Research

Publications

Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., & Crofoot, J. K. (2023). Assessing a New Measure of State Policy Mood: Response to Lagodny, Jones, Koch, and Enns. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 23(4), 373-377.

This article presents a short summary of the conclusions we report in a longer manuscript (available in our Supplementary Material) subjecting Lagodny et al.’s new measure of state policy mood to the same set of face validity and construct validity tests we applied earlier to Enns and Koch’s measure. We encourage readers to read this longer manuscript, which contains not only the conclusions herein, but also the evidence justifying these conclusions, before accepting or rejecting any claims we make. Our results show that the characteristics of Enns and Koch’s measure that led us to be doubtful that it is valid are also present in Lagodny et al.’s new measure – leaving us just as doubtful that Lagodny et al.’s measure is valid. Moreover, the low correlation between Lagodny et al.’s measure and Enns and Koch’s measure, combined with evidence from replications of seven published studies that the two measures frequently yield quite different inferences about the impact of policy mood on public policy, indicate that Lagodny et al.’s claim that both their measure and Enns and Koch’s measure are valid is wrong; either neither measure is valid, or one is valid and the other is not. Moreover, extending the replications to include not only Lagodny et al.’s and Enns and Koch’s measures, but also Berry et al.’s measure and Caughey and Warshaw’s measure of mass economic liberalism, shows that each of the four measures yields a substantive conclusion about the effect of policy mood that is dramatically different than each of the other three measures. This suggests that the goal of developing a measure of state policy mood that would be widely accepted as valid remains elusive.

Berry, W. D., Fording, R. C., Hanson, R. L., & Crofoot, J. K. (2021). "The Validity of the Enns and Koch, and Berry et al. Measures of State Policy Mood: Continuing the Debate." State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1-12.

Abstract: Enns and Koch question the validity of the Berry, Ringquist, Fording, and Hanson measure of state policy mood and defend the validity of the Enns and Koch measure on two grounds. First, they claim policy mood has become more conservative in the South over time; we present empirical evidence to the contrary: policy mood became more liberal in the South between 1980 and 2010. Second, Enns and Koch argue that an indicator’s lack of face validity in cross-sectional comparisons is irrelevant when judging the measure’s suitability in the most common form of pooled cross-sectional timeseries analysis. We show their argument is logically flawed, except under highly improbable circumstances. We also demonstrate, by replicating several published studies, that statistical results about the effect of state policy mood can vary dramatically depending on which of the two mood measures is used, making clear that a researcher’s measurement choice can be highly consequential

Select Works in Progress

Crofoot, J. “Morality versus Money: The adoption of recreational marijuana laws across the American States”

Abstract: Most cannabis policy scholarship focuses on medical marijuana laws (MMLs) rather than recreational marijuana laws (RMLs). Debates around MMLs center around tradeoffs between (contested) healthcare benefits and the morality of drug legalization. On the other hand, debates about RML adoption instead focus on the tradeoffs between morality and the economic benefits to the state. In this paper, I investigate the influence of morality and fiscal needs on state-level adoption of RMLs. RMLs bring a growing industry, tax revenue, and interest group activity to a state, all of which encourage political actors to embrace RMLs. I find that both state morality (as measured by CCES survey responses) as well as state fiscal politics (as measured by state budget deficits, GDP growth, and campaign contributions) increase the probability that a state adopts RMLs.

Crofoot, J. "How Protests Affect Policy Change: Determinants of Anti-Protest Legislation"

In recent years, 20 states enacted a combined 36 policies that limit how and where protests can take place. This project investigates why some states choose to adopt anti-protest legislation while others do not. I use event history analysis to test the explanations of why states adopt anti-protest legislation, focusing on protest and political characteristics in each state. I find that protest activity in a state discourages anti-protest legislation. Instead, political variables--such as state partisan control--motivate the adoption of anti-protest legislation. I use a multilevel model to test the explanations of why individual state legislators vote in favor of anti-protest legislation. I test how district, legislator, and state characteristics influence individual legislator roll call votes on such legislation. The results of these analyses corroborate the event history analyses results--legislator partisanship explains most legislator voting for or against anti-protest legislation. I conclude that anti-protest legislation is politically motivated rather than necessary to curb rampant protest activity. The implications of these results are that protests are being dissuaded for political reasons, rather than for public safety.

Crofoot, J. & Pollert, I. “State Election Security and Stop the Steal Protests”

The most recent presidential elections have made election security a salient concern for the American public, and these concerns have been accompanied by parallel trends in protests surrounding election results. The growing number of Americans with fears of election fraud or lack of fairness has manifested into “Stop the Steal” protests and, ultimately, the January 6th insurrection regarding the same issues. This study seeks to identify ideological and institutional sources for this increase in protest behavior. Using multivariate analysis, we test whether state electoral institutions or public ideology influence the likelihood of protests in a state or county. Additionally, we evaluate where individuals arrested on the January 6th insurrection are from, paying specific attention to the type of election laws in place and the partisan control of their home states. This project contributes to our understanding of the determinants of protest activity across the United States and allows practitioners to understand the growing concerns regarding free and fair elections among some citizens with greater clarity leading into the 2024 election.