{"id":58,"date":"2025-05-26T16:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-26T16:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/?post_type=chapter&p=58"},"modified":"2025-07-29T21:22:58","modified_gmt":"2025-07-29T21:22:58","slug":"campaigns-and-elections","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/chapter\/campaigns-and-elections\/","title":{"raw":"Campaigns and Elections","rendered":"Campaigns and Elections"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Chapter Summary<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n

The most common form of political participation is voting, and selecting candidates in an election may be the sole way many constituents engage in state politics. State elections often draw fewer voters and are vulnerable to down-ballot and coattail effects from the federal offices at the top of the ticket. This chapter focuses on campaigns (examining how campaigns are organized and implemented at the state level while emphasizing the difference between statewide and smaller state district offices) as well as elections (analyzing the impact of the campaigns and the decisions of voters). This chapter covers the election process from the perspective of both the candidates seeking office and the voters selecting their preferences.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

Student Learning Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n

Upon completion of this chapter, students should be able to:<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. Identify the differences between federal and state elections as well as the essential components that compose state elections.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Understand the impact of \u201cdown-ballot\u201d races and \u201clow-information\u201d elections on voter turnout.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Discuss the change in candidate responsibility and autonomy that coincided with the shift from state political conventions to state political primaries.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Examine the differences in candidate messaging, campaigning, and voter turnout in primary elections compared to general elections.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Recognize the various primary election systems, including open primaries, hybrid primaries, closed primaries, top-two primaries, and now-defunct blanket primaries.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Describe differences in campaign finance, messaging, and strategy for statewide races versus single-member district elections.<\/li>\r\n \t
  7. Analyze the connection between state policy and voter perception and election outcomes, particularly on current issues such as guns or abortion.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Focus Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    These questions illustrate the main concepts covered in the chapter and should help guide discussion as well as enable students to critically analyze and apply the material covered.<\/p>\r\n

    How do campaigns and elections vary at the state level compared to the federal level? What are some of the essential differences and what effect do these have on outcomes?<\/p>\r\n

    Which type of primary election do you believe is best for voters? Which do you believe is best for the party?<\/p>\r\n

    What are some of the challenges that coincide with the increase in elections that are more candidate-centered rather than party-centered?<\/p>\r\n

    Most states require a filing fee when candidates declare their intention to run and file to place their name on the ballot. What role does this serve, and is it democratic?<\/p>\r\n

    How do candidates pivot from the primary election to the general election?<\/p>\r\n

    What role does money play in campaigning for state races? How can it be advantageous for democracy? How can it be harmful?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    What Is Voter Enfranchisement and Turnout in State Elections?<\/h1>\r\n

    Voter turnout is typically very low in the United States, despite the wide-ranging enfranchisement<\/strong><\/span> that has occurred since the US Constitution was initially ratified. At that time in American history, in order to vote, one had to be (1) White, (2) a man, (3) a property owner, and (4) at least twenty-one years of age. The disenfranchisement of a majority of the population undermined our nation\u2019s claims as a democracy. When fewer than half of the citizens could actually vote, our country was far less democratic than it is today. Several major changes struck down these limitations, beginning with the dissolution of the property requirement during the Jacksonian administration in the 1830s. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified to the US Constitution, providing African American men with the right to vote. Exactly half a century later, women were granted the same right with the passage of suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Poll taxes, used in some states to require voters to pay a \u201ctax\u201d (which actually operated as a fee, meaning one was exempt from incurring the cost if they chose not to vote), were abolished with the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. Finally, the voting age was lowered nationally in 1971 to eighteen years old, a direct response to pressure from the Vietnam War protests from young adults.<\/p>\r\n

    All these changes enabled more Americans to participate in elections, yet the irony is that many choose not to do so, particularly in the elections whose outcome may have the most direct impact on their lives. Presidential elections consistently yield the highest voter turnout<\/strong><\/span> numbers.[footnote]McDonald, \u201cNational and State Turnout Rates.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Still, in recent cycles, these have averaged around 60 percent of eligible voter participation. In congressional midterm elections and state government elections, voter turnout drops considerably to 35 to 40 percent participation. The numbers get lower for local elections (20\u201325 percent) and even lower still when focusing solely on the primary elections (a distinction addressed later in this chapter in \u201cWhat Are Primary and General Elections?\u201d<\/span><\/span>).<\/p>\r\n

    Scholars recognize that not everyone in the general population is eligible to vote, even with the enfranchisement noted earlier.[footnote]McDonald and Popkin, \u201cMyth of the Vanishing Voter,\u201d 963\u2013974; McDonald, \u201cEvery Eligible Voter Counts\u201d; Holbrook and Heidbreder, \u201cDoes Measurement Matter?,\u201d 157\u2013179.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Earlier measurements of voter turnout suggested much lower numbers when considering how many people over eighteen cast a ballot. This group is known as the voter age population<\/strong><\/span> because, very simply, they are at or over the age necessary to participate in elections. The issue is that not everyone over eighteen is still eligible to vote. Our country is a nation of immigrants, and residents who do not have US citizenship do not qualify to participate in elections. Likewise, voting can be taken away from citizens who do not abide by the laws; in most states, citizens serving felony convictions are ineligible to vote during the time of their incarceration (as discussed in Chapter 8<\/span><\/span>).[footnote]Aviram, Bragg, and Lewis et al., \u201cFelon Disenfranchisement,\u201d 295\u2013311.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Thus, the voting eligible population<\/strong><\/span> is a smaller group of people realistic to those who meet the requirements to vote, which makes the measurement of voter turnout more accurate.<\/p>\r\n

    Why are the numbers so low, particularly for state elections? Voters are most aware of and engaged in politics during national election cycles and, even then, more engaged in the presidential race than those for the US Senate or the House of Representatives. Campaigns have more money and more exposure and it is a nationwide decision, so while swing states receive more attention, the national news and information about the candidates have appeal and applicability to voters in all fifty states. The recent trend of nationalization with issues reinforces the focus on national politics; it is easier to understand, dissect, and assess for voters because the mass media follows it in detail and the issues are universal to all voters in the country.<\/p>\r\n

    Some state office elections do run concurrently with federal offices, so for states that elect their governors in the same year as the president, those numbers in voter turnout are much higher. The benefit of this is that voter turnout can be substantially higher relative to a majority of US states that elect their governors during congressional midterm elections, or even the few states (Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi) that elect their governors in years immediately after congressional midterms (i.e., 2023), and the even fewer states (Virginia and New Jersey) that elect governors in years immediately after presidential election cycles (i.e., 2021).[footnote]National Governors Association, \u201cGovernors: Gubernatorial Elections.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Voters are already thinking about politics with the presidential campaigns and are more likely to be in tune with the national issues because of widespread media coverage and focus. This can lead to ballot roll-off, when voters only vote for top-of-ticket races and then abstain from making selections for lower races (often many of the state races).[footnote]Knack and Kropf, \u201cRoll-Off at the Top,\u201d 575\u2013594.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The inherent problem with holding gubernatorial and presidential elections at the same time, however, is the obvious conflation of national and statewide issues. Gubernatorial candidates are pressed by voters for their positions on issues important to the presidential and national races but less relevant or perhaps even totally immaterial to the governor\u2019s race. There is also the potential coattail effect<\/strong><\/span>, in which a popular presidential candidate can \u201ccarry\u201d the other candidates on their party\u2019s ticket because voters will turn out to support the presidential candidate they prefer and just mark the ballot for the other candidates from the same political party.[footnote]Golder, \u201cPresidential Coattails,\u201d 34\u201348; Hogan, \u201cGubernatorial Coattail Effects,\u201d 587\u2013597; Meredith, \u201cExploiting Friends-and-Neighbors,\u201d 742\u2013765.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    More broadly, the down-ballot impact<\/strong><\/span> can influence any candidates who are listed lower on the ballot (so state legislative races or state judicial races and even local races if they are on the ballot) when voters have strong preferences for candidates in races at the top of the ticket (i.e., US president, US Senate, or even governor) and less knowledge of or interest in the lower races.[footnote]Andersen, \u201cDown-Ballot Problem.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Voting for all the candidates from the same party, known as straight-ticket voting, will often benefit the candidates at the end of the ballot from the more popular or preferred party that cycle.[footnote]Bonneau and Loepp, \u201cGetting Things Straight,\u201d 119\u2013130; Remmel and LaForge, \u201cDon\u2019t You Forget,\u201d 395\u2013406.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Voters have limited attention and memory, so while they may dedicate some time to deciding their choice for the major races, those other races that appear lower on the ballot and are less familiar to voters, also known as low-information elections, are often subject to the voters\u2019 opinions of the top of the ticket.[footnote]Hirano et al., \u201cVoter Learning,\u201d 91\u2013108.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_187\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"500\"]\"\" Figure 9.1 - <\/span>Turnout in US Midterm Elections and State Elections, 1946\u20132018
    Source: \"Turnout in U.S. Midterm Elections<\/a>\" by Orser67 on Wikimedia Commons \/ CC BY-SA<\/a>.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    True low-information elections<\/strong><\/span> are those where voters may be unaware of the offices they are voting for, what responsibilities and roles those offices have, who the candidates are, and what their particular positions, experiences, and ideas for that office may be.[footnote]Alvarez, Hall, and Levin et al., \u201cLow-Information Voting,\u201d 1012\u20131038.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In local races for the county auditor or coroner, voters rely on partisanship to make these decisions, and when that label is absent (in nonpartisan local elections), then voters are left with even less information to use in their decision.[footnote]Holman and Lay, \u201cAre You Picking Up?,\u201d 315\u2013341.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Sometimes, organized interest groups will take advantage of low-information elections to achieve their electoral goals.[footnote]Anzia, Timing and Turnout.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Fewer voters turn out in the spring primaries, though those that do are more ideologically extreme, making for a vastly different electorate to win over compared to the November general election.<\/p>\r\n

    Voting in state elections follows two different types of races: statewide and district. Statewide races include the state constitutional offices and those in the executive branch, such as governor, lieutenant governor (whether elected on the same ticket or split from the governor), auditor, treasurer, comptroller, secretary of state, and attorney general (to review the differences within these offices, go to Chapter 5<\/span><\/span>). These races are statewide, so candidates must campaign across the state, just as candidates for the US Senate do. State legislative races, however, are divided by district based on the number of seats in the assembly (as discussed in Chapter 4<\/span><\/span>). Because these districts may be as small as 1\/400th of the state (as it is in New Hampshire, where the house is composed of four hundred members), the campaigns are far less expensive and less professionalized. The impact of the size of the electorate and the approach and strategy in campaigning will be discussed later in this chapter (in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    What Are State Election Laws?<\/h1>\r\n

    States play a large role in deciding election regulations, which can impact voter turnout. In addition to determining when and where to hold elections (whether voters select a governor in the same election as the president, for example, or the timing of the primary elections), state law determines policy involving requirements for voting, timing for elections, and rules for candidates.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Voting Laws<\/h2>\r\n

    The laws involving voting range from what is required of voters to participate to how they can participate and even where they can participate. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the eligibility requirements to vote in US elections are set by the federal government and have expanded significantly since the ratification of the US Constitution. But the process and requirements to cast a ballot can be determined by the state government, in terms of voter registration, voter ID laws, early voting, and absentee or vote-by-mail options.<\/p>\r\n

    Voter registration requirements represent a merge of both federal guidelines and state governance. The National Voter Registration Act of 1994<\/strong><\/span> (NVRA) required states to simplify voting registration procedures, allow voter registration through mail, and create a simple, one-page document to be nationally accepted as a voter registration form.[footnote]Moss, \u201cMotor Voter.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Additionally, it mandated that government agencies offer voter registration when eligible citizens interact with their department, so when individuals renew their driver\u2019s license, they are asked if they would also like to update their voter registration. This process led to the nickname of \u201cMotor Voter\u201d for the NVRA. States still have their own voter registration forms but are required to accept the national one. States also still determine their timeline for voter registration in addition to other details.[footnote]Highton, \u201cVoter Registration,\u201d 507\u2013515; Ansolabehere and Konisky, \u201cIntroduction of Voter Registration,\u201d 83\u2013100.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Twenty-two states allow same-day voter registration, while the rest require fourteen days or even thirty days advance registration to be eligible to vote prior to the actual election.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> State policy also governs whether a third party can help register a voter and what requirements are entailed for that registration to be accepted.<\/p>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_225\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"998\"]\"\" Figure 9.2 - 2020 Absentee and Postal Voting by State
    Source: \"    Voting by Absentee or Mail-in Ballot this November [2020]<\/a>\" by David Lazer, Katherine Ognyanova, Matthew Baum et al. in The COVID States Project #7: Update on vote by mail \/ CC BY<\/a>.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    The details of actual voting are determined by state law as well. A few states proactively mail ballots to all registered voters, known as universal vote by mail (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington).[footnote]Cottrell, Herron, and Smith et al., \u201cVote-by-Mail,\u201d 577\u2013590; Roth, \u201cStates That Send a Mail Ballot.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> More commonly, some allow voters to select a \u201cno-excuse\u201d option to vote by mail, while other states allow absentee voting, but only if the voter is eligible based on the requirements outlined by the state (typically involving the voters\u2019 access to the polls on Election Day). The location of the polls and accessibility are chiefly determined by the state government with some influence of federal regulations.[footnote]Mann and Stein, \u201cImpact of Polling Places.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Voting centers, enabling voters to cast a ballot wherever they like within the county, for example, can be used depending on the state. All polling locations must abide by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations to make them accessible to all voters.[footnote]Schur, Ameri, and Adya et al., \u201cDisability, Voter Turnout,\u201d 1374\u20131390.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965<\/strong><\/span> significantly impacted local voting decisions by requiring local governments to apply for preclearance from the Department of Justice in any changes made to their elections. This was created because of massive and egregious violations in voting accessibility before and during the civil rights era and overwhelmingly impacted Southern states and jurisdictions. It meant that even a change in the polling location for voters had to be submitted, reviewed, and agreed to by the federal government in order to be enacted. The US Supreme Court ultimately overturned Section VI of the Voting Rights Act, which described the coverage and scope of the law, rendering the preclearance provision void in Shelby County v. <\/em>Holder<\/em><\/span> (2013).<\/p>\r\n

    Voter ID laws<\/strong><\/span> became popular beginning in the early 2000s as a way for states to minimize the likelihood of voter fraud. Despite voter fraud being a relatively minimal and overwhelmingly individual endeavor, states created policies that required voters to prove their identity when casting a ballot. Thirty-six states have instituted these laws that require some form of identification to be furnished upon requesting a ballot. Strict voter ID law states require IDs that are issued by the state to include an expiration date, a picture, and a name as it reasonably conforms to the voter\u2019s name (so \u201cMatt\u201d as a popular derivative of the more formalized \u201cMatthew\u201d). Less strict laws may request a photo ID but not require it and offer an oath of identity confirmation if no ID is shown.<\/p>\r\n

    Proponents of these laws argue that they help prevent voter fraud and make sure that voters are who they claim to be when requesting a ballot. Voter fraud includes lying about your identity, your residency, and\/or your qualifications (i.e., age or citizenship). Opponents criticize the burden of proof this puts on the voter and the disproportionate difficulty this places on voters who do not have a driver\u2019s license or access to other forms of acceptable identification.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Election Timing<\/h2>\r\n

    Federal general elections are set by the federal government and occur on the first Tuesday of November, except when that day is November 1, and then it is the second Tuesday of that month (November 8). The timing for the primary elections, though, and also statewide elections that are not concurrent with federal elections, in addition to local elections, is determined by the state government.<\/p>\r\n

    Primary elections<\/strong><\/span> (explained in more detail in \u201cWhat Are Primary and General Elections?\u201d<\/span><\/span>) occur in the late winter or spring months, when the party voters select the candidates to represent their party in the general election, which occurs in November. In nonpresidential election cycles, the timing is relatively innocuous and generally unimportant. There does need to be enough time between filing and the actual election, but otherwise, the difference between March and May is more likely a historical tradition than a political decision. This is quite different, though, in federal elections, when states try to compete to have the earliest primary election and thus bring a lot of attention (and economic surge) to their state. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have all competed in recent years to be the first primary that starts in allowing voters to narrow down the presidential selection.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> For our purposes in state elections here, however, it is more important to understand that primary election season ranges in the country from January through June, depending on the state.<\/p>\r\n

