Month: January 2026

Voting access reforms and policy feedback effects on political efficacy and trust

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced states to rethink election administration across the United States. To make voting safer, many states expanded mail voting options like no-excuse absentee voting (NEAV) and universal vote-by-mail (UVBM). While some scholars have studied how these reforms affect turnout, few have examined whether they influence voters’ trust in government itself. This article looks beyond turnout to ask a deeper question: Do voting access reforms change how citizens feel about their ability to participate in and trust government? The authors use a policy feedback lens to guide their inquiry.

Hypotheses

The authors test three hypotheses, with the understanding that partisanship and state politics may shape these effects:

  1. Internal Efficacy: NEAV and UVBM increase individuals’ sense of competence in political participation. 
  2. External Efficacy: NEAV and UVBM increase individuals’ belief that government is responsive to them.
  3. Government Trust: NEAV and UVBM increase individuals’ trust in government.

Methodology

Using survey data from the American National Election Studies and state-level records of voting reforms, the authors used a statistical modeling approach called difference-in-difference estimation to compare states before and after adopting mail voting. They specifically estimated the average treatment effect of these reforms on internal efficacy, external efficacy, and trust in government. Subgroup analyses also explored overall trends and differences by party and state political control.

Key Findings

Making Voting Easier Doesn’t Boost Confidence

Table 1 reveals that adopting NEAV or UVBM did not significantly increase people’s sense of political competence or voice. In other words, the authors explain, making voting easier does not automatically make people feel more empowered. This finding challenges the assumption that lowering barriers builds democratic confidence; rather, it suggests that turnout gains from mail voting likely come from convenience, not deeper psychological engagement. Hypotheses 1 and 2 are therefore not supported.

Image Description

Table 1. Estimated average treatment on the treated (group aggregation by sample).

Limiting Choice May  Undercut Trust in Voting Reforms

Figure 1 shows that neither NEAV nor UVBM mail voting reforms consistently improved trust in government, providing no support for H3. The authors even found some evidence that UVBM may undercut trust in government. The authors therefore argue that limiting access to in-person voting options, as typically occurs under UVBM systems, may inhibit the intended confidence-building effects of reforms. 

Image Description

Figure 1. The group-average ATT estimate of the effect of UVBM adoption on each outcome by subsample.

Why It Matters

This article finds that expanding mail voting has not increased trust or feelings of empowerment amongst voters. The authors aim to reframe debates about election reforms, arguing that policymakers should focus on normative goals, like fairness and accessibility, rather than psychological or partisan benefits. They also argue that future research should develop better tools to measure trust and efficacy and explore whether repeated exposure to new voting systems changes attitudes over time.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Trexler, Andrew, Marayna Martinez and Mallory E. SoRelle 2025. “Voting Access Reforms and Policy Feedback Effects on Political Efficacy and Trust.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 524-540. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70022.

About the Article’s Authors

Andrew Trexler is a PhD candidate in public policy and political science at Duke University. His research examines political communication, public opinion, and political behavior, with a focus on the United States. He draws on draw on a wide range of tools, including experimental methods, survey methods, text analysis, and machine learning. His work engages with several scholarly disciplines, including political science, public policy, mass communication, and psychology.

Marayna Martinez is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on race and ethnic politics, political behavior, policy feedback, and K12 education policy. She is particularly interested in the feedback effects of public education on the political development of children of color. Her work has appeared in various journals, including Politics, Groups, and Identities and Policy Studies Journal.

Mallory E. SoRelle is an assistant professor of public policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Her research investigates how public policies influence socioeconomic and political inequality in the United States. She is the author of Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection, which explores the political response—by policymakers, public interest groups, and ordinary Americans—to one of the most consequential economic policy issues in the United States: consumer credit and financial regulation.

, , , ,

The dynamics of constituency representation on immigration policy in the U.S. house

Immigration policy used to be a bipartisan issue, but now it is one of the most divisive in American politics. This study explores how lawmakers’ behavior changed as immigration became a party-defining issue–and what that means for the way Congress represents the foreign-born population. Using immigration bills in the House of Representatives from 1983 to 2014, email newsletters from 2010 to 2020, and data on district characteristics the authors ask: Do representatives still respond to immigrant populations in their districts, or does representation depend on which party wins the seat?

Expectations

The authors set out to discover whether polarization on this issue changed the mechanism of representation. They expect that as the issue polarizes, immigrations positions will depend more on party than on the size of the foreign-born population in the district, and that the effect of the foreign born population will occur via the electoral mechanism – influencing which party holds the seat – rather than by lawmakers’ in the same party holding positions that align with district characteristics. They also expect that under polarization the constituency effect will shift to predicting how active lawmakers are on the issue, rather than their positions.

Methodology

To test their expectations, the authors use three sources to measure lawmakers’ positions on immigration: floor speeches, email newsletters, and an original data set of immigration-related bills. Then, using regression models, they estimate the relationship between district demographics and legislators’ positions.

Key Findings

The Partisan Divide Has Grown

Figure 1 reveals the dramatic divergence of immigration positions over time between the two political parties. While Republicans move sharply toward anti-immigration positions, Democrats grew more supportive of immigration. This finding suggests that immigration has become a core partisan issue in U.S. politics, leaving little room for bipartisan collaboration.

Image Description

Figure 1. OLS coefficients of republican partisanship on pro-immigration positions. Figures report coefficients on Republican partisanship from OLS models estimate for each dependent variable in each Congress. Y-axes are on different scales.

The Mechanism of Representation Has Changed

Figure 2 suggests that immigrant populations still matter–but indirectly. Instead of shaping individual lawmakers’ positions, foreign-born constituents hold more influence on which party wins the congressional seat itself, in part because they have become a more Democratic constituency. While Democrats representing districts with larger foreign-born populations. The correlation between the foreign-born population and legislators’ positions has actually become stronger, but it now passes through partisanship rather than dyadic responsiveness.

Image Description

Figure 2. OLS coefficient of foreign-born percentage (10-point increments) on immigration positions over time.

Asymmetrical Activism

Figure 3 shows that Democrats with higher shares of immigrant constituents tend to be more active on immigration (e.g., sponsoring bills, giving speeches, and mentioning immigration in emails). On the other hand, Republicans show no such trend. Instead, the most conservative Republicans are the most active on immigration. For Democrats, the immigration agenda is set by representatives of immigrant communities, while for Republicans it is set by the conservative wing.

Image Description

Figure 3. Effect of percentage foreign born on the number of actions by party.

Why It Matters

Polarization has transformed how representation works. This article explores how party sorting reshapes legislative behavior and agenda-setting on immigration. For immigrant communities, influence now depends on influencing which party wins the election. The authors insist that future research should explore whether similar patterns occur on other party-defining issues, and how local advocacy strategies adapt in an era of deep national divides