rulers, with quantitative analysis of that relationship in countries around the world and with structured, focused comparative case studies in the United States, Brazil, Venezuela, and India. Our quantitative analysis finds no systematic relationship between federalism and backsliding, while our comparative case studies support our argument that federalism is only likely to serve as a bulwark against autocratic threats posed by national rulers under a limited set of conditions.

3. Military Experience and Casualty Sensitivity in Elite Discourse. 2025. Journal of Conflict Resolution. (with Michael Kenwick and Sumin Lee).
   Abstract

   Veterans are disproportionately represented among political elites, and the question of whether military experience shapes their behavior is a central puzzle in the study of international relations. Existing theories link military experience with hawkish or dovish foreign policy preferences. Rather than determining their positions on the use of force ex ante, we argue that domain-specific knowledge and their elevated social status will make veterans less likely to change their expressed positions, especially in response to wartime casualties. We test our argument by analyzing Congressional speeches referencing the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, finding strong support for our expectations. Our core insight is that veteran politicians are partisans first and veterans second, and that military experience may say more about how they update, rather than establish, their political positions.

4. Public Opinion, Federalism, and Level of Governmental Intervention: Perceptions of Law Enforcement Response to the 2020 George Floyd Protests. 2022. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 52(4): 632–654. (with Katherine T. McCabe).
   Abstract

   In June 2020, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the deployment of federal law enforcement agents to protests against police brutality. Several mayors across the country objected to this unilateral deployment of federal force as unconstitutional. In an online survey experiment, we test whether the public stands against this type of federal power aggrandizement by evaluating how approval of federal intervention in protests changes depending on whether it is requested by local mayors or directed by the presidential administration. The results show that the public is responsive to the level of government directing the action. Respondents are significantly less approving of the use of federal forces when it is directed by the federal executive branch. However, not all subgroups respond equally to the manipulation. The treatment effects vary significantly by respondent partisanship, trust in government, and perceptions of the importance of federalism.

5. Federalism at a Partisan's Convenience: Public Opinion on Federal Intervention in 2020 Election Policy. 2021. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 31(S1): 167–179. (with Katherine T. McCabe).
   Abstract

   President Trump’s rhetoric casting doubt on the integrity of mail-in voting ignited debates about whether the federal government should be allowed to intervene in states’ policy decisions regarding how elections are conducted. This study examines public opinion on rhetorical threats by the Trump Administration to block the expansion of states’ vote-by-mail policies and potentially delay the November 2020 election. In an online survey experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to receive information regarding the traditional role of states in administering U.S. federal elections and more or less salient partisan cues. Even though the information treatment was successful in informing respondents about intergovernmental control and reducing partisan gaps in knowledge, it had only a modest impact on attitudes. Preferences about which level of government should be in charge are malleable, subject to partisan and context-specific considerations.

Under Review

1. More Than Linked Fate: Toward a New Measure of Politicized Racial Identity. Revise and resubmit. (with LaFleur Stephens-Dougan, Kaiyla Banks, Jeron Fenton, Jasante' Howard, Isaiah Johnson, and Ismail K. White) (Draft available upon request).
2. The Immigration Penalty in 20 Democracies. Under review. (with Nicholas Sambanis, Krzysztof Krakowski, and Eleni Kyrkopoulou) (Draft available upon request).

Working Papers

Selected Work in Progress