    State governments also determine the timing of local elections, sometimes intentionally arranging them on \u201coff-off\u201d election cycles (so in 2025 or 2027) and even over summer months to avoid the conflation with national issues and minimize a down-ballot effect.[footnote]Dde Benedictis-Kessner, \u201cOff-Cycle,\u201d 119\u2013132.[\/footnote]<\/sup> The times that polls are open are likewise the decision of the state governments, with some polls opening as early as 6 a.m. and some closing as late as 8 p.m.[footnote]Potrafke and Roesel, \u201cOpening Hours,\u201d 133\u2013163.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Within this range, all states have polls open at least twelve hours, some stretch voting hours to fourteen hours in one day, and one (New York) keeps polls open for fifteen hours on Election Day.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Rules of Candidates<\/h2>\r\n

    State law governs the requirements for who can run for public office, and some of those requirements vary slightly based on the office itself. Residency and age are always required, so meeting the threshold for the length of time the prospective candidate has resided in the state and the minimum age necessary to qualify. Typically, these are much lower than the average actual candidate\u2019s statistics, so while the state may require a candidate to be at least eighteen years old and live in the state for at least one year before filing to run for governor, most gubernatorial candidates will tend to be much older and have been residents for much longer. Party affiliation is determined by the state, with some states giving the party greater authority in determining whether a candidate qualifies to run on their party\u2019s ticket and others having much less influence in that decision. Finally, some offices require additional credentials. To run for the attorney general, a candidate must be in good standing with the state bar as a licensed attorney. To run as an auditor, a candidate may need to meet the professional requirements of a CPA.<\/p>\r\n

    Filing<\/strong><\/span> is the process through which an individual formally declares their candidacy for an office. They sign paperwork to do this through the secretary of state\u2019s office and often have to pay a relatively small (around $500) filing fee to put their name on the ballot. Sometimes they are also required to meet a minimum requisite number of signatures from eligible voters. Though these requirements may feel like barriers to prospective candidates, the reality of running a successful campaign in state elections is that the financial cost and voter support will far exceed the bare minimums required by the secretary of state\u2019s office to file.[footnote]Stratmann, \u201cBallot Access,\u201d 59\u201371.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    In addition to filing, all states embody reporting requirements that campaigns have to regularly meet. This includes quarterly filings with the secretary of state\u2019s office for campaign finance data (discussed in more detail later in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>). These requirements ensure the campaigns abide by the state law and embody the transparency and accountability that are essential to democratic elections.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    What Are Primary and General Elections?<\/h1>\r\n

    Voter turnout in state elections lags significantly behind voter turnout in federal elections for several reasons, as noted in \u201cWhat Is Voter Enfranchisement and Turnout in State Elections?\u201d<\/span><\/span> Another major difference in voter turnout depends on the type of election itself. Whether the election is a primary election, runoff election, or general election will have an impact on how many (and also which) voters choose to participate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Primary Elections<\/h2>\r\n

    Primary elections occur during the late winter and early spring months. Their purpose is to enable the party to select their preferred candidate for each race, who will then go onto the general election in November. Primary elections are a democratic process for candidate selection because voters get to decide who will represent their party, but there are several different types of primary elections that differ in terms of voters\u2019 qualifications to participate.[footnote]Hirano and Snyder, \u201cPrimary Elections,\u201d 473\u2013500.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Some states utilize a caucus system instead of primaries.[footnote]Busch, Rules and Politics; Clayton and Ringhiser, \u201cPrimaries and Caucuses.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> States also use conventions for their respective parties (similar to national conventions, though on a smaller scale), but most of the offices are selected via elections and not through the convention system. The differences between the various primaries and caucuses are explained below.<\/p>\r\n

    Elections where any registered voter can take any of the eligible parties\u2019 primary ballots to cast their vote are known as open primaries. These allow all eligible voters to participate in the primary election, regardless of party registration. Voters can decide on Election Day which party ballot they choose to take, but they may only take one party\u2019s ballot, or the party can decide whether to allow unaffiliated voters to take their party\u2019s ballot. They are neither fully open (as there are additional limitations to participation) nor completely closed, as the restrictions are still minimal in the hybrid options comparatively. Twenty states use an open primary election.<\/p>\r\n

    It is important to note here that because of the two-party system in the US (as will be discussed in Chapter 10<\/span><\/span>), the requirements for third parties to be able to hold primaries are established by the state and can be difficult to meet. Some states may have several primary ballot options to choose from, whereas others may only offer the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. In cases where only two parties hold primaries, the third parties may choose to use the convention system to formally select their party\u2019s candidates ahead of the general election.<\/p>\r\n

    Hybrid primaries<\/strong><\/span> include semiopen or semiclosed primaries in which voters may need to be registered with a party in advance in order to participate but can choose to change their registration on the day of the election. Sometimes these are referred to simply as semiclosed primaries, while in other circumstances this is the result of the parties being in control of the primary elections and thus getting to decide accessibility for voters. Fourteen states use a semiclosed primary election, and four states enable the political parties to decide and organize the primary election.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Primary elections in which voters must be registered with the party prior to the election in order to participate are known as closed primaries<\/strong><\/span>. This restricts participation to only those who have previously declared their party affiliation and makes it more likely that those voters selecting candidates for a party do actually identify as members of that party. Fifteen states use a closed primary election.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    This primary also helps minimize the potential for crossover voting<\/strong><\/span>, which occurs when a member of a different party chooses to instead take the ballot for the other party rather than their own.[footnote]Cho and Kang, \u201cOpen Primaries,\u201d 351\u2013379.[\/footnote]<\/sup> When this occurs more widely or is part of a coordinated effort, it is referred to as party raiding<\/strong><\/span>. The repercussions for voting in a different party than you affiliate with are vague and difficult to enforce. Party \u201cmembership\u201d as determined by registration is really affiliation (meaning they are not either accepted or denied membership by the leadership or broader base of members, as might be true in other organizations). It is also self-selected, so a voter gets to decide and declare their partisanship, but no formal test of loyalty or confirmation of ideological purity exists.<\/p>\r\n

    The constitutionality of ballot access for primary elections has evolved over time.[footnote]Gaines and Cho, \u201cCrossover Voting.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Voters in Louisiana, California, and Washington were eligible to participate in blanket primaries<\/strong><\/span> in which voters could take the primary ballots for both major parties in the same election. These were declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2000.<\/p>\r\n

    Five states (including the three noted that previously used blanket primaries) employ a top-two primary system in which the top two candidates with the highest percentage of the vote go on to the general election.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> This differs from the other primaries because the candidate from each party with the highest percentage of votes goes on to the general election regardless of how well candidates for the same race but from different political parties fared. Because the top-two primary system rewards the best two candidates, regardless of partisanship, it is very possible that the two candidates competing in the general election are from the same party.<\/p>\r\n

    Two states (Alaska and Maine) and several local governments (including Seattle and Salt Lake City) utilize a different system for selecting candidates known as ranked-choice voting<\/strong><\/span>. In this system of voting, candidates rank the order of their preferred candidates, and the candidates who receive the most votes (i.e., are among the more preferred candidates of voters) win. Depending on the ballot organization, voters may write \u201c1, 2, 3\u2026\u201d to indicate their choice or fill in the names of their selection in order of preference. While Alaska, Maine, and many city governments presently use this method for elections, other cities and states have adopted and repealed this process over time.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Runoff Elections<\/h2>\r\n

    The top two candidates compete in runoff elections<\/strong><\/span> too, but these are different from the top-two primary elections.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cPrimary Runoffs\u201d; Indridason, \u201cCompetition & Turnout,\u201d 699\u2013710.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Runoff elections are held in nine states; though the parameters vary slightly, they are typically mandated when no candidate achieves a majority of the vote. This would be essentially impossible in an uncontested race<\/strong><\/span> (when only one candidate qualified for the ballot) and very unlikely in a race with only two candidates (possible in this situation only if a write-in candidate prevented any candidate from attaining 50 percent). However, it occurs often in circumstances where there is a crowded primary<\/strong><\/span>, meaning there are several candidates competing to win. Proportionately, the likelihood of a runoff election increases with the number of candidates that enter the race, but it does not mean it is inevitable. Runoffs are primarily centered in the South and operate as a mechanism that historically diluted the impact of African American voters.[footnote]Brown, \u201cGeorgia\u2019s Runoff System.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    In states without runoff elections, candidates who simply garner a plurality of voters, whether or not it is a majority, are considered winners in the electoral contests. In runoff states, though, a runoff will occur when no candidate gets a majority. Most of these runoff elections are held in Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, with the one errant exception of South Dakota). Historically with one-party dominance, first the Southern Democrats from post-Reconstruction through the 1980s and then the Republican Party since the 1980s, runoffs were necessary because one party would attract many candidates, making it harder for a single candidate to capture a majority.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_190\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"960\"]\"Front Figure 9.3 - <\/span>California Recall Election Ballot in Los Angeles County, 2021
    Source: \"    2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Ballot<\/a>\" by the State of California on Wikimedia Commons \/ Public Domain.<\/a><\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    Caucuses<\/h2>\r\n

    Five states use caucuses in place of primary elections to determine the candidates who will proceed with the party label in the general election. Caucuses<\/strong><\/span> are political meetings run in person at a local level (either county or precinct depending on the state and the population density).[footnote]Busch, Rules and Politics.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Some caucuses have secret ballots, similar to an election, while others essentially have voters split themselves up into groups based on the candidate they support.[footnote]Smidt and Christenson,. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Iowa is perhaps best known for its caucus system, which is among the earliest primary selection in the presidential election.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    General Elections<\/h2>\r\n

    General elections occur in November and are the actual contests to decide the office holders for the specific races. Who qualifies to compete in these races is decided by the primary elections described earlier. These elections often have much higher voter turnout on the whole relative to primary contests.<\/p>\r\n

    Primaries are theoretically, if not procedurally, limited to partisans. In a closed primary election, voters must have previously declared their party affiliation in order to participate, thus rendering nonpartisans, independents, third-party voters, and any other voters who do not identify with the major political parties unable to participate in states that do not enable them to host primary contests. Even in open primaries, voters are limited to selecting from candidates for one party, meaning a voter still must decide which ballot to choose.<\/p>\r\n

    In presidential election cycles, the timing of the primary may be late enough in the season that primary voters do not make an impact in deciding the presidential candidate for their party. Early primary contests (as discussed earlier in \u201cWhat Are State Election Laws?\u201d<\/span><\/span>) play a disproportionate role in determining the party\u2019s presidential candidate, but for primaries in June, May, or even as early as April, the candidates may have secured the requisite number of delegates through previous primaries in order to be secure as the nominee.[footnote]Boatright, Moscardelli, and Vickrey et al., \u201cConsequences\u201d; Boatright, Moscardelli, and Vickrey et al., \u201cPrimary Election Timing,\u201d 472\u2013485.[\/footnote]<\/sup> The primary elections still matter for all the statewide races that are down ballot, but the national excitement that follows the presidential election will be less impactful in those states in which the contest is already decided.<\/p>\r\n

    Turnout tends to be significantly higher in general elections relative to primary ones because the awareness of voters is higher.[footnote]Nownes, \u201cPrimaries, General Elections,\u201d 205\u2013226.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Campaigns focus their communication, mobilization, and get-out-the-vote initiatives on the general election. Uncontested races are more common in primary elections but rarer in the general election, meaning the stakes are higher; primaries tend to benefit more ideologically pure candidates, while the opposite can be true in general elections.[footnote]Ansolabehere et al., \u201cDecline of Competition,\u201d 82\u201396; Boatright and Moscardelli, \u201cIs There a Link?,\u201d 188\u2013212;. Routledge, 2018; Hirano et al., \u201cPrimary Elections,\u201d 169\u2013191.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Of course, a candidate must win in the primary election in order to qualify for the general, but the general election is the deciding factor for the future officeholder.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    How Do Candidates and Parties Operate?<\/h1>\r\n

    Elections in the United States used to be organized more around the political parties themselves.[footnote]Wattenberg, Decline of American Political Parties.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Parties were strong organizations that motivated membership on the basis of patronage and would often assist in the organization and implementation of a campaign. This was especially true when states relied more heavily on conventions rather than primary elections to select the candidates who would appear on the ballot in the general election.[footnote]Hirano and Snyder, Primary Elections in the United States.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    The importance of campaigns and the requirements of a modern campaign (described later in this chapter in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>), in addition to the advent of primary elections, shifted the focus of campaigns from the party onto the candidate. While partisanship still plays an important role in elections, campaigns are more candidate driven and focused.<\/p>\r\n

    Some of the reasons for this change are straightforward. Primaries necessitated candidate-driven elections because several candidates were competing for the same party label, making the endorsement or support of the party more difficult.[footnote]Hirano and Snyder, \u201cDirect Primary.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Some areas utilized a concept known as slating<\/strong><\/span>, in which the party leadership would declare their preferred candidate prior to the election, but the uncomfortable awkwardness that lingered if that candidate lost to another one the party was initially supporting made this process less popular.[footnote]Mayhew, Placing Parties in American Politics.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Parties likewise had more control, with partisanship being stronger among US voters, and the benefits of supporting the party were more concrete.[footnote]Fiorina, \u201cParties and Partisanship:,\u201d 93\u2013115; Heath, \u201cTrends in Partisanship,\u201d 158\u2013169; Abramowitz and Webster, \u201cRise of Negative Partisanship,\u201d 12\u201322.[\/footnote]<\/sup> More Americans identify now as nonpartisan or independent rather than as a member of one major political party or another.[footnote]Twenge et al., \u201cMore Polarized,\u201d 1364\u20131383; Pew Research Center, \u201cPolitical Independents.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> That is not to say voters support only independent candidates; rather, by not identifying as a member of a party, voters feel less allegiance to the party and their slate of candidates. At the same time, there is less of a clear incentive to support a party aside from personal preference. Before the civil service reform and institution of merit exams, party patronage provided tangible, meaningful rewards for party support, like securing a lucrative government job or being promoted within the party to the next level. The demise of the patronage system coincided with the decline of incentivization for party affiliation, making space for more candidate-centered campaigns and elections.<\/p>\r\n

    In the primary election, candidates receive very little formal support from the party. Candidates must organize their campaigns, including hiring campaign managers and campaign treasurers, determining PR, polling, performing outreach, mobilizing, advertising, and so on. They are also responsible for their own fundraising efforts. After the candidates have secured their party\u2019s nomination by winning the primary election, they will receive help and assistance from the political party, but they must win the primary in order to move on.<\/p>\r\n

    Single-issue interest groups and political action committees (PACs) can be tremendously influential in primary elections by helping financially support candidates and also creating their own campaigns to share their preferences with voters.[footnote]Berry, \u201cInterest Groups and Elections,\u201d 340; Boatright, Malbin, and Glavin et al., \u201cIndependent Expenditures,\u201d 119\u2013140.[\/footnote]<\/sup> The 24\/7 news cycle enables candidates to try to leverage earned media opportunities for hosting an interesting press release on a salient issue or capturing public interest and attention in another way.[footnote]Turnbull, \u201cPolitics, Journalism,\u201d 50\u201367.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Social media has added a somewhat more democratic element to campaigning, making it more accessible and easier for smaller campaigns to make a larger impact depending on the candidate\u2019s strategy and their opposition\u2019s approach.[footnote]Munger et al., \u201cAccessibility and Generalizability.,\u201d 20531680211016968.[\/footnote]<\/sup> All these factors are influential in candidate-centered campaigns.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    How Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?<\/h1>\r\n

    While every campaign, candidate, race, and election cycle may vary, all successful modern campaigns incorporate several components with the ultimate aim of getting more voter support than the opposition candidate(s). Statewide campaigns can have an additional challenge of exciting voters to participate (in nonpresidential election cycles when many people may not be thinking as much about politics) or separating their campaigns from national races and issues (in cycles that coincide with presidential elections or even congressional midterms). Ultimately, a successful campaign is one in which the candidate has the most votes, but achieving what seems like such a straightforward objective is far more complicated than it sounds. Candidates thus need to create a campaign team with several specifically delegated roles to execute their strategy for electoral success.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_188\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"500\"]\"Various Figure 9.4 - <\/span>Election Signs Encourage Voters to Select Candidates, 2008
    Source: \"    Voting on Houston's west side<\/a>\" by Ed Schipul on Flickr \/ CC BY-SA<\/a>.<\/strong>[\/caption]\r\n

