Election Sciences, Election Administration, and Election Law Panels at APSA
August 27, 2015 · by · in Commentary

The APSA meeting is coming up next week in San Francisco.  I searched the online program using the terms “election reform”, “election law”, and “election administration”, and a subset of hits from “campaign finance”. The following list of panels may be of interest to my readership.  Please feel free to chime in on the comments if I have missed any key panels.

—

Short Course: What Works? Strengthening Electoral Integrity

Wed, September 2, 9:00am to 5:00pm, Hilton, Imperial ASession Submission Type: Short Course

Session Description

Details and registration: www.electoralintegrityproject.com Queries: electoralintegrity@gmail.com Co-sponsors: EPOVB, International IDEA, Electoral Integrity Project What are the most effective types of strategic interventions which address common problems and improve the quality of elections? The international community has invested growing resources in strengthening democratic governance, which has come to be understood as a vital component of human development. Domestic reformers have also tried a wire range of measures. Nevertheless the effectiveness of these programs remains to be determined through gathering systematic evaluation evidence using multiple methods and approaches. Workshop panels and break-out work-groups will consider the effectiveness of the following types of initiatives: 1. Monitoring international standards: The role of international and regional inter-governmental bodies strengthening and expanding electoral rights in global conventions, treaties, and guidelines, developing evaluation metrics to monitor compliance with international law, and working with citizens, groups and parties to implement international obligations in domestic laws. 2. Strengthening electoral administration: Building the capacity of electoral management bodies to run contests impartially, efficiently, and fairly. 3. Improving transparency: Deploying international and domestic electoral observers to monitor the quality of elections, deter malpractices, and identify potential reforms. 4. Legal reforms: Improving constitutions and legal frameworks governing elections, including reforms designed to achieve impartial redistricting, accurate electoral registers, well-designed ballots, equitable access to campaign finance and media, secure polling, transparent counts, just dispute resolution mechanisms, and inclusive parliaments. 5. International actors: Investing development aid and technical assistance, and working with local partners, to strengthen elections. 6. Campaign money and media: Strengthening a level playing field and equitable access to campaign resources. This workshop features leading scholars presenting research papers addressing these issues, using a variety of methodological techniques and sources of evidence. Diverse cases are considered from Ireland, the US, and Britain to Tunisia, Pakistan, Croatia, Ghana, Malawi and Brazil, in the attempt to determine ‘what works’ when seeking to strengthen electoral integrity. The workshop will provide all participants with a buffet breakfast, morning and afternoon refreshments, a buffet lunch, and an early evening drinks reception. A limited number of additional $200 domestic travel awards and $600 international travel awards are available for graduate students, women, and international participants included in the program who apply for these when they register. This event will be the seventh in a series of EIP workshops held since 2012 in Madrid, Harvard, Chicago, Manchester, Montreal, and Sydney, building an international network of scholars and practitioners working on challenges of electoral integrity.

Sub Unit

  • APSA Panels and All Meetings and Receptions

Presenter

  • Pippa Pippa Norris, Harvard University

Political Parties and Interest Groups after Citizens United

Thu, September 3, 8:00 to 9:45am, Nikko, Monterey ISession Submission Type: Full Panel

Session Description

Political Parties and Interest Groups after Citizens United

Sub Unit

  • Related Groups / Campaign Finance Research Group

Chair

  • Ruth S. Jones, Arizona State University

Discussant

  • Michael J. Malbin, University at Albany, SUNY

Individual Submissions

  • Political Parties and Interest Groups after Citizens United – Convergence or Divergence? Do Parties and Outside Groups Spend on the Same Candidates, and Does It Matter? – Diana Dwyre, California State University, Chico; Robin A. Kolodny, Temple University
  • Interest Group Issue Strategies: Advertising in the 2014 Congressional Elections – Erika Franklin Fowler, Wesleyan University; Michael M. Franz, Bowdoin College;Travis N. Ridout, Washington State University
  • How Purists Dominate Money in Politics – Raymond J. La Raja, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Brian F. Schaffner, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  • What Would a $1.5 Million Contribution “Limit” Mean for the Parties? – Michael J. Malbin, University at Albany, SUNY

The Obama Administration and American Federalism

Thu, September 3, 2:00 to 3:45pm, Nikko, Ballroom ISession Submission Type: Full Panel

Session Description

Authors will present papers analyzing the implications of Obama administration policies and decision-making for federalism and intergovernmental relations, with particular attention to health care, environmental policy, immigration, and voting rights and elections, among other topics.