    Polling<\/h2>\r\n

    Polling is an essential component of effective campaigning. It provides a rare but necessary insight into the voter\u2019s perspective: their impressions of the candidate, their prioritization of the issues, and their values and understanding of the specific race.[footnote]Giammo, Polls and Voting Behavior; Feltovich and Giovannoni, \u201cCampaign Messages,\u201d 408\u2013426.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In an ideal world, campaigns would routinely conduct methodical, robust polling to assess the progress of the race. Polls conducted early in the campaign would set the benchmark for where the candidate was starting, and polls repeating consistently throughout the race would illustrate what tactics were successful and what weaknesses or challenges remained. A final poll shortly before the election could provide the motivation a wary and tired campaign might need to finish strong or the confidence for a leading candidate to minimize anxiety about the outcome.<\/p>\r\n

    Good polling can do all these things, but for most state elections, they are far less frequent than ideal. Gubernatorial races are the top of the ticket and often the most expensive and visible races. As often as candidates can afford to conduct polling, their campaigns can use it to measure progress and adjust their strategy. For most other campaigns, polling occurs far less often. Internal polls are those conducted, typically by an outside organization, on behalf of the campaign. Campaigns may share the results of those \u201cinternals\u201d if they reveal positive information about the candidate that they can use to promote the race; the media may use these for talking points too, though they are generally considered less verifiable and will usually be discussed with the caveat that the poll was not independently conducted.<\/p>\r\n

    State legislative races may operate on such a small budget that they forgo formal polling altogether. In place of polling, campaigns can host small focus groups or use their own personal assessments about the race to influence their strategy. Robust polling incorporates a good-size random sample of the district and can take several weeks to organize, implement, and analyze, which is why it can be cost prohibitive for smaller campaigns with less funding. Campaigns may choose to run their own polls with the implicit understanding that bias can lead to some inaccuracies, but the results most broadly can still be beneficial in influencing strategy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Public Relations<\/h2>\r\n

    Public relations is increasingly influential in state political campaigns. Polling can tell the campaign what voters think, but good PR can help the campaign match the candidate to what the voters want. There are public relations firms that are dedicated exclusively to political campaigns and even those that specialize in their respective political parties, so their focus is deeply tied to the ideological and partisan preferences of their voting base.<\/p>\r\n

    Public relations can cover the very minimum for small campaigns. For a state legislative race, this might be basic candidate branding, including a font and color scheme and perhaps also a slogan for a candidate. Websites are essential for voters to research candidate-approved messaging, and social media also offers additional points of access for candidates to connect with voters and for voters to seek out candidates. Yard signs, direct mailers, and campaign literature \/ door knockers are all routinely part of campaigns that public relations can assist with.<\/p>\r\n

    For larger or more funded races, public relations may be involved in the production of TV\/radio or professional social media advertisements. The cost of creating a high-quality TV advertisement is expensive, but then the cost of airing that ad regularly enough to maximize exposure and justify the production cost is even higher.[footnote]Yanich,. Buying Reality.[\/footnote]<\/sup> In competitive and expensive gubernatorial races, there may be several different TV advertisements, whereas state legislative races usually do not include this type of campaign outreach.<\/p>\r\n

    Public relations primarily concentrates on paid media, influencing the advertising that serves as outreach to voters in mobilizing them to support the desired candidate.[footnote]Stromback and Kiousis, Political Public Relations.[\/footnote]<\/sup> It can also be impactful in earned media too, when a candidate receives attention from the media for a news piece. Earned media, typically a story on local news involving the candidate, provides free news coverage and is viewed as more authentic and reliable by voters, but it is also a form of outreach that the candidate and campaign have less control over in the messaging compared to a paid advertisement.[footnote]Elving, \u201cChanging Dynamics,\u201d 291\u2013321.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Public relations can help prepare the candidate to both speak and look the right way. If the earned media coverage provides negative exposure, public relations campaigns can help respond and adjust to improve the public opinion of the candidate.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Canvassing\/Mobilization<\/h2>\r\n

    Campaigns in state government in the twenty-first century incorporate many new features in polling, public relations, social media, and other aspects that differ greatly from the campaigns for the very same races fifty years ago. One common attribute, however, remains. Canvassing, or going door-to-door to connect with voters, remains one of the most effective campaign strategies to mobilize voters.<\/p>\r\n

    Canvassing allows candidates and their supporters to connect directly and one-on-one with prospective voters in the district. Campaigns strategically target houses with voters who are likely to vote and may be willing to support their candidate. This strategy has been improved through modern technology, which enables canvassers to use their phones and find residences with voters that the campaign aims to target, providing their basic details to make an introduction and conversation even easier to initiate. Campaigns generally avoid residences with nonvoters or voters who affiliate with the other political party, understanding that these voters are not likely to support their candidate and thus not worth the time and effort. Instead, they target voters who may support their candidate and work to get those voters\u2019 support in the election.<\/p>\r\n

    Canvassing requires a tremendous amount of time and effort to do it effectively.[footnote]Barton, Castillo, and Petrie et al., \u201cWhat Persuades Voters?,\u201d F293\u2013F326.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Each door needs to be knocked on. If the resident answers and is willing to talk, it will take time to conduct a meaningful conversation. Good canvassing isn\u2019t aimed at changing hearts and minds, so if a voter says no, the canvassers politely accept and move on. Door knocking remains effective, though, because it provides interpersonal relationships and a unique opportunity for voters to actually meet the candidate (or supporters) and get to hear directly from them about what is at stake in the race and why they should ultimately provide their support.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Campaign Finance<\/h2>\r\n

    Money plays a vital role in campaigns of any size. Every component of modern campaigning described in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span> requires significant funding, and the greater success fundraising efforts have, the more engagement and opportunities campaigns will have to target voters.[footnote]Weschle, Money in Politics; Cag\u00e9, Price of Democracy; Bailey, \u201cTwo Sides of Money,\u201d 653\u2013669.[\/footnote]<\/sup> State campaigns vary widely in how much they fundraise and spend, but several variables help explain these differences.<\/p>\r\n

    The size of the district\/constituency guides how much funding is needed to reach out to the ideal number of voters.[footnote]Powell, Influence of Campaign Contributions.[\/footnote]<\/sup> For statewide races, this would include the entire state, whereas for state legislative races in states with large assemblies (where the district might be 1\/400th of the state, as it is in New Hampshire), the number of voters is significantly smaller, but the geographic boundaries are more limited too.[footnote]Hogan, \u201cCosts of Representation,\u201d 941\u2013956.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Geography might seem irrelevant, but the mileage and population density can play a role in voter outreach strategy\u2014whether canvassing is the most effective way to reach voters or, considering the cost and reach of the media market, if TV\/radio advertising is better.<\/p>\r\n

    The presence of meaningful competition also determines how much funding is truly needed to win the election. In a race with no other candidate on the ballot, the only candidate is not incentivized and may not be motivated to do anything. A race with several other candidates or a candidate who seems competitive will necessitate more involvement, though. An incumbent, a popular challenger, or a candidate with unique circumstances or an unusual race could all draw more attention and thus require more investment in the campaign.[footnote]Ansolabehere et al., \u201cIncumbency Advantage,\u201d 660\u2013668.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n

    Finally, the circumstances of the race and cultural standards can influence how much money is needed in a particular race. Races that receive a disproportionate amount of attention, occur during low voter turnout cycles (so the campaign needs to focus on voter engagement and mobilization), or occur during presidential election cycles (so the campaign needs to separate itself from the other political noise) may need to generate more funding to make up for these challenges. The cultural expectations of the district\/state should be considered too. In very rural areas, canvassing may not be an effective option, but the costs of ad buys in the media market make it more affordable and realistic. Some communities may find campaign door knocking unusual, while other areas may have the expectation to have more interaction with candidates.<\/p>\r\n

    States regulate campaign finance through policies and reporting required of the campaigns.[footnote]Gilens, Patterson, and Haines et al., \u201cCampaign Finance,\u201d 1074\u20131081.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Most states have regulations with regard to who can donate and how much they can contribute. Categories to separate donor types include individual, corporation, unions, parties, and PACs. Some limits are strict, meaning there is a low maximum amount a donor can contribute, while eleven states allow for unlimited contributions.[footnote]National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Limits.\u201d[\/footnote]<\/sup> Regulations also exist for campaign spending, prohibiting candidates from using their campaign funds to bankroll personal items or violating laws regarding campaign spending.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    What Is the Relationship Between Policy and Elections?<\/h1>\r\n

    Students of government might assume that policy guides the decision-making of both public officials and voters. After all, the primary function of a state-elected leader\u2019s job is to craft policy (the legislative branch), implement it (the executive branch), or determine its constitutionality (the judicial branch). The job of voters is to assess and ultimately select the best candidate to follow through with these functions. It would make sense that policy would be a primary consideration in both lawmaking and voting.<\/p>\r\n

    Yet American elections routinely disprove this assumption. Voters overwhelmingly evaluate candidates on the basis of party and then on personal characteristics, some more relevant to the office (experience, education, expertise, etc.) than others (charisma, charm, unique background, etc.).[footnote]Garzia, \u201cVoter Evaluation,\u201d 633\u2013653; Lodge, Steenbergen, and Brau et al., \u201cResponsive Voter,\u201d 309\u2013326.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Partisanship remains an easy cognitive shortcut for voters who are less engaged and less attentive to the political world. The old adage of evaluating candidates to find one \u201cyou\u2019d like to have a beer with\u201d may seem silly but still holds true.[footnote]Nai, Maier, and Vrani\u0107 et al., \u201cPersonality Goes a Long Way,\u201d 636\u2013745; Redlawsk and Lau, \u201cI Like Him,\u201d 187\u2013208.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Campaign advertising targets what voters want, identified through extensive polling and crafted with public relations (as discussed in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>). Even debates, ironically often organized with the intention of depicting issue-driven differences among candidates, can heighten the personality features of candidates to voters.<\/p>\r\n

    Americans\u2019 interest in policy is limited to a handful of issues, typically those salient to the current political discourse.[footnote]Bechtel et al., \u201cReality Bites,\u201d 683\u2013695.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Many voters may care only about a couple of policies, while some are single-issue voters who judge a candidate strictly on their stance on one particular issue.[footnote]Dejaeghere and Van Erkel, \u201cImportance of Issue-Ownership,\u201d 15\u201325.[\/footnote]<\/sup> Even then, partisanship can easily supplant policies in a general election. While voters may need to be more discriminating and discerning in a competitive primary, general election voters in state elections can rely on the party label to make a strong evaluation of the candidate without complete or even comprehensive information.<\/p>\r\n

    The challenge is that a small subset of voters wish to have more thorough information, and in closely competitive races or races with a substantial amount of attention, candidates may be pressed to share their stances on a wide range of issues. Campaign websites provide a great medium for candidates to convey their positions within unlimited space that is easily accessible to an interested voter. Rather than issue a policy plan for every potential topic the office may encounter during a term, the campaigns are more likely to highlight the issues important to voters (again, as indicated in polling) and to the candidates themselves.<\/p>\r\n

    Criticism of political campaigns, especially at the state level, arises when voters, the media, or current elected officials chastise candidates for not focusing on the issues of the particular office they are seeking. This seems to occur more frequently with the nationalization of politics. On one hand, the candidates should be addressing their stances and be approached on the actual issues they would be responsible for if elected to the office they want. On the other hand, however, voters may be overwhelmed by political noise (especially if the state elections coincide with a national election cycle), may focus more on national issues, and may be less familiar with the actual responsibilities of the office.[footnote]Andersen, \u201cCrowded Out,\u201d 1\u201320.[\/footnote]<\/sup> This presents a challenging dilemma, as voters listen chiefly to the information they are provided with, and campaigns provide information that they think voters care most about. In elections with many different offices from different levels of government (federal, state, and local) and different branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), it is hard for voters to delve too deeply into each candidate\u2019s policy preferences and consider that information in addition to other attributes such as partisanship that are incorporated in a campaign.[footnote]Bower, \u201cSimpleminded Voter,\u201d 22\u201325; Augenblick and Nicholson, \u201cBallot Position,\u201d 460\u2013480.[\/footnote]<\/sup><\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Conclusion<\/h1>\r\n

    Campaigns for state elections resemble federal campaigns in some aspects but in general are smaller and less expensive. The shift from political parties to candidates has given the campaigns more flexibility to frame their campaigns, but it has also required them to be more involved and responsible in the process. Primary elections give voters the chance to decide who will represent their party in the general election, but the different forms of access, from an open primary (in which anyone can participate) to a closed primary (in which only registered partisans can), will impact how limited involvement can be. General elections have higher voter turnout than primary elections, though that differs among presidential elections, which have the highest; state and congressional midterms; and finally local elections, which tend to have the lowest voter turnout.<\/p>\r\n

    While federal changes expanded voter enfranchisement, states still enjoy authority over elections in terms of regulations for filing, campaign finance, voter eligibility, and election options and timing. States are thus able to tailor their election laws to reflect their own interests, whether they want to make voting easier and more accessible out of a concern for democratic participation or if they want to ensure voter legitimacy and integrity by focusing on minimizing attempts or opportunities for voter fraud. Policies involving voter registration, candidate qualification, voter ID laws, and campaign finance regulations are generally decided by the states (with some small exceptions from the Voter Registration Act of 1965, as noted in \u201cVoting Laws\u201d<\/span><\/span>). Though the rules and restraints placed on elections can have a major impact on their outcomes, the role of policy is relatively minimal in state campaigns. Campaigns for state races should address several key policy areas relevant to the office, but they may not be driven by those issues. Voters can be easily overwhelmed with many factors to consider when casting their ballot, and the political noise is heightened during presidential election years or election cycles when national issues more broadly dominate the political discourse.<\/p>\r\n

    Campaigns in state government can be immensely valuable for voters, however, as they learn about the offices, candidates, and vision for the future of their state. Because they are smaller and closer to the people, constituents are more likely to have interactions with candidates running for these offices compared to federal ones, and these can be meaningful in shaping voters\u2019 thoughts and preferences. Campaigns at the state level are generally less expensive than those of national offices, which may require campaigns to be selective in their strategy, using polling, public relations, and professional communications when possible. At the end of the election, voters are less likely to select statewide offices, but they are more likely to be impacted by the decisions of their state government, which means these campaigns and elections are still important in daily life.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Bibliography<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

    \r\n

    Abramowitz, Alan I., and Steven Webster. \u201cThe Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of US Elections in the 21st Century.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 41 (2016): 12\u201322.<\/p>\r\n

    Alvarez, R. Michael, Thad E. Hall, and Ines Levin. \u201cLow-Information Voting: Evidence from Instant-Runoff Elections.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 46, no. 6 (2018): 1012\u20131038.<\/p>\r\n

    Alvarez, R. Michael, and D. Roderick Kiewiet. \u201cRationality and Rationalistic Choice in the California Recall.\u201d British Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 39, no. 2 (2009): 267\u2013290.<\/p>\r\n

    Andersen, David. \u201cCrowded Out: The Effects of Concurrent Elections on Political Engagement, Candidate Evaluation, and Campaign Learning in the United States.\u201d Representation<\/em><\/span> (2023): 1\u201320.<\/p>\r\n

    Andersen, David J. \u201cThe Down-Ballot Problem: Concurrent Elections and Cognitive Limitations on Voting Behavior.\u201d Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2010. https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=1643500<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Ansolabehere, Stephen, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cThe Decline of Competition in US Primary Elections, 1908\u20132004.\u201d The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics<\/em><\/span> 74 (2006): 82\u201396.<\/p>\r\n

    Ansolabehere, Stephen, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cThe Incumbency Advantage in US Primary Elections.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 26, no. 3 (2007): 660\u2013668.<\/p>\r\n

    Ansolabehere, Stephen, and David M. Konisky. \u201cThe Introduction of Voter Registration and Its Effect on Turnout.\u201d Political Analysis<\/em><\/span> 14, no. 1 (2006): 83\u2013100.<\/p>\r\n

    Anzia, Sarah F. Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups<\/em><\/span>. University of Chicago Press, 2013.<\/p>\r\n

    Arellano, Gustavo. \u201cRecalling California\u2019s Wild and Crazy and Crowded 2003 Gubernatorial Recall.\u201d LA Times<\/em><\/span>, March 12, 2021. https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/california\/story\/2021-03-12\/california-governor-newsom-recall-2003-gray-davis<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Augenblick, Ned, and Scott Nicholson. \u201cBallot Position, Choice Fatigue, and Voter Behaviour.\u201d Review of Economic Studies<\/em><\/span> 83, no. 2 (2016): 460\u2013480.<\/p>\r\n

    Aviram, Hadar, Allyson Bragg, and Chelsea Lewis. \u201cFelon Disenfranchisement.\u201d Annual Review of Law and Social Science<\/em><\/span> 13, no. 1 (2017): 295\u2013311.<\/p>\r\n

    Bailey, M. \u201cThe Two Sides of Money in Politics: A Synthesis and Framework.\u201d Election Law <\/em>Journal<\/em><\/span> 3, no. 4 (2004): 653\u2013669.<\/p>\r\n

    Barton, Jared, Marco Castillo, and Ragan Petrie. \u201cWhat Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning.\u201d Economic Journal<\/em><\/span> 124, no. 574 (2014): F293\u2013F326.<\/p>\r\n

    Bechtel, Michael M., Jens Hainmueller, Dominik Hangartner, and Marc Helbling. \u201cReality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues.\u201d Political Science Research and Methods<\/em><\/span> 3, no. 3 (2015): 683\u2013695.<\/p>\r\n

    Berry, Jeffrey M. \u201cInterest Groups and Elections.\u201d In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion<\/em><\/span>, edited by Elizabeth Suhay, Bernard Grofman, and Alexander H. Trechsel, 340. Oxford University Press, 2020.<\/p>\r\n

    Boatright, Robert G., Michael J. Malbin, and Brendan Glavin. \u201cIndependent Expenditures in Congressional Primaries After Citizens United: Implications for Interest Groups, Incumbents and Political Parties.\u201d Interest Groups & Advocacy<\/em><\/span> 5 (2016): 119\u2013140.<\/p>\r\n

    Boatright, Robert G., and Vincent G. Moscardelli. \u201cIs There a Link Between Primary Competition and General Election Results?\u201d In Routledge Handbook of Primary Elections<\/em><\/span>, 188\u2013212. Routledge, 2018.<\/p>\r\n

    Boatright, Robert G., Vincent G. Moscardelli, and Clifford D. Vickrey. \u201cThe Consequences of Primary Election Timing.\u201d Primary Timing Project<\/em><\/span>, June 2017.<\/p>\r\n

    Boatright, Robert G., Vincent G. Moscardelli, and Clifford D. Vickrey. \u201cPrimary Election Timing and Voter Turnout.\u201d Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy<\/em><\/span> 19, no. 4 (2020): 472\u2013485.<\/p>\r\n

    Bonneau, Chris W., and Eric Loepp. \u201cGetting Things Straight: The Effects of Ballot Design and Electoral Structure on Voter Participation.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 34 (2014): 119\u2013130.<\/p>\r\n

    Bower, Bruce. \u201cSimpleminded Voter: Informed Citizens Avoid Information Overload by Taking Strategic Shortcuts Before Casting Their Ballots.\u201d Science News<\/em><\/span> 174, no. 1 (2008): 22\u201325.<\/p>\r\n

    Brown, Matthew. \u201cGeorgia\u2019s Runoff System Was Created to Dilute Black Voting.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, December 5, 2022.<\/p>\r\n

    Broxmeyer, Jeffrey. \u201cFrom the Silver Screen to the Recall Ballot: Schwarzenegger as Terminator and Politician.\u201d New Political Science<\/em><\/span> 32, no. 1 (2010): 1\u201321.<\/p>\r\n

    Busch, Andrew E., ed. The Rules and Politics of American Primaries: A State-by-State Guide to Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses<\/em><\/span>. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2019.<\/p>\r\n

    Cag\u00e9, Julia. The Price of Democracy: How Money Shapes Politics and What to Do About It<\/em><\/span>. Harvard University Press, 2020.<\/p>\r\n

    Carrillo, David A., Joshua Spivak, Natalie Kaliss, and Jared Madnick. \u201cCalifornia\u2019s Recall Is Not Overpowered.\u201d Santa Clara Law Review<\/em><\/span> 62 (2022): 481.<\/p>\r\n

    Cho, Seok-Ju, and Insun Kang. \u201cOpen Primaries and Crossover Voting.\u201d Journal of Theoretical Politics<\/em><\/span> 27, no. 3 (2015): 351\u2013379.<\/p>\r\n

    Clayton, Caleb, and Alison Ringhiser. \u201cPrimaries and Caucuses.\u201d Critical Questions: Institute for Civics and Public Policy, Ohio Northern University, 2024. https:\/\/digitalcommons.onu.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=critical_questions<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Cottrell, David, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith. \u201cVote-by-Mail Ballot Rejection and Experience with Mail-in Voting.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 49, no. 6 (2021): 577\u2013590.<\/p>\r\n

    Cramer, Katherine J. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker<\/em><\/span>. University of Chicago Press, 2016.<\/p>\r\n

    de Benedictis-Kessner, Justin. \u201cOff-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage.\u201d Journal of Politics<\/em><\/span> 80, no. 1 (2018): 119\u2013132.<\/p>\r\n

    Dejaeghere, Yves, and Patrick Van Erkel. \u201cThe Importance of Issue-Ownership and Salience for Voters\u2019 Knowledge of Parties\u2019 Issue Positions.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 46 (2017): 15\u201325.<\/p>\r\n

    Elving, Ron. \u201cThe Changing Dynamics of Campaign Media: Earned and Owned.\u201d In Campaigns and Elections American Style<\/em><\/span>, 291\u2013321. Routledge, 2023.<\/p>\r\n

    Feltovich, Nick, and Francesco Giovannoni. \u201cCampaign Messages, Polling, and Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 68, no. 2 (2024): 408\u2013426.<\/p>\r\n

    Fiorina, Morris P. \u201cParties and Partisanship: A 40-Year Retrospective.\u201d Political Behavior<\/em><\/span> 24 (2002): 93\u2013115.<\/p>\r\n

    Gaines, Brian J., and Wendy K. Tam Cho. \u201cCrossover Voting Before the Blanket: Primaries Versus Parties in California History.\u201d In Explorations at the Political Fault Line: California\u2019s Blanket Primary Experiment<\/em><\/span>, edited by Bruce E. Cain and Elisabeth Gerber, 26\u201356. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.<\/p>\r\n

    Garrett, Elizabeth. \u201cDemocracy in the Wake of the California Recall.\u201d University of <\/em>Pennsylvania Law Review<\/em><\/span> 153 (2004): 239.<\/p>\r\n

    Garzia, Diego. \u201cVoter Evaluation of Candidates and Party Leaders.\u201d In The SAGE Handbook of Electoral <\/em>Behaviour<\/em><\/span>, edited by K. Arzheimer, M. S. Lewis-Beck, and J. Evans, 2:633\u2013653. Sage, 2017.<\/p>\r\n

    Giammo, Joseph Donald. Polls and Voting Behavior: The Impact of Polling Information on Candidate Preference, Turnout, and Strategic Voting<\/em><\/span>. University of Texas at Austin, 2004.<\/p>\r\n

    Gilens, Martin, Shawn Patterson, and Pavielle Haines. \u201cCampaign Finance Regulations and Public Policy.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 115, no. 3 (2021): 1074\u20131081.<\/p>\r\n

    Golder, Matt. \u201cPresidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 50, no. 1 (2006): 34\u201348.<\/p>\r\n

    Heath, Oliver. \u201cTrends in Partisanship.\u201d In The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion<\/em><\/span>, 158\u2013169. Routledge, 2017.<\/p>\r\n

    Highton, Benjamin. \u201cVoter Registration and Turnout in the United States.\u201d Perspectives on Politics<\/em><\/span> 2, no. 3 (2004): 507\u2013515.<\/p>\r\n

    Hirano, Shigeo, Gabriel S. Lenz, Maksim Pinkovskiy, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cVoter Learning in State Primary Elections.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 59, no. 1 (2015): 91\u2013108.<\/p>\r\n

    Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cThe Direct Primary and Candidate-Centered Voting in US Elections.\u201d Columbia University Working Paper, 2012. https:\/\/scholar.harvard.edu\/files\/jsnyder\/files\/directprimariescandidatectr.votinguselect._0.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n

    Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cPrimary Elections and the Quality of Elected Officials.\u201d Quarterly Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 9, no. 4 (2014): 473\u2013500.<\/p>\r\n

    Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder Jr. Primary Elections in the United States<\/em><\/span>. Cambridge University Press, 2019.<\/p>\r\n

    Hirano, Shigeo, James M. Snyder Jr., Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere, and John Mark Hansen. \u201cPrimary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress.\u201d Quarterly Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 5, no. 2 (2010): 169\u2013191.<\/p>\r\n

    Hogan, Robert E. \u201cThe Costs of Representation in State Legislatures: Explaining Variations in Campaign Spending.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> (2000): 941\u2013956.<\/p>\r\n

    Hogan, Robert E. \u201cGubernatorial Coattail Effects in State Legislative Elections.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 58, no. 4 (2005): 587\u2013597.<\/p>\r\n

    Holbrook, Thomas, and Brianne Heidbreder. \u201cDoes Measurement Matter? The Case of VAP and VEP in Models of Voter Turnout in the United States.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 10, no. 2 (2010): 157\u2013179.<\/p>\r\n

    Holman, Mirya R., and J. Celeste Lay. \u201cAre You Picking Up What I Am Laying Down? Ideology in Low-Information Elections.\u201d Urban Affairs Review<\/em><\/span> 57, no. 2 (2021): 315\u2013341.<\/p>\r\n

    Indridason, Indridi H. \u201cCompetition & Turnout: The Majority Run-Off as a Natural Experiment.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 27, no. 4 (2008): 699\u2013710.<\/p>\r\n

    Knack, Stephen, and Martha Kropf. \u201cRoll-Off at the Top of the Ballot: International Undervoting in American Presidential Elections.\u201d Politics & Policy<\/em><\/span> 31, no. 4 (2003): 575\u2013594.<\/p>\r\n

    Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. \u201cThe Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 89, no. 2 (1995): 309\u2013326.<\/p>\r\n

    Mann, Christopher, and Robert M. Stein. \u201cThe Impact of Polling Places on Voting.\u201d Paper presented at the Election Science Reform and Administration Conference, University of Pennsylvania, July 2019.<\/p>\r\n

    Mayhew, David R. Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century<\/em><\/span>. Vol. 46. Princeton University Press, 2014.<\/p>\r\n

    McDonald, Michael P. \u201cEvery Eligible Voter Counts: Correctly Measuring American Turnout Rates.\u201d Brookings Institution Report<\/em><\/span>, September 9, 2004.<\/p>\r\n

    McDonald, Michael P. \u201cNational and State Turnout Rates.\u201d US Elections Project, 2024. https:\/\/www.electproject.org\/election-data\/voter-turnout-data<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel L. Popkin. \u201cThe Myth of the Vanishing Voter.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 95, no. 4 (2001): 963\u2013974.<\/p>\r\n

    Meredith, Marc. \u201cExploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 107, no. 4 (2013): 742\u2013765.<\/p>\r\n

    Moss, Jordan. \u201cMotor Voter: From Movement to Legislation.\u201d Social Policy<\/em><\/span> 24, no. 2 (1993).<\/p>\r\n

    Munger, Kevin, Ishita Gopal, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua A. Tucker. \u201cAccessibility and Generalizability: Are Social Media Effects Moderated by Age or Digital Literacy?\u201d Research & Politics<\/em><\/span> 8, no. 2 (2021). https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/20531680211016968<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    Nai, Alessandro, J\u00fcrgen Maier, and Jug Vrani\u0107. \u201cPersonality Goes a Long Way (for Some): An Experimental Investigation into Candidate Personality Traits, Voters\u2019 Profile, and Perceived Likeability.\u201d Frontiers in Political Science<\/em><\/span> 3 (2021): 636\u2013745.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cPrimary Runoffs.\u201d August 8, 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/primary-runoffs<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cRecall of State Officials.\u201d September 15, 2021. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/recall-of-state-officials<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cState Limits on Contributions to Candidates: 2023\u20132024 Election Cycle.\u201d May 2023. https:\/\/documents.ncsl.org\/wwwncsl\/Elections\/Contribution-Limits-to-Candidates-2023-2024.pdf<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d February 6, 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/state-primary-election-types<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d December 11, 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voter-registration-deadlines<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    National Governors Association. \u201cGovernors: Gubernatorial Elections.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.nga.org\/governors\/elections\/<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    Nownes, Anthony J. \u201cPrimaries, General Elections, and Voter Turnout: A Multinomial Logit Model of the Decision to Vote.\u201d American Politics Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 20, no. 2 (1992): 205\u2013226.<\/p>\r\n

    Pew Research Center. \u201cPolitical Independents: Who They Are, What They Think.\u201d March 14, 2019. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/politics\/2019\/03\/14\/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think\/<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    Potrafke, Niklas, and Felix Roesel. \u201cOpening Hours of Polling Stations and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.\u201d Review of International Organizations<\/em><\/span> 15, no. 1 (2020): 133\u2013163.<\/p>\r\n

    Powell, Lynda W. The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Legislatures: The Effects of Institutions and Politics<\/em><\/span>. University of Michigan Press, 2012.<\/p>\r\n

    Redlawsk, David P., and Richard R. Lau. \u201cI Like Him, but\u2026: Vote Choice When Candidate Likeability and Closeness on Issues Clash.\u201d In Feeling Politics: Emotion in Political <\/em>Information Processing<\/em><\/span>, 187\u2013208. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2006.<\/p>\r\n

    Remmel, Megan L., and Chera A. LaForge. \u201cDon\u2019t You Forget About Me: Straight-Ticket Voting and Voter Roll-Off in Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections.\u201d Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy<\/em><\/span> 20, no. 4 (2021): 395\u2013406.<\/p>\r\n

    Roth, Zachary. \u201cStates That Send a Mail Ballot to Every Voter Really Do Increase Turnout, Scholars Find.\u201d Missouri Independent<\/em><\/span>, October 9, 2023. https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/2023\/10\/09\/states-that-send-a-mail-ballot-to-every-voter-really-do-increase-turnout-scholars-find\/<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

    Schur, Lisa, Mason Ameri, and Meera Adya. \u201cDisability, Voter Turnout, and Polling Place Accessibility.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 98, no. 5 (2017): 1374\u20131390.<\/p>\r\n

    Smidt, Corwin E., and Dino P. Christenson. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses<\/em><\/span>. Oxford University Press, 2016.<\/p>\r\n

    Stratmann, Thomas. \u201cBallot Access Restrictions and Candidate Entry in Elections.\u201d European Journal of Political Economy<\/em><\/span> 21, no. 1 (2005): 59\u201371.<\/p>\r\n

    Stromback, Jesper, and Spiro Kiousis, eds. Political Public Relations: Concepts, Principles, and Applications<\/em><\/span>. Routledge, 2019.<\/p>\r\n

    Stone, Walter J., and Monti Narayan Datta. \u201cRationalizing the California Recall.\u201d PS: Political Science & Politics<\/em><\/span> 37, no. 1 (2004): 19\u201321.<\/p>\r\n

    Turnbull, Malcolm. \u201cPolitics, Journalism and 24\/7 News Cycle.\u201d More or Less: Democracy & New Media<\/em><\/span> (2012): 50\u201367.<\/p>\r\n

    Twenge, Jean M., Nathan Honeycutt, Radmila Prislin, and Ryne A. Sherman. \u201cMore Polarized but More Independent: Political Party Identification and Ideological Self-Categorization Among US Adults, College Students, and Late Adolescents, 1970\u20132015.\u201d Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin<\/em><\/span> 42, no. 10 (2016): 1364\u20131383.<\/p>\r\n

    Wattenberg, Martin P. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952\u20131996<\/em><\/span>. Harvard University Press, 2009.<\/p>\r\n

    Weschle, Simon. Money in Politics<\/em><\/span>. Cambridge University Press, 2022.<\/p>\r\n

    Yanich, Danilo. Buying Reality: Political Ads, Money, and Local Television News<\/em><\/span>. Fordham University Press, 2020.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