Sub Unit

  • Related Groups / Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Cosponsor

  • DIVISION 28: FEDERALISM AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Chair

  • John Dinan, Wake Forest University

Discussants

  • Cynthia J. Bowling, Auburn University
  • Shanna Rose, Claremont McKenna College

Individual Submissions

  • American Federalism in an Era of Partisan Polarization – Tim J. Conlan, George Mason University; Paul L. Posner, George Mason University
  • Back to the Future? Evolving Interpretations of Voting Rights and Election Administration Issues – Kathleen Hale, Auburn University
  • Implementing Obamacare Health Insurance Exchanges: State Government Choices and Policy Outcomes – Dale A. Krane; Shihyun Noh, University of Nebraska at Omaha
  • Federalism in the Roberts Court – Ilya Somin, George Mason University

Elections Administration: Efficacy and Integrity

Thu, September 3, 4:15 to 6:00pm, Parc 55, DivisaderoSession Submission Type: Full Panel

Session Description

For nearly a decade and a half, there has been an increasing amount of interest in and research regarding the administration of elections. That research has looked at many aspects of the electoral process, for example there are now strands in the literature on voting technology, voter confidence, poll workers, electoral fraud, and electoral integrity. Few have tried to bridge some of these domains, for example trying to examine how the mechanics of elections — how they are managed — effect public confidence and voter efficacy. The way voters perceive how elections are administered, the networks involved in its administration, and the types of individuals who run elections all can affect the confidence and efficacy of voters. This panel will bring together four papers that address issues of electoral integrity and how election administration affects public confidence and efficacy. These papers link together macro-level issues of electoral integrity and election management with more individual-level determinants of how election management affects the efficacy of voters.

Sub Unit

  • DIVISION 36: ELECTIONS AND VOTING BEHAVIOR

Chair

  • R. Michael Alvarez, California Institute of Technology

Individual Submissions

  • Barriers to Voter Confidence – Volunteerism and Poll Workers – Thad E. Hall, Fors Marsh Group
  • Stress, Efficacy and Poll Workers – Lonna Rae Atkeson, University of New Mexico
  • Assessing the Independence of Electoral Management Boards: A Network Approach – Toby S. James, University of East Anglia
  • Identifying the Determinants of Electoral Integrity in Advanced Democracies – Alistair Clark, Newcastle University

 

Money in Elections: A Franco-American comparison of Political Finance Laws

Thu, September 3, 4:15 to 6:00pm, Hilton, Franciscan BSession Submission Type: Roundtable

Session Description

At first glance, France and the United States seem to represent diametrically opposed systems of campaign finance. In the US, electoral competition is funded by private contributions whereas, since 1988, France has opted for a mostly public financing of political parties and elections. The French media often convey a sense of disbelief in the face of the large sums invested in US elections and are quick to conclude that the system is thoroughly corrupt by the permanent fundraising and the flow of campaign donations. On the other hand, some Americans may criticize the limited amount of information that French candidates for elected office can share with the voters because of the ban on political advertising and the overall control of the availability of political discourse by the State. While they chose diametrically different options as to the source of the funds, the two countries must nonetheless deal with the same challenges around transparency, access, free speech and (un)equal voice. And despite very different approaches both nations experience periodic scandals related to money in politics and the diminishment of public trust in institutions.

The aim of this roundtable panel is to explore the diverse approaches to regulating money in politics (particularly in presidential systems) as an important step in developing a comparative research agenda on political finance. Toward that end we propose assembling experts who can speak directly to common themes and interrelated elements of political finance systems. These elements include the rules on transparency, enforcement (comparing the Commission National des comptes de campagne et des financements politiques (CNCCFP) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC)), the role of the courts in shaping the legal regime, the unintended consequences of various reforms (e.g., micro-partis” in France and “SuperPACs in the US), and attendant concerns about public trust and legitimacy. The last part of the panel will be devoted to discussing the rise of anti-establishment politics in both countries, trying to draw out comparisons in how reforms may support (or not) the success of extremist partisans and the declining influence of “establishment” elites.

Panelists will be asked to make linkages between electoral systems, laws, cultural norms and behaviors in the French and American political finance systems. Ultimately, we seek to begin identifying patterns of elite and public responses to the vexing challenge of financing democratic politics. By engaging an explicit comparative approach to the study of money in politics – which is all too rare — we hope this panel will inspire a rich dialogue and new areas of inquiry. Based on notes from the panel, we will circulate a memo to panelists, audience participants and members of APSA’s related groups to help frame a comparative research agenda

Sub Unit

  • DIVISION 35: POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTIES

Cosponsor

  • DIVISION 34: REPRESENTATION AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Chair

  • Raymond J. La Raja, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Presenters

  • Vincent Jerome Michelot, IEP de Lyon
  • Bruce E. Cain
  • Eric Kerrouche, Sciences Po, Bordeaux
  • Alix Meyer, Universite de Bourgogne
  • Diana Dwyre, California State University, Chico

Electoral Rules, Voting, and Turnout: New Pathways for Research

Fri, September 4, 9:30 to 11:00am, Parc 55, DivisaderoSession Submission Type: Full Panel

Session Description

With the rise in partisanship and polarization in American politics, electoral rules are once again a battlefield. Thousands of new rules and administrative changes to long-standing practices have been proposed and adopted in the states since the controversial 2000 election. This panel brings together leading researchers to examine the impact of some of these changes on voting and turnout.