    \n
    \n

    Chapter Summary<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

    \n

    The most common form of political participation is voting, and selecting candidates in an election may be the sole way many constituents engage in state politics. State elections often draw fewer voters and are vulnerable to down-ballot and coattail effects from the federal offices at the top of the ticket. This chapter focuses on campaigns (examining how campaigns are organized and implemented at the state level while emphasizing the difference between statewide and smaller state district offices) as well as elections (analyzing the impact of the campaigns and the decisions of voters). This chapter covers the election process from the perspective of both the candidates seeking office and the voters selecting their preferences.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n
    \n

    Student Learning Objectives<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

    \n

    Upon completion of this chapter, students should be able to:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Identify the differences between federal and state elections as well as the essential components that compose state elections.<\/li>\n
    2. Understand the impact of \u201cdown-ballot\u201d races and \u201clow-information\u201d elections on voter turnout.<\/li>\n
    3. Discuss the change in candidate responsibility and autonomy that coincided with the shift from state political conventions to state political primaries.<\/li>\n
    4. Examine the differences in candidate messaging, campaigning, and voter turnout in primary elections compared to general elections.<\/li>\n
    5. Recognize the various primary election systems, including open primaries, hybrid primaries, closed primaries, top-two primaries, and now-defunct blanket primaries.<\/li>\n
    6. Describe differences in campaign finance, messaging, and strategy for statewide races versus single-member district elections.<\/li>\n
    7. Analyze the connection between state policy and voter perception and election outcomes, particularly on current issues such as guns or abortion.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
      \n
      \n

      Focus Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

      \n

      These questions illustrate the main concepts covered in the chapter and should help guide discussion as well as enable students to critically analyze and apply the material covered.<\/p>\n

      How do campaigns and elections vary at the state level compared to the federal level? What are some of the essential differences and what effect do these have on outcomes?<\/p>\n

      Which type of primary election do you believe is best for voters? Which do you believe is best for the party?<\/p>\n

      What are some of the challenges that coincide with the increase in elections that are more candidate-centered rather than party-centered?<\/p>\n

      Most states require a filing fee when candidates declare their intention to run and file to place their name on the ballot. What role does this serve, and is it democratic?<\/p>\n

      How do candidates pivot from the primary election to the general election?<\/p>\n

      What role does money play in campaigning for state races? How can it be advantageous for democracy? How can it be harmful?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      What Is Voter Enfranchisement and Turnout in State Elections?<\/h1>\n

      Voter turnout is typically very low in the United States, despite the wide-ranging enfranchisement<\/strong><\/span> that has occurred since the US Constitution was initially ratified. At that time in American history, in order to vote, one had to be (1) White, (2) a man, (3) a property owner, and (4) at least twenty-one years of age. The disenfranchisement of a majority of the population undermined our nation\u2019s claims as a democracy. When fewer than half of the citizens could actually vote, our country was far less democratic than it is today. Several major changes struck down these limitations, beginning with the dissolution of the property requirement during the Jacksonian administration in the 1830s. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified to the US Constitution, providing African American men with the right to vote. Exactly half a century later, women were granted the same right with the passage of suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Poll taxes, used in some states to require voters to pay a \u201ctax\u201d (which actually operated as a fee, meaning one was exempt from incurring the cost if they chose not to vote), were abolished with the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. Finally, the voting age was lowered nationally in 1971 to eighteen years old, a direct response to pressure from the Vietnam War protests from young adults.<\/p>\n

      All these changes enabled more Americans to participate in elections, yet the irony is that many choose not to do so, particularly in the elections whose outcome may have the most direct impact on their lives. Presidential elections consistently yield the highest voter turnout<\/strong><\/span> numbers.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Still, in recent cycles, these have averaged around 60 percent of eligible voter participation. In congressional midterm elections and state government elections, voter turnout drops considerably to 35 to 40 percent participation. The numbers get lower for local elections (20\u201325 percent) and even lower still when focusing solely on the primary elections (a distinction addressed later in this chapter in \u201cWhat Are Primary and General Elections?\u201d<\/span><\/span>).<\/p>\n

      Scholars recognize that not everyone in the general population is eligible to vote, even with the enfranchisement noted earlier.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Earlier measurements of voter turnout suggested much lower numbers when considering how many people over eighteen cast a ballot. This group is known as the voter age population<\/strong><\/span> because, very simply, they are at or over the age necessary to participate in elections. The issue is that not everyone over eighteen is still eligible to vote. Our country is a nation of immigrants, and residents who do not have US citizenship do not qualify to participate in elections. Likewise, voting can be taken away from citizens who do not abide by the laws; in most states, citizens serving felony convictions are ineligible to vote during the time of their incarceration (as discussed in Chapter 8<\/span><\/span>).[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Thus, the voting eligible population<\/strong><\/span> is a smaller group of people realistic to those who meet the requirements to vote, which makes the measurement of voter turnout more accurate.<\/p>\n

      Why are the numbers so low, particularly for state elections? Voters are most aware of and engaged in politics during national election cycles and, even then, more engaged in the presidential race than those for the US Senate or the House of Representatives. Campaigns have more money and more exposure and it is a nationwide decision, so while swing states receive more attention, the national news and information about the candidates have appeal and applicability to voters in all fifty states. The recent trend of nationalization with issues reinforces the focus on national politics; it is easier to understand, dissect, and assess for voters because the mass media follows it in detail and the issues are universal to all voters in the country.<\/p>\n

      Some state office elections do run concurrently with federal offices, so for states that elect their governors in the same year as the president, those numbers in voter turnout are much higher. The benefit of this is that voter turnout can be substantially higher relative to a majority of US states that elect their governors during congressional midterm elections, or even the few states (Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi) that elect their governors in years immediately after congressional midterms (i.e., 2023), and the even fewer states (Virginia and New Jersey) that elect governors in years immediately after presidential election cycles (i.e., 2021).[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Voters are already thinking about politics with the presidential campaigns and are more likely to be in tune with the national issues because of widespread media coverage and focus. This can lead to ballot roll-off, when voters only vote for top-of-ticket races and then abstain from making selections for lower races (often many of the state races).[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The inherent problem with holding gubernatorial and presidential elections at the same time, however, is the obvious conflation of national and statewide issues. Gubernatorial candidates are pressed by voters for their positions on issues important to the presidential and national races but less relevant or perhaps even totally immaterial to the governor\u2019s race. There is also the potential coattail effect<\/strong><\/span>, in which a popular presidential candidate can \u201ccarry\u201d the other candidates on their party\u2019s ticket because voters will turn out to support the presidential candidate they prefer and just mark the ballot for the other candidates from the same political party.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      More broadly, the down-ballot impact<\/strong><\/span> can influence any candidates who are listed lower on the ballot (so state legislative races or state judicial races and even local races if they are on the ballot) when voters have strong preferences for candidates in races at the top of the ticket (i.e., US president, US Senate, or even governor) and less knowledge of or interest in the lower races.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Voting for all the candidates from the same party, known as straight-ticket voting, will often benefit the candidates at the end of the ballot from the more popular or preferred party that cycle.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Voters have limited attention and memory, so while they may dedicate some time to deciding their choice for the major races, those other races that appear lower on the ballot and are less familiar to voters, also known as low-information elections, are often subject to the voters\u2019 opinions of the top of the ticket.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      \"\"
      Figure 9.1 – <\/span>Turnout in US Midterm Elections and State Elections, 1946\u20132018
      Source: “      Turnout in U.S. Midterm Elections<\/a>” by Orser67 on Wikimedia Commons \/ CC BY-SA<\/a>.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      True low-information elections<\/strong><\/span> are those where voters may be unaware of the offices they are voting for, what responsibilities and roles those offices have, who the candidates are, and what their particular positions, experiences, and ideas for that office may be.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In local races for the county auditor or coroner, voters rely on partisanship to make these decisions, and when that label is absent (in nonpartisan local elections), then voters are left with even less information to use in their decision.[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Sometimes, organized interest groups will take advantage of low-information elections to achieve their electoral goals.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Fewer voters turn out in the spring primaries, though those that do are more ideologically extreme, making for a vastly different electorate to win over compared to the November general election.<\/p>\n

      Voting in state elections follows two different types of races: statewide and district. Statewide races include the state constitutional offices and those in the executive branch, such as governor, lieutenant governor (whether elected on the same ticket or split from the governor), auditor, treasurer, comptroller, secretary of state, and attorney general (to review the differences within these offices, go to Chapter 5<\/span><\/span>). These races are statewide, so candidates must campaign across the state, just as candidates for the US Senate do. State legislative races, however, are divided by district based on the number of seats in the assembly (as discussed in Chapter 4<\/span><\/span>). Because these districts may be as small as 1\/400th of the state (as it is in New Hampshire, where the house is composed of four hundred members), the campaigns are far less expensive and less professionalized. The impact of the size of the electorate and the approach and strategy in campaigning will be discussed later in this chapter (in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>).<\/p>\n

      What Are State Election Laws?<\/h1>\n

      States play a large role in deciding election regulations, which can impact voter turnout. In addition to determining when and where to hold elections (whether voters select a governor in the same election as the president, for example, or the timing of the primary elections), state law determines policy involving requirements for voting, timing for elections, and rules for candidates.<\/p>\n

      Voting Laws<\/h2>\n

      The laws involving voting range from what is required of voters to participate to how they can participate and even where they can participate. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the eligibility requirements to vote in US elections are set by the federal government and have expanded significantly since the ratification of the US Constitution. But the process and requirements to cast a ballot can be determined by the state government, in terms of voter registration, voter ID laws, early voting, and absentee or vote-by-mail options.<\/p>\n

      Voter registration requirements represent a merge of both federal guidelines and state governance. The National Voter Registration Act of 1994<\/strong><\/span> (NVRA) required states to simplify voting registration procedures, allow voter registration through mail, and create a simple, one-page document to be nationally accepted as a voter registration form.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Additionally, it mandated that government agencies offer voter registration when eligible citizens interact with their department, so when individuals renew their driver\u2019s license, they are asked if they would also like to update their voter registration. This process led to the nickname of \u201cMotor Voter\u201d for the NVRA. States still have their own voter registration forms but are required to accept the national one. States also still determine their timeline for voter registration in addition to other details.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Twenty-two states allow same-day voter registration, while the rest require fourteen days or even thirty days advance registration to be eligible to vote prior to the actual election.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> State policy also governs whether a third party can help register a voter and what requirements are entailed for that registration to be accepted.<\/p>\n

      \"\"
      Figure 9.2 – 2020 Absentee and Postal Voting by State
      Source: “      Voting by Absentee or Mail-in Ballot this November [2020]<\/a>” by David Lazer, Katherine Ognyanova, Matthew Baum et al. in The COVID States Project #7: Update on vote by mail \/ CC BY<\/a>.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      The details of actual voting are determined by state law as well. A few states proactively mail ballots to all registered voters, known as universal vote by mail (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington).[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> More commonly, some allow voters to select a \u201cno-excuse\u201d option to vote by mail, while other states allow absentee voting, but only if the voter is eligible based on the requirements outlined by the state (typically involving the voters\u2019 access to the polls on Election Day). The location of the polls and accessibility are chiefly determined by the state government with some influence of federal regulations.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Voting centers, enabling voters to cast a ballot wherever they like within the county, for example, can be used depending on the state. All polling locations must abide by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations to make them accessible to all voters.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The Voting Rights Act of 1965<\/strong><\/span> significantly impacted local voting decisions by requiring local governments to apply for preclearance from the Department of Justice in any changes made to their elections. This was created because of massive and egregious violations in voting accessibility before and during the civil rights era and overwhelmingly impacted Southern states and jurisdictions. It meant that even a change in the polling location for voters had to be submitted, reviewed, and agreed to by the federal government in order to be enacted. The US Supreme Court ultimately overturned Section VI of the Voting Rights Act, which described the coverage and scope of the law, rendering the preclearance provision void in Shelby County v. <\/em>Holder<\/em><\/span> (2013).<\/p>\n

      Voter ID laws<\/strong><\/span> became popular beginning in the early 2000s as a way for states to minimize the likelihood of voter fraud. Despite voter fraud being a relatively minimal and overwhelmingly individual endeavor, states created policies that required voters to prove their identity when casting a ballot. Thirty-six states have instituted these laws that require some form of identification to be furnished upon requesting a ballot. Strict voter ID law states require IDs that are issued by the state to include an expiration date, a picture, and a name as it reasonably conforms to the voter\u2019s name (so \u201cMatt\u201d as a popular derivative of the more formalized \u201cMatthew\u201d). Less strict laws may request a photo ID but not require it and offer an oath of identity confirmation if no ID is shown.<\/p>\n

      Proponents of these laws argue that they help prevent voter fraud and make sure that voters are who they claim to be when requesting a ballot. Voter fraud includes lying about your identity, your residency, and\/or your qualifications (i.e., age or citizenship). Opponents criticize the burden of proof this puts on the voter and the disproportionate difficulty this places on voters who do not have a driver\u2019s license or access to other forms of acceptable identification.<\/p>\n

      Election Timing<\/h2>\n

      Federal general elections are set by the federal government and occur on the first Tuesday of November, except when that day is November 1, and then it is the second Tuesday of that month (November 8). The timing for the primary elections, though, and also statewide elections that are not concurrent with federal elections, in addition to local elections, is determined by the state government.<\/p>\n

      Primary elections<\/strong><\/span> (explained in more detail in \u201cWhat Are Primary and General Elections?\u201d<\/span><\/span>) occur in the late winter or spring months, when the party voters select the candidates to represent their party in the general election, which occurs in November. In nonpresidential election cycles, the timing is relatively innocuous and generally unimportant. There does need to be enough time between filing and the actual election, but otherwise, the difference between March and May is more likely a historical tradition than a political decision. This is quite different, though, in federal elections, when states try to compete to have the earliest primary election and thus bring a lot of attention (and economic surge) to their state. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have all competed in recent years to be the first primary that starts in allowing voters to narrow down the presidential selection.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> For our purposes in state elections here, however, it is more important to understand that primary election season ranges in the country from January through June, depending on the state.<\/p>\n

      State governments also determine the timing of local elections, sometimes intentionally arranging them on \u201coff-off\u201d election cycles (so in 2025 or 2027) and even over summer months to avoid the conflation with national issues and minimize a down-ballot effect.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The times that polls are open are likewise the decision of the state governments, with some polls opening as early as 6 a.m. and some closing as late as 8 p.m.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Within this range, all states have polls open at least twelve hours, some stretch voting hours to fourteen hours in one day, and one (New York) keeps polls open for fifteen hours on Election Day.<\/p>\n

      Rules of Candidates<\/h2>\n

      State law governs the requirements for who can run for public office, and some of those requirements vary slightly based on the office itself. Residency and age are always required, so meeting the threshold for the length of time the prospective candidate has resided in the state and the minimum age necessary to qualify. Typically, these are much lower than the average actual candidate\u2019s statistics, so while the state may require a candidate to be at least eighteen years old and live in the state for at least one year before filing to run for governor, most gubernatorial candidates will tend to be much older and have been residents for much longer. Party affiliation is determined by the state, with some states giving the party greater authority in determining whether a candidate qualifies to run on their party\u2019s ticket and others having much less influence in that decision. Finally, some offices require additional credentials. To run for the attorney general, a candidate must be in good standing with the state bar as a licensed attorney. To run as an auditor, a candidate may need to meet the professional requirements of a CPA.<\/p>\n

      Filing<\/strong><\/span> is the process through which an individual formally declares their candidacy for an office. They sign paperwork to do this through the secretary of state\u2019s office and often have to pay a relatively small (around $500) filing fee to put their name on the ballot. Sometimes they are also required to meet a minimum requisite number of signatures from eligible voters. Though these requirements may feel like barriers to prospective candidates, the reality of running a successful campaign in state elections is that the financial cost and voter support will far exceed the bare minimums required by the secretary of state\u2019s office to file.[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      In addition to filing, all states embody reporting requirements that campaigns have to regularly meet. This includes quarterly filings with the secretary of state\u2019s office for campaign finance data (discussed in more detail later in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>). These requirements ensure the campaigns abide by the state law and embody the transparency and accountability that are essential to democratic elections.<\/p>\n

      What Are Primary and General Elections?<\/h1>\n

      Voter turnout in state elections lags significantly behind voter turnout in federal elections for several reasons, as noted in \u201cWhat Is Voter Enfranchisement and Turnout in State Elections?\u201d<\/span><\/span> Another major difference in voter turnout depends on the type of election itself. Whether the election is a primary election, runoff election, or general election will have an impact on how many (and also which) voters choose to participate.<\/p>\n

      Primary Elections<\/h2>\n

      Primary elections occur during the late winter and early spring months. Their purpose is to enable the party to select their preferred candidate for each race, who will then go onto the general election in November. Primary elections are a democratic process for candidate selection because voters get to decide who will represent their party, but there are several different types of primary elections that differ in terms of voters\u2019 qualifications to participate.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Some states utilize a caucus system instead of primaries.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> States also use conventions for their respective parties (similar to national conventions, though on a smaller scale), but most of the offices are selected via elections and not through the convention system. The differences between the various primaries and caucuses are explained below.<\/p>\n

      Elections where any registered voter can take any of the eligible parties\u2019 primary ballots to cast their vote are known as open primaries. These allow all eligible voters to participate in the primary election, regardless of party registration. Voters can decide on Election Day which party ballot they choose to take, but they may only take one party\u2019s ballot, or the party can decide whether to allow unaffiliated voters to take their party\u2019s ballot. They are neither fully open (as there are additional limitations to participation) nor completely closed, as the restrictions are still minimal in the hybrid options comparatively. Twenty states use an open primary election.<\/p>\n

      It is important to note here that because of the two-party system in the US (as will be discussed in Chapter 10<\/span><\/span>), the requirements for third parties to be able to hold primaries are established by the state and can be difficult to meet. Some states may have several primary ballot options to choose from, whereas others may only offer the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. In cases where only two parties hold primaries, the third parties may choose to use the convention system to formally select their party\u2019s candidates ahead of the general election.<\/p>\n

      Hybrid primaries<\/strong><\/span> include semiopen or semiclosed primaries in which voters may need to be registered with a party in advance in order to participate but can choose to change their registration on the day of the election. Sometimes these are referred to simply as semiclosed primaries, while in other circumstances this is the result of the parties being in control of the primary elections and thus getting to decide accessibility for voters. Fourteen states use a semiclosed primary election, and four states enable the political parties to decide and organize the primary election.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Primary elections in which voters must be registered with the party prior to the election in order to participate are known as closed primaries<\/strong><\/span>. This restricts participation to only those who have previously declared their party affiliation and makes it more likely that those voters selecting candidates for a party do actually identify as members of that party. Fifteen states use a closed primary election.[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      This primary also helps minimize the potential for crossover voting<\/strong><\/span>, which occurs when a member of a different party chooses to instead take the ballot for the other party rather than their own.[27]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> When this occurs more widely or is part of a coordinated effort, it is referred to as party raiding<\/strong><\/span>. The repercussions for voting in a different party than you affiliate with are vague and difficult to enforce. Party \u201cmembership\u201d as determined by registration is really affiliation (meaning they are not either accepted or denied membership by the leadership or broader base of members, as might be true in other organizations). It is also self-selected, so a voter gets to decide and declare their partisanship, but no formal test of loyalty or confirmation of ideological purity exists.<\/p>\n

      The constitutionality of ballot access for primary elections has evolved over time.[28]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Voters in Louisiana, California, and Washington were eligible to participate in blanket primaries<\/strong><\/span> in which voters could take the primary ballots for both major parties in the same election. These were declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2000.<\/p>\n

      Five states (including the three noted that previously used blanket primaries) employ a top-two primary system in which the top two candidates with the highest percentage of the vote go on to the general election.[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> This differs from the other primaries because the candidate from each party with the highest percentage of votes goes on to the general election regardless of how well candidates for the same race but from different political parties fared. Because the top-two primary system rewards the best two candidates, regardless of partisanship, it is very possible that the two candidates competing in the general election are from the same party.<\/p>\n

      Two states (Alaska and Maine) and several local governments (including Seattle and Salt Lake City) utilize a different system for selecting candidates known as ranked-choice voting<\/strong><\/span>. In this system of voting, candidates rank the order of their preferred candidates, and the candidates who receive the most votes (i.e., are among the more preferred candidates of voters) win. Depending on the ballot organization, voters may write \u201c1, 2, 3\u2026\u201d to indicate their choice or fill in the names of their selection in order of preference. While Alaska, Maine, and many city governments presently use this method for elections, other cities and states have adopted and repealed this process over time.<\/p>\n

      Runoff Elections<\/h2>\n

      The top two candidates compete in runoff elections<\/strong><\/span> too, but these are different from the top-two primary elections.[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Runoff elections are held in nine states; though the parameters vary slightly, they are typically mandated when no candidate achieves a majority of the vote. This would be essentially impossible in an uncontested race<\/strong><\/span> (when only one candidate qualified for the ballot) and very unlikely in a race with only two candidates (possible in this situation only if a write-in candidate prevented any candidate from attaining 50 percent). However, it occurs often in circumstances where there is a crowded primary<\/strong><\/span>, meaning there are several candidates competing to win. Proportionately, the likelihood of a runoff election increases with the number of candidates that enter the race, but it does not mean it is inevitable. Runoffs are primarily centered in the South and operate as a mechanism that historically diluted the impact of African American voters.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      In states without runoff elections, candidates who simply garner a plurality of voters, whether or not it is a majority, are considered winners in the electoral contests. In runoff states, though, a runoff will occur when no candidate gets a majority. Most of these runoff elections are held in Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, with the one errant exception of South Dakota). Historically with one-party dominance, first the Southern Democrats from post-Reconstruction through the 1980s and then the Republican Party since the 1980s, runoffs were necessary because one party would attract many candidates, making it harder for a single candidate to capture a majority.<\/p>\n

      \"Front
      Figure 9.3 – <\/span>California Recall Election Ballot in Los Angeles County, 2021
      Source: “      2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Ballot<\/a>” by the State of California on Wikimedia Commons \/ Public Domain.<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Caucuses<\/h2>\n

      Five states use caucuses in place of primary elections to determine the candidates who will proceed with the party label in the general election. Caucuses<\/strong><\/span> are political meetings run in person at a local level (either county or precinct depending on the state and the population density).[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Some caucuses have secret ballots, similar to an election, while others essentially have voters split themselves up into groups based on the candidate they support.[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Iowa is perhaps best known for its caucus system, which is among the earliest primary selection in the presidential election.<\/p>\n

      General Elections<\/h2>\n

      General elections occur in November and are the actual contests to decide the office holders for the specific races. Who qualifies to compete in these races is decided by the primary elections described earlier. These elections often have much higher voter turnout on the whole relative to primary contests.<\/p>\n

      Primaries are theoretically, if not procedurally, limited to partisans. In a closed primary election, voters must have previously declared their party affiliation in order to participate, thus rendering nonpartisans, independents, third-party voters, and any other voters who do not identify with the major political parties unable to participate in states that do not enable them to host primary contests. Even in open primaries, voters are limited to selecting from candidates for one party, meaning a voter still must decide which ballot to choose.<\/p>\n

      In presidential election cycles, the timing of the primary may be late enough in the season that primary voters do not make an impact in deciding the presidential candidate for their party. Early primary contests (as discussed earlier in \u201cWhat Are State Election Laws?\u201d<\/span><\/span>) play a disproportionate role in determining the party\u2019s presidential candidate, but for primaries in June, May, or even as early as April, the candidates may have secured the requisite number of delegates through previous primaries in order to be secure as the nominee.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The primary elections still matter for all the statewide races that are down ballot, but the national excitement that follows the presidential election will be less impactful in those states in which the contest is already decided.<\/p>\n

      Turnout tends to be significantly higher in general elections relative to primary ones because the awareness of voters is higher.[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Campaigns focus their communication, mobilization, and get-out-the-vote initiatives on the general election. Uncontested races are more common in primary elections but rarer in the general election, meaning the stakes are higher; primaries tend to benefit more ideologically pure candidates, while the opposite can be true in general elections.[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Of course, a candidate must win in the primary election in order to qualify for the general, but the general election is the deciding factor for the future officeholder.<\/p>\n

      How Do Candidates and Parties Operate?<\/h1>\n

      Elections in the United States used to be organized more around the political parties themselves.[37]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Parties were strong organizations that motivated membership on the basis of patronage and would often assist in the organization and implementation of a campaign. This was especially true when states relied more heavily on conventions rather than primary elections to select the candidates who would appear on the ballot in the general election.[38]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      The importance of campaigns and the requirements of a modern campaign (described later in this chapter in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>), in addition to the advent of primary elections, shifted the focus of campaigns from the party onto the candidate. While partisanship still plays an important role in elections, campaigns are more candidate driven and focused.<\/p>\n

      Some of the reasons for this change are straightforward. Primaries necessitated candidate-driven elections because several candidates were competing for the same party label, making the endorsement or support of the party more difficult.[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Some areas utilized a concept known as slating<\/strong><\/span>, in which the party leadership would declare their preferred candidate prior to the election, but the uncomfortable awkwardness that lingered if that candidate lost to another one the party was initially supporting made this process less popular.[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Parties likewise had more control, with partisanship being stronger among US voters, and the benefits of supporting the party were more concrete.[41]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> More Americans identify now as nonpartisan or independent rather than as a member of one major political party or another.[42]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> That is not to say voters support only independent candidates; rather, by not identifying as a member of a party, voters feel less allegiance to the party and their slate of candidates. At the same time, there is less of a clear incentive to support a party aside from personal preference. Before the civil service reform and institution of merit exams, party patronage provided tangible, meaningful rewards for party support, like securing a lucrative government job or being promoted within the party to the next level. The demise of the patronage system coincided with the decline of incentivization for party affiliation, making space for more candidate-centered campaigns and elections.<\/p>\n

      In the primary election, candidates receive very little formal support from the party. Candidates must organize their campaigns, including hiring campaign managers and campaign treasurers, determining PR, polling, performing outreach, mobilizing, advertising, and so on. They are also responsible for their own fundraising efforts. After the candidates have secured their party\u2019s nomination by winning the primary election, they will receive help and assistance from the political party, but they must win the primary in order to move on.<\/p>\n

      Single-issue interest groups and political action committees (PACs) can be tremendously influential in primary elections by helping financially support candidates and also creating their own campaigns to share their preferences with voters.[43]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> The 24\/7 news cycle enables candidates to try to leverage earned media opportunities for hosting an interesting press release on a salient issue or capturing public interest and attention in another way.[44]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Social media has added a somewhat more democratic element to campaigning, making it more accessible and easier for smaller campaigns to make a larger impact depending on the candidate\u2019s strategy and their opposition\u2019s approach.[45]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> All these factors are influential in candidate-centered campaigns.<\/p>\n

      How Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?<\/h1>\n

      While every campaign, candidate, race, and election cycle may vary, all successful modern campaigns incorporate several components with the ultimate aim of getting more voter support than the opposition candidate(s). Statewide campaigns can have an additional challenge of exciting voters to participate (in nonpresidential election cycles when many people may not be thinking as much about politics) or separating their campaigns from national races and issues (in cycles that coincide with presidential elections or even congressional midterms). Ultimately, a successful campaign is one in which the candidate has the most votes, but achieving what seems like such a straightforward objective is far more complicated than it sounds. Candidates thus need to create a campaign team with several specifically delegated roles to execute their strategy for electoral success.<\/p>\n

      \"Various
      Figure 9.4 – <\/span>Election Signs Encourage Voters to Select Candidates, 2008
      Source: “      Voting on Houston’s west side<\/a>” by Ed Schipul on Flickr \/ CC BY-SA<\/a>.<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

      Polling<\/h2>\n

      Polling is an essential component of effective campaigning. It provides a rare but necessary insight into the voter\u2019s perspective: their impressions of the candidate, their prioritization of the issues, and their values and understanding of the specific race.[46]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In an ideal world, campaigns would routinely conduct methodical, robust polling to assess the progress of the race. Polls conducted early in the campaign would set the benchmark for where the candidate was starting, and polls repeating consistently throughout the race would illustrate what tactics were successful and what weaknesses or challenges remained. A final poll shortly before the election could provide the motivation a wary and tired campaign might need to finish strong or the confidence for a leading candidate to minimize anxiety about the outcome.<\/p>\n

      Good polling can do all these things, but for most state elections, they are far less frequent than ideal. Gubernatorial races are the top of the ticket and often the most expensive and visible races. As often as candidates can afford to conduct polling, their campaigns can use it to measure progress and adjust their strategy. For most other campaigns, polling occurs far less often. Internal polls are those conducted, typically by an outside organization, on behalf of the campaign. Campaigns may share the results of those \u201cinternals\u201d if they reveal positive information about the candidate that they can use to promote the race; the media may use these for talking points too, though they are generally considered less verifiable and will usually be discussed with the caveat that the poll was not independently conducted.<\/p>\n

      State legislative races may operate on such a small budget that they forgo formal polling altogether. In place of polling, campaigns can host small focus groups or use their own personal assessments about the race to influence their strategy. Robust polling incorporates a good-size random sample of the district and can take several weeks to organize, implement, and analyze, which is why it can be cost prohibitive for smaller campaigns with less funding. Campaigns may choose to run their own polls with the implicit understanding that bias can lead to some inaccuracies, but the results most broadly can still be beneficial in influencing strategy.<\/p>\n

      Public Relations<\/h2>\n

      Public relations is increasingly influential in state political campaigns. Polling can tell the campaign what voters think, but good PR can help the campaign match the candidate to what the voters want. There are public relations firms that are dedicated exclusively to political campaigns and even those that specialize in their respective political parties, so their focus is deeply tied to the ideological and partisan preferences of their voting base.<\/p>\n

      Public relations can cover the very minimum for small campaigns. For a state legislative race, this might be basic candidate branding, including a font and color scheme and perhaps also a slogan for a candidate. Websites are essential for voters to research candidate-approved messaging, and social media also offers additional points of access for candidates to connect with voters and for voters to seek out candidates. Yard signs, direct mailers, and campaign literature \/ door knockers are all routinely part of campaigns that public relations can assist with.<\/p>\n

      For larger or more funded races, public relations may be involved in the production of TV\/radio or professional social media advertisements. The cost of creating a high-quality TV advertisement is expensive, but then the cost of airing that ad regularly enough to maximize exposure and justify the production cost is even higher.[47]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> In competitive and expensive gubernatorial races, there may be several different TV advertisements, whereas state legislative races usually do not include this type of campaign outreach.<\/p>\n

      Public relations primarily concentrates on paid media, influencing the advertising that serves as outreach to voters in mobilizing them to support the desired candidate.[48]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> It can also be impactful in earned media too, when a candidate receives attention from the media for a news piece. Earned media, typically a story on local news involving the candidate, provides free news coverage and is viewed as more authentic and reliable by voters, but it is also a form of outreach that the candidate and campaign have less control over in the messaging compared to a paid advertisement.[49]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Public relations can help prepare the candidate to both speak and look the right way. If the earned media coverage provides negative exposure, public relations campaigns can help respond and adjust to improve the public opinion of the candidate.<\/p>\n

      Canvassing\/Mobilization<\/h2>\n

      Campaigns in state government in the twenty-first century incorporate many new features in polling, public relations, social media, and other aspects that differ greatly from the campaigns for the very same races fifty years ago. One common attribute, however, remains. Canvassing, or going door-to-door to connect with voters, remains one of the most effective campaign strategies to mobilize voters.<\/p>\n

      Canvassing allows candidates and their supporters to connect directly and one-on-one with prospective voters in the district. Campaigns strategically target houses with voters who are likely to vote and may be willing to support their candidate. This strategy has been improved through modern technology, which enables canvassers to use their phones and find residences with voters that the campaign aims to target, providing their basic details to make an introduction and conversation even easier to initiate. Campaigns generally avoid residences with nonvoters or voters who affiliate with the other political party, understanding that these voters are not likely to support their candidate and thus not worth the time and effort. Instead, they target voters who may support their candidate and work to get those voters\u2019 support in the election.<\/p>\n

      Canvassing requires a tremendous amount of time and effort to do it effectively.[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Each door needs to be knocked on. If the resident answers and is willing to talk, it will take time to conduct a meaningful conversation. Good canvassing isn\u2019t aimed at changing hearts and minds, so if a voter says no, the canvassers politely accept and move on. Door knocking remains effective, though, because it provides interpersonal relationships and a unique opportunity for voters to actually meet the candidate (or supporters) and get to hear directly from them about what is at stake in the race and why they should ultimately provide their support.<\/p>\n