Sub Unit

  • DIVISION 36: ELECTIONS AND VOTING BEHAVIOR

Individual Submissions

  • An Examination of the Impact of Changes to Florida’s Early Voting Statutes – M.V.Hood, University of Georgia
  • Explaining the Blue Shift in Election Canvassing – CharlesStewart, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; EdwardB.Foley, Ohio State University
  • The Dynamics of Voting Rights Implementation in a Federal System: Case Studies on Compliance with the National Voter Registration Act in Two States – DouglasR.Hess, Grinnell College
  • The Impact of State Party Traditions on the Voting Experience – PaulS.Herrnson, University of Connecticut; RichardG.Niemi, University of Rochester; KellyD.Patterson, Brigham Young University; JayGoodliffe, Brigham Young University

Chair

  • LorraineC.Minnite, Rutgers University-Camden

Discussants

  • ChristopherS.Elmendorf, UC Davis
  • RobertS.Erikson

Voter Reform and Suppression

Sat, September 5, 8:00 to 9:45am, Hilton, Continental Parlor 7Session Submission Type: Paper Session

Sub Unit

  • DIVISION 36: ELECTIONS AND VOTING BEHAVIOR

Individual Submissions

  • A Reassessment of the Turnout Effects of Election Reforms in the American States – DanielA.Smith, University of Florida; MichaelP.McDonald, University of Florida
  • The Negative Effect of Voter ID Laws on Hispanic (and Democratic) Turnout – ZoltanL.Hajnal, University of California, San Diego; NazitaLajevardi, UCSD
  • The Two Income-Participation Gaps – ChristopherOjeda, Pennsylvania State University
  • Voter Suppression or Voter Fraud in the 2014 US Elections – PippaPippaNorris, Harvard University; Holly AnnGarnett, McGill University
  • Why the Sky didn’t Fall: Voter ID Laws and Participation – NicholasA.Valentino, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; FabianGuyNeuner, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Chair

  • BenHighton, University of California, Davis

Discussant

  • CostasPanagopoulos, Fordham University

What Goes Up Must Come Down: Courts, Federalism and the States

Sun, September 6, 10:15am to 12:00pm, Hilton, Union Square 15Session Submission Type: Paper Session

Sub Unit

  • DIVISION 26: LAW AND COURTS

Cosponsor

  • DIVISION 28: FEDERALISM AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Individual Submissions

  • Judicial Federalism, State Policy, and Representation \\ – John P. Kastellec, Princeton University
  • ‘Political Questions’ and U.S. Redistricting: The Road Not Taken – Kirsten Nussbaumer, Stanford University
  • The Political Context of the New Judicial Federalism – Ken Miller, Claremont McKenna College
  • What Predicts Bailout from Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? A TSCS Analysis – David Blanding, McDaniel College

Chair

  • Ryan Emenaker, College of the Redwoods

Discussant

  • Ryan Emenaker, College of the Redwoods

Political Parties and Campaign Finance in the Post-Citizens United World

Sat, September 5, 10:15am to 12:00pm, Hilton, Mason RoomSession Submission Type: Full Panel

Session Description

Political Parties and Campaign Finance in the Post-Citizens United World

Sub Unit

  • Related Groups / Law and Political Process Study Group

Chair

  • Daniel H. Lowenstein, University of California, Los Angeles

Discussant

  • Yasmin Dawood, University of Toronto

Individual Submissions

  • Ideological Donors, Contribution Limits, and the Polarization of American Legislatures – Michael Barber, Brigham Young University
  • The Federalist Safeguards of Politics – Anthony Johnstone, University of Montana
  • Legislators as Party Elites: Intraparty Factionalism and Presidential Politics in the New Hampshire State House – Seth E. Masket, University of Denver
  • Democratic Romanticism – Richard Pildes, New York University

Electoral Rules and Voting Behavior

Sun, September 6, 10:15am to 12:00pm, Hilton, Van Ness RoomSession Submission Type: Paper Session

Session Description

These papers examine how electoral rules like primary type, early voting, voting by mail, and direct democracy initiatives affect voter knowledge and participation in state elections.

Sub Unit

  • DIVISION 29: STATE POLITICS AND POLICY

Individual Submissions

  • Are Some Voters a Lost Cause? An Experiment in a Top-2 Primary – SethJ.Hill, University of California, San Diego; ThadKousser, University of California, San Diego
  • That’s How I Roll (Off): Voter Abstention in Direct Democracy Elections – ShaunBowler, University of California, Riverside; StephenP.Nicholson, University of California, Merced
  • Direct Democracy’s Educative Effects: A View from the Voters – CraigM.Burnett, University of North Carolina Wilmington; JanineA.Parry, University of Arkansas; JayBarth, Hendrix College
  • Voter Turnout and Satisfaction with Mail-in Voting and Election Day Registration – RobertM.Stein; AndrewMenger, Rice University; GregW.Vonnahme, University of Missouri, Kansas City
  • Your Ballot’s in the Mail: the Effects of Unsolicited Absentee Ballots – MichaelD.Martinez, University of Florida; DanielA.Smith, University of Florida

Chair

  • SethCMcKee, Texas Tech University

Discussant

  • DavidA.Hughes, University of Georgia

 

 

[entry-terms taxonomy="post_tag" before="Tags: "]