      Campaign Finance<\/h2>\n

      Money plays a vital role in campaigns of any size. Every component of modern campaigning described in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span> requires significant funding, and the greater success fundraising efforts have, the more engagement and opportunities campaigns will have to target voters.[51]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> State campaigns vary widely in how much they fundraise and spend, but several variables help explain these differences.<\/p>\n

      The size of the district\/constituency guides how much funding is needed to reach out to the ideal number of voters.[52]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> For statewide races, this would include the entire state, whereas for state legislative races in states with large assemblies (where the district might be 1\/400th of the state, as it is in New Hampshire), the number of voters is significantly smaller, but the geographic boundaries are more limited too.[53]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Geography might seem irrelevant, but the mileage and population density can play a role in voter outreach strategy\u2014whether canvassing is the most effective way to reach voters or, considering the cost and reach of the media market, if TV\/radio advertising is better.<\/p>\n

      The presence of meaningful competition also determines how much funding is truly needed to win the election. In a race with no other candidate on the ballot, the only candidate is not incentivized and may not be motivated to do anything. A race with several other candidates or a candidate who seems competitive will necessitate more involvement, though. An incumbent, a popular challenger, or a candidate with unique circumstances or an unusual race could all draw more attention and thus require more investment in the campaign.[54]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Finally, the circumstances of the race and cultural standards can influence how much money is needed in a particular race. Races that receive a disproportionate amount of attention, occur during low voter turnout cycles (so the campaign needs to focus on voter engagement and mobilization), or occur during presidential election cycles (so the campaign needs to separate itself from the other political noise) may need to generate more funding to make up for these challenges. The cultural expectations of the district\/state should be considered too. In very rural areas, canvassing may not be an effective option, but the costs of ad buys in the media market make it more affordable and realistic. Some communities may find campaign door knocking unusual, while other areas may have the expectation to have more interaction with candidates.<\/p>\n

      States regulate campaign finance through policies and reporting required of the campaigns.[55]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Most states have regulations with regard to who can donate and how much they can contribute. Categories to separate donor types include individual, corporation, unions, parties, and PACs. Some limits are strict, meaning there is a low maximum amount a donor can contribute, while eleven states allow for unlimited contributions.[56]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Regulations also exist for campaign spending, prohibiting candidates from using their campaign funds to bankroll personal items or violating laws regarding campaign spending.<\/p>\n

      What Is the Relationship Between Policy and Elections?<\/h1>\n

      Students of government might assume that policy guides the decision-making of both public officials and voters. After all, the primary function of a state-elected leader\u2019s job is to craft policy (the legislative branch), implement it (the executive branch), or determine its constitutionality (the judicial branch). The job of voters is to assess and ultimately select the best candidate to follow through with these functions. It would make sense that policy would be a primary consideration in both lawmaking and voting.<\/p>\n

      Yet American elections routinely disprove this assumption. Voters overwhelmingly evaluate candidates on the basis of party and then on personal characteristics, some more relevant to the office (experience, education, expertise, etc.) than others (charisma, charm, unique background, etc.).[57]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Partisanship remains an easy cognitive shortcut for voters who are less engaged and less attentive to the political world. The old adage of evaluating candidates to find one \u201cyou\u2019d like to have a beer with\u201d may seem silly but still holds true.[58]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Campaign advertising targets what voters want, identified through extensive polling and crafted with public relations (as discussed in \u201cHow Do Polling, Public Relations, and Campaign Finance Work?\u201d<\/span><\/span>). Even debates, ironically often organized with the intention of depicting issue-driven differences among candidates, can heighten the personality features of candidates to voters.<\/p>\n

      Americans\u2019 interest in policy is limited to a handful of issues, typically those salient to the current political discourse.[59]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Many voters may care only about a couple of policies, while some are single-issue voters who judge a candidate strictly on their stance on one particular issue.[60]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> Even then, partisanship can easily supplant policies in a general election. While voters may need to be more discriminating and discerning in a competitive primary, general election voters in state elections can rely on the party label to make a strong evaluation of the candidate without complete or even comprehensive information.<\/p>\n

      The challenge is that a small subset of voters wish to have more thorough information, and in closely competitive races or races with a substantial amount of attention, candidates may be pressed to share their stances on a wide range of issues. Campaign websites provide a great medium for candidates to convey their positions within unlimited space that is easily accessible to an interested voter. Rather than issue a policy plan for every potential topic the office may encounter during a term, the campaigns are more likely to highlight the issues important to voters (again, as indicated in polling) and to the candidates themselves.<\/p>\n

      Criticism of political campaigns, especially at the state level, arises when voters, the media, or current elected officials chastise candidates for not focusing on the issues of the particular office they are seeking. This seems to occur more frequently with the nationalization of politics. On one hand, the candidates should be addressing their stances and be approached on the actual issues they would be responsible for if elected to the office they want. On the other hand, however, voters may be overwhelmed by political noise (especially if the state elections coincide with a national election cycle), may focus more on national issues, and may be less familiar with the actual responsibilities of the office.[61]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup> This presents a challenging dilemma, as voters listen chiefly to the information they are provided with, and campaigns provide information that they think voters care most about. In elections with many different offices from different levels of government (federal, state, and local) and different branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), it is hard for voters to delve too deeply into each candidate\u2019s policy preferences and consider that information in addition to other attributes such as partisanship that are incorporated in a campaign.[62]<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

      Conclusion<\/h1>\n

      Campaigns for state elections resemble federal campaigns in some aspects but in general are smaller and less expensive. The shift from political parties to candidates has given the campaigns more flexibility to frame their campaigns, but it has also required them to be more involved and responsible in the process. Primary elections give voters the chance to decide who will represent their party in the general election, but the different forms of access, from an open primary (in which anyone can participate) to a closed primary (in which only registered partisans can), will impact how limited involvement can be. General elections have higher voter turnout than primary elections, though that differs among presidential elections, which have the highest; state and congressional midterms; and finally local elections, which tend to have the lowest voter turnout.<\/p>\n

      While federal changes expanded voter enfranchisement, states still enjoy authority over elections in terms of regulations for filing, campaign finance, voter eligibility, and election options and timing. States are thus able to tailor their election laws to reflect their own interests, whether they want to make voting easier and more accessible out of a concern for democratic participation or if they want to ensure voter legitimacy and integrity by focusing on minimizing attempts or opportunities for voter fraud. Policies involving voter registration, candidate qualification, voter ID laws, and campaign finance regulations are generally decided by the states (with some small exceptions from the Voter Registration Act of 1965, as noted in \u201cVoting Laws\u201d<\/span><\/span>). Though the rules and restraints placed on elections can have a major impact on their outcomes, the role of policy is relatively minimal in state campaigns. Campaigns for state races should address several key policy areas relevant to the office, but they may not be driven by those issues. Voters can be easily overwhelmed with many factors to consider when casting their ballot, and the political noise is heightened during presidential election years or election cycles when national issues more broadly dominate the political discourse.<\/p>\n

      Campaigns in state government can be immensely valuable for voters, however, as they learn about the offices, candidates, and vision for the future of their state. Because they are smaller and closer to the people, constituents are more likely to have interactions with candidates running for these offices compared to federal ones, and these can be meaningful in shaping voters\u2019 thoughts and preferences. Campaigns at the state level are generally less expensive than those of national offices, which may require campaigns to be selective in their strategy, using polling, public relations, and professional communications when possible. At the end of the election, voters are less likely to select statewide offices, but they are more likely to be impacted by the decisions of their state government, which means these campaigns and elections are still important in daily life.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \n

      Bibliography<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

      \n

      Abramowitz, Alan I., and Steven Webster. \u201cThe Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of US Elections in the 21st Century.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 41 (2016): 12\u201322.<\/p>\n

      Alvarez, R. Michael, Thad E. Hall, and Ines Levin. \u201cLow-Information Voting: Evidence from Instant-Runoff Elections.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 46, no. 6 (2018): 1012\u20131038.<\/p>\n

      Alvarez, R. Michael, and D. Roderick Kiewiet. \u201cRationality and Rationalistic Choice in the California Recall.\u201d British Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 39, no. 2 (2009): 267\u2013290.<\/p>\n

      Andersen, David. \u201cCrowded Out: The Effects of Concurrent Elections on Political Engagement, Candidate Evaluation, and Campaign Learning in the United States.\u201d Representation<\/em><\/span> (2023): 1\u201320.<\/p>\n

      Andersen, David J. \u201cThe Down-Ballot Problem: Concurrent Elections and Cognitive Limitations on Voting Behavior.\u201d Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2010. https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=1643500<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Ansolabehere, Stephen, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cThe Decline of Competition in US Primary Elections, 1908\u20132004.\u201d The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics<\/em><\/span> 74 (2006): 82\u201396.<\/p>\n

      Ansolabehere, Stephen, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cThe Incumbency Advantage in US Primary Elections.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 26, no. 3 (2007): 660\u2013668.<\/p>\n

      Ansolabehere, Stephen, and David M. Konisky. \u201cThe Introduction of Voter Registration and Its Effect on Turnout.\u201d Political Analysis<\/em><\/span> 14, no. 1 (2006): 83\u2013100.<\/p>\n

      Anzia, Sarah F. Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups<\/em><\/span>. University of Chicago Press, 2013.<\/p>\n

      Arellano, Gustavo. \u201cRecalling California\u2019s Wild and Crazy and Crowded 2003 Gubernatorial Recall.\u201d LA Times<\/em><\/span>, March 12, 2021. https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/california\/story\/2021-03-12\/california-governor-newsom-recall-2003-gray-davis<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Augenblick, Ned, and Scott Nicholson. \u201cBallot Position, Choice Fatigue, and Voter Behaviour.\u201d Review of Economic Studies<\/em><\/span> 83, no. 2 (2016): 460\u2013480.<\/p>\n

      Aviram, Hadar, Allyson Bragg, and Chelsea Lewis. \u201cFelon Disenfranchisement.\u201d Annual Review of Law and Social Science<\/em><\/span> 13, no. 1 (2017): 295\u2013311.<\/p>\n

      Bailey, M. \u201cThe Two Sides of Money in Politics: A Synthesis and Framework.\u201d Election Law <\/em>Journal<\/em><\/span> 3, no. 4 (2004): 653\u2013669.<\/p>\n

      Barton, Jared, Marco Castillo, and Ragan Petrie. \u201cWhat Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning.\u201d Economic Journal<\/em><\/span> 124, no. 574 (2014): F293\u2013F326.<\/p>\n

      Bechtel, Michael M., Jens Hainmueller, Dominik Hangartner, and Marc Helbling. \u201cReality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues.\u201d Political Science Research and Methods<\/em><\/span> 3, no. 3 (2015): 683\u2013695.<\/p>\n

      Berry, Jeffrey M. \u201cInterest Groups and Elections.\u201d In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion<\/em><\/span>, edited by Elizabeth Suhay, Bernard Grofman, and Alexander H. Trechsel, 340. Oxford University Press, 2020.<\/p>\n

      Boatright, Robert G., Michael J. Malbin, and Brendan Glavin. \u201cIndependent Expenditures in Congressional Primaries After Citizens United: Implications for Interest Groups, Incumbents and Political Parties.\u201d Interest Groups & Advocacy<\/em><\/span> 5 (2016): 119\u2013140.<\/p>\n

      Boatright, Robert G., and Vincent G. Moscardelli. \u201cIs There a Link Between Primary Competition and General Election Results?\u201d In Routledge Handbook of Primary Elections<\/em><\/span>, 188\u2013212. Routledge, 2018.<\/p>\n

      Boatright, Robert G., Vincent G. Moscardelli, and Clifford D. Vickrey. \u201cThe Consequences of Primary Election Timing.\u201d Primary Timing Project<\/em><\/span>, June 2017.<\/p>\n

      Boatright, Robert G., Vincent G. Moscardelli, and Clifford D. Vickrey. \u201cPrimary Election Timing and Voter Turnout.\u201d Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy<\/em><\/span> 19, no. 4 (2020): 472\u2013485.<\/p>\n

      Bonneau, Chris W., and Eric Loepp. \u201cGetting Things Straight: The Effects of Ballot Design and Electoral Structure on Voter Participation.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 34 (2014): 119\u2013130.<\/p>\n

      Bower, Bruce. \u201cSimpleminded Voter: Informed Citizens Avoid Information Overload by Taking Strategic Shortcuts Before Casting Their Ballots.\u201d Science News<\/em><\/span> 174, no. 1 (2008): 22\u201325.<\/p>\n

      Brown, Matthew. \u201cGeorgia\u2019s Runoff System Was Created to Dilute Black Voting.\u201d The Washington Post<\/em><\/span>, December 5, 2022.<\/p>\n

      Broxmeyer, Jeffrey. \u201cFrom the Silver Screen to the Recall Ballot: Schwarzenegger as Terminator and Politician.\u201d New Political Science<\/em><\/span> 32, no. 1 (2010): 1\u201321.<\/p>\n

      Busch, Andrew E., ed. The Rules and Politics of American Primaries: A State-by-State Guide to Republican and Democratic Primaries and Caucuses<\/em><\/span>. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2019.<\/p>\n

      Cag\u00e9, Julia. The Price of Democracy: How Money Shapes Politics and What to Do About It<\/em><\/span>. Harvard University Press, 2020.<\/p>\n

      Carrillo, David A., Joshua Spivak, Natalie Kaliss, and Jared Madnick. \u201cCalifornia\u2019s Recall Is Not Overpowered.\u201d Santa Clara Law Review<\/em><\/span> 62 (2022): 481.<\/p>\n

      Cho, Seok-Ju, and Insun Kang. \u201cOpen Primaries and Crossover Voting.\u201d Journal of Theoretical Politics<\/em><\/span> 27, no. 3 (2015): 351\u2013379.<\/p>\n

      Clayton, Caleb, and Alison Ringhiser. \u201cPrimaries and Caucuses.\u201d Critical Questions: Institute for Civics and Public Policy, Ohio Northern University, 2024. https:\/\/digitalcommons.onu.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=critical_questions<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Cottrell, David, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith. \u201cVote-by-Mail Ballot Rejection and Experience with Mail-in Voting.\u201d American Politics Research<\/em><\/span> 49, no. 6 (2021): 577\u2013590.<\/p>\n

      Cramer, Katherine J. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker<\/em><\/span>. University of Chicago Press, 2016.<\/p>\n

      de Benedictis-Kessner, Justin. \u201cOff-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage.\u201d Journal of Politics<\/em><\/span> 80, no. 1 (2018): 119\u2013132.<\/p>\n

      Dejaeghere, Yves, and Patrick Van Erkel. \u201cThe Importance of Issue-Ownership and Salience for Voters\u2019 Knowledge of Parties\u2019 Issue Positions.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 46 (2017): 15\u201325.<\/p>\n

      Elving, Ron. \u201cThe Changing Dynamics of Campaign Media: Earned and Owned.\u201d In Campaigns and Elections American Style<\/em><\/span>, 291\u2013321. Routledge, 2023.<\/p>\n

      Feltovich, Nick, and Francesco Giovannoni. \u201cCampaign Messages, Polling, and Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 68, no. 2 (2024): 408\u2013426.<\/p>\n

      Fiorina, Morris P. \u201cParties and Partisanship: A 40-Year Retrospective.\u201d Political Behavior<\/em><\/span> 24 (2002): 93\u2013115.<\/p>\n

      Gaines, Brian J., and Wendy K. Tam Cho. \u201cCrossover Voting Before the Blanket: Primaries Versus Parties in California History.\u201d In Explorations at the Political Fault Line: California\u2019s Blanket Primary Experiment<\/em><\/span>, edited by Bruce E. Cain and Elisabeth Gerber, 26\u201356. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.<\/p>\n

      Garrett, Elizabeth. \u201cDemocracy in the Wake of the California Recall.\u201d University of <\/em>Pennsylvania Law Review<\/em><\/span> 153 (2004): 239.<\/p>\n

      Garzia, Diego. \u201cVoter Evaluation of Candidates and Party Leaders.\u201d In The SAGE Handbook of Electoral <\/em>Behaviour<\/em><\/span>, edited by K. Arzheimer, M. S. Lewis-Beck, and J. Evans, 2:633\u2013653. Sage, 2017.<\/p>\n

      Giammo, Joseph Donald. Polls and Voting Behavior: The Impact of Polling Information on Candidate Preference, Turnout, and Strategic Voting<\/em><\/span>. University of Texas at Austin, 2004.<\/p>\n

      Gilens, Martin, Shawn Patterson, and Pavielle Haines. \u201cCampaign Finance Regulations and Public Policy.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 115, no. 3 (2021): 1074\u20131081.<\/p>\n

      Golder, Matt. \u201cPresidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 50, no. 1 (2006): 34\u201348.<\/p>\n

      Heath, Oliver. \u201cTrends in Partisanship.\u201d In The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion<\/em><\/span>, 158\u2013169. Routledge, 2017.<\/p>\n

      Highton, Benjamin. \u201cVoter Registration and Turnout in the United States.\u201d Perspectives on Politics<\/em><\/span> 2, no. 3 (2004): 507\u2013515.<\/p>\n

      Hirano, Shigeo, Gabriel S. Lenz, Maksim Pinkovskiy, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cVoter Learning in State Primary Elections.\u201d American Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 59, no. 1 (2015): 91\u2013108.<\/p>\n

      Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cThe Direct Primary and Candidate-Centered Voting in US Elections.\u201d Columbia University Working Paper, 2012. https:\/\/scholar.harvard.edu\/files\/jsnyder\/files\/directprimariescandidatectr.votinguselect._0.pdf<\/span><\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

      Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder Jr. \u201cPrimary Elections and the Quality of Elected Officials.\u201d Quarterly Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 9, no. 4 (2014): 473\u2013500.<\/p>\n

      Hirano, Shigeo, and James M. Snyder Jr. Primary Elections in the United States<\/em><\/span>. Cambridge University Press, 2019.<\/p>\n

      Hirano, Shigeo, James M. Snyder Jr., Stephen Daniel Ansolabehere, and John Mark Hansen. \u201cPrimary Elections and Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Congress.\u201d Quarterly Journal of Political Science<\/em><\/span> 5, no. 2 (2010): 169\u2013191.<\/p>\n

      Hogan, Robert E. \u201cThe Costs of Representation in State Legislatures: Explaining Variations in Campaign Spending.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> (2000): 941\u2013956.<\/p>\n

      Hogan, Robert E. \u201cGubernatorial Coattail Effects in State Legislative Elections.\u201d Political Research Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 58, no. 4 (2005): 587\u2013597.<\/p>\n

      Holbrook, Thomas, and Brianne Heidbreder. \u201cDoes Measurement Matter? The Case of VAP and VEP in Models of Voter Turnout in the United States.\u201d State Politics & Policy Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 10, no. 2 (2010): 157\u2013179.<\/p>\n

      Holman, Mirya R., and J. Celeste Lay. \u201cAre You Picking Up What I Am Laying Down? Ideology in Low-Information Elections.\u201d Urban Affairs Review<\/em><\/span> 57, no. 2 (2021): 315\u2013341.<\/p>\n

      Indridason, Indridi H. \u201cCompetition & Turnout: The Majority Run-Off as a Natural Experiment.\u201d Electoral Studies<\/em><\/span> 27, no. 4 (2008): 699\u2013710.<\/p>\n

      Knack, Stephen, and Martha Kropf. \u201cRoll-Off at the Top of the Ballot: International Undervoting in American Presidential Elections.\u201d Politics & Policy<\/em><\/span> 31, no. 4 (2003): 575\u2013594.<\/p>\n

      Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. \u201cThe Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 89, no. 2 (1995): 309\u2013326.<\/p>\n

      Mann, Christopher, and Robert M. Stein. \u201cThe Impact of Polling Places on Voting.\u201d Paper presented at the Election Science Reform and Administration Conference, University of Pennsylvania, July 2019.<\/p>\n

      Mayhew, David R. Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral Settings, and Government Activity in the Twentieth Century<\/em><\/span>. Vol. 46. Princeton University Press, 2014.<\/p>\n

      McDonald, Michael P. \u201cEvery Eligible Voter Counts: Correctly Measuring American Turnout Rates.\u201d Brookings Institution Report<\/em><\/span>, September 9, 2004.<\/p>\n

      McDonald, Michael P. \u201cNational and State Turnout Rates.\u201d US Elections Project, 2024. https:\/\/www.electproject.org\/election-data\/voter-turnout-data<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel L. Popkin. \u201cThe Myth of the Vanishing Voter.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 95, no. 4 (2001): 963\u2013974.<\/p>\n

      Meredith, Marc. \u201cExploiting Friends-and-Neighbors to Estimate Coattail Effects.\u201d American Political Science Review<\/em><\/span> 107, no. 4 (2013): 742\u2013765.<\/p>\n

      Moss, Jordan. \u201cMotor Voter: From Movement to Legislation.\u201d Social Policy<\/em><\/span> 24, no. 2 (1993).<\/p>\n

      Munger, Kevin, Ishita Gopal, Jonathan Nagler, and Joshua A. Tucker. \u201cAccessibility and Generalizability: Are Social Media Effects Moderated by Age or Digital Literacy?\u201d Research & Politics<\/em><\/span> 8, no. 2 (2021). https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full\/10.1177\/20531680211016968<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Nai, Alessandro, J\u00fcrgen Maier, and Jug Vrani\u0107. \u201cPersonality Goes a Long Way (for Some): An Experimental Investigation into Candidate Personality Traits, Voters\u2019 Profile, and Perceived Likeability.\u201d Frontiers in Political Science<\/em><\/span> 3 (2021): 636\u2013745.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cPrimary Runoffs.\u201d August 8, 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/primary-runoffs<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cRecall of State Officials.\u201d September 15, 2021. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/recall-of-state-officials<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cState Limits on Contributions to Candidates: 2023\u20132024 Election Cycle.\u201d May 2023. https:\/\/documents.ncsl.org\/wwwncsl\/Elections\/Contribution-Limits-to-Candidates-2023-2024.pdf<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d February 6, 2024. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/state-primary-election-types<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      National Conference of State Legislatures. \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d December 11, 2023. https:\/\/www.ncsl.org\/elections-and-campaigns\/voter-registration-deadlines<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      National Governors Association. \u201cGovernors: Gubernatorial Elections.\u201d 2024. https:\/\/www.nga.org\/governors\/elections\/<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Nownes, Anthony J. \u201cPrimaries, General Elections, and Voter Turnout: A Multinomial Logit Model of the Decision to Vote.\u201d American Politics Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 20, no. 2 (1992): 205\u2013226.<\/p>\n

      Pew Research Center. \u201cPolitical Independents: Who They Are, What They Think.\u201d March 14, 2019. https:\/\/www.pewresearch.org\/politics\/2019\/03\/14\/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think\/<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Potrafke, Niklas, and Felix Roesel. \u201cOpening Hours of Polling Stations and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.\u201d Review of International Organizations<\/em><\/span> 15, no. 1 (2020): 133\u2013163.<\/p>\n

      Powell, Lynda W. The Influence of Campaign Contributions in State Legislatures: The Effects of Institutions and Politics<\/em><\/span>. University of Michigan Press, 2012.<\/p>\n

      Redlawsk, David P., and Richard R. Lau. \u201cI Like Him, but\u2026: Vote Choice When Candidate Likeability and Closeness on Issues Clash.\u201d In Feeling Politics: Emotion in Political <\/em>Information Processing<\/em><\/span>, 187\u2013208. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2006.<\/p>\n

      Remmel, Megan L., and Chera A. LaForge. \u201cDon\u2019t You Forget About Me: Straight-Ticket Voting and Voter Roll-Off in Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections.\u201d Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy<\/em><\/span> 20, no. 4 (2021): 395\u2013406.<\/p>\n

      Roth, Zachary. \u201cStates That Send a Mail Ballot to Every Voter Really Do Increase Turnout, Scholars Find.\u201d Missouri Independent<\/em><\/span>, October 9, 2023. https:\/\/missouriindependent.com\/2023\/10\/09\/states-that-send-a-mail-ballot-to-every-voter-really-do-increase-turnout-scholars-find\/<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

      Schur, Lisa, Mason Ameri, and Meera Adya. \u201cDisability, Voter Turnout, and Polling Place Accessibility.\u201d Social Science Quarterly<\/em><\/span> 98, no. 5 (2017): 1374\u20131390.<\/p>\n

      Smidt, Corwin E., and Dino P. Christenson. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses<\/em><\/span>. Oxford University Press, 2016.<\/p>\n

      Stratmann, Thomas. \u201cBallot Access Restrictions and Candidate Entry in Elections.\u201d European Journal of Political Economy<\/em><\/span> 21, no. 1 (2005): 59\u201371.<\/p>\n

      Stromback, Jesper, and Spiro Kiousis, eds. Political Public Relations: Concepts, Principles, and Applications<\/em><\/span>. Routledge, 2019.<\/p>\n

      Stone, Walter J., and Monti Narayan Datta. \u201cRationalizing the California Recall.\u201d PS: Political Science & Politics<\/em><\/span> 37, no. 1 (2004): 19\u201321.<\/p>\n

      Turnbull, Malcolm. \u201cPolitics, Journalism and 24\/7 News Cycle.\u201d More or Less: Democracy & New Media<\/em><\/span> (2012): 50\u201367.<\/p>\n

      Twenge, Jean M., Nathan Honeycutt, Radmila Prislin, and Ryne A. Sherman. \u201cMore Polarized but More Independent: Political Party Identification and Ideological Self-Categorization Among US Adults, College Students, and Late Adolescents, 1970\u20132015.\u201d Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin<\/em><\/span> 42, no. 10 (2016): 1364\u20131383.<\/p>\n

      Wattenberg, Martin P. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952\u20131996<\/em><\/span>. Harvard University Press, 2009.<\/p>\n

      Weschle, Simon. Money in Politics<\/em><\/span>. Cambridge University Press, 2022.<\/p>\n

      Yanich, Danilo. Buying Reality: Political Ads, Money, and Local Television News<\/em><\/span>. Fordham University Press, 2020.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      1. McDonald, \u201cNational and State Turnout Rates.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      2. McDonald and Popkin, \u201cMyth of the Vanishing Voter,\u201d 963\u2013974; McDonald, \u201cEvery Eligible Voter Counts\u201d; Holbrook and Heidbreder, \u201cDoes Measurement Matter?,\u201d 157\u2013179. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      3. Aviram, Bragg, and Lewis et al., \u201cFelon Disenfranchisement,\u201d 295\u2013311. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      4. National Governors Association, \u201cGovernors: Gubernatorial Elections.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      5. Knack and Kropf, \u201cRoll-Off at the Top,\u201d 575\u2013594. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      6. Golder, \u201cPresidential Coattails,\u201d 34\u201348; Hogan, \u201cGubernatorial Coattail Effects,\u201d 587\u2013597; Meredith, \u201cExploiting Friends-and-Neighbors,\u201d 742\u2013765. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      7. Andersen, \u201cDown-Ballot Problem.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      8. Bonneau and Loepp, \u201cGetting Things Straight,\u201d 119\u2013130; Remmel and LaForge, \u201cDon\u2019t You Forget,\u201d 395\u2013406. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      9. Hirano et al., \u201cVoter Learning,\u201d 91\u2013108. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      10. Alvarez, Hall, and Levin et al., \u201cLow-Information Voting,\u201d 1012\u20131038. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      11. Holman and Lay, \u201cAre You Picking Up?,\u201d 315\u2013341. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      12. Anzia, Timing and Turnout. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      13. Moss, \u201cMotor Voter.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      14. Highton, \u201cVoter Registration,\u201d 507\u2013515; Ansolabehere and Konisky, \u201cIntroduction of Voter Registration,\u201d 83\u2013100. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      15. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cVoter Registration Deadlines.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      16. Cottrell, Herron, and Smith et al., \u201cVote-by-Mail,\u201d 577\u2013590; Roth, \u201cStates That Send a Mail Ballot.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      17. Mann and Stein, \u201cImpact of Polling Places.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      18. Schur, Ameri, and Adya et al., \u201cDisability, Voter Turnout,\u201d 1374\u20131390. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      19. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      20. Dde Benedictis-Kessner, \u201cOff-Cycle,\u201d 119\u2013132. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      21. Potrafke and Roesel, \u201cOpening Hours,\u201d 133\u2013163. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      22. Stratmann, \u201cBallot Access,\u201d 59\u201371. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      23. Hirano and Snyder, \u201cPrimary Elections,\u201d 473\u2013500. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      24. Busch, Rules and Politics; Clayton and Ringhiser, \u201cPrimaries and Caucuses.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      25. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      26. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      27. Cho and Kang, \u201cOpen Primaries,\u201d 351\u2013379. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      28. Gaines and Cho, \u201cCrossover Voting.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      29. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Primary Election Types.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      30. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cPrimary Runoffs\u201d; Indridason, \u201cCompetition & Turnout,\u201d 699\u2013710. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      31. Brown, \u201cGeorgia\u2019s Runoff System.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      32. Busch, Rules and Politics. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      33. Smidt and Christenson,. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      34. Boatright, Moscardelli, and Vickrey et al., \u201cConsequences\u201d; Boatright, Moscardelli, and Vickrey et al., \u201cPrimary Election Timing,\u201d 472\u2013485. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      35. Nownes, \u201cPrimaries, General Elections,\u201d 205\u2013226. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      36. Ansolabehere et al., \u201cDecline of Competition,\u201d 82\u201396; Boatright and Moscardelli, \u201cIs There a Link?,\u201d 188\u2013212;. Routledge, 2018; Hirano et al., \u201cPrimary Elections,\u201d 169\u2013191. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      37. Wattenberg, Decline of American Political Parties. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      38. Hirano and Snyder, Primary Elections in the United States. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      39. Hirano and Snyder, \u201cDirect Primary.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      40. Mayhew, Placing Parties in American Politics. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      41. Fiorina, \u201cParties and Partisanship:,\u201d 93\u2013115; Heath, \u201cTrends in Partisanship,\u201d 158\u2013169; Abramowitz and Webster, \u201cRise of Negative Partisanship,\u201d 12\u201322. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      42. Twenge et al., \u201cMore Polarized,\u201d 1364\u20131383; Pew Research Center, \u201cPolitical Independents.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      43. Berry, \u201cInterest Groups and Elections,\u201d 340; Boatright, Malbin, and Glavin et al., \u201cIndependent Expenditures,\u201d 119\u2013140. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      44. Turnbull, \u201cPolitics, Journalism,\u201d 50\u201367. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      45. Munger et al., \u201cAccessibility and Generalizability.,\u201d 20531680211016968. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      46. Giammo, Polls and Voting Behavior; Feltovich and Giovannoni, \u201cCampaign Messages,\u201d 408\u2013426. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      47. Yanich,. Buying Reality. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      48. Stromback and Kiousis, Political Public Relations. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      49. Elving, \u201cChanging Dynamics,\u201d 291\u2013321. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      50. Barton, Castillo, and Petrie et al., \u201cWhat Persuades Voters?,\u201d F293\u2013F326. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      51. Weschle, Money in Politics; Cag\u00e9, Price of Democracy; Bailey, \u201cTwo Sides of Money,\u201d 653\u2013669. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      52. Powell, Influence of Campaign Contributions. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      53. Hogan, \u201cCosts of Representation,\u201d 941\u2013956. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      54. Ansolabehere et al., \u201cIncumbency Advantage,\u201d 660\u2013668. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      55. Gilens, Patterson, and Haines et al., \u201cCampaign Finance,\u201d 1074\u20131081. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      56. National Conference of State Legislatures, \u201cState Limits.\u201d ↵<\/a><\/li>
      57. Garzia, \u201cVoter Evaluation,\u201d 633\u2013653; Lodge, Steenbergen, and Brau et al., \u201cResponsive Voter,\u201d 309\u2013326. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      58. Nai, Maier, and Vrani\u0107 et al., \u201cPersonality Goes a Long Way,\u201d 636\u2013745; Redlawsk and Lau, \u201cI Like Him,\u201d 187\u2013208. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      59. Bechtel et al., \u201cReality Bites,\u201d 683\u2013695. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      60. Dejaeghere and Van Erkel, \u201cImportance of Issue-Ownership,\u201d 15\u201325. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      61. Andersen, \u201cCrowded Out,\u201d 1\u201320. ↵<\/a><\/li>
      62. Bower, \u201cSimpleminded Voter,\u201d 22\u201325; Augenblick and Nicholson, \u201cBallot Position,\u201d 460\u2013480. ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":18,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["laura-merrifield-wilson"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[62],"license":[],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":521,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58\/revisions\/521"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=58"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=58"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/theexcitingdynamicsofstateandlocalgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=58"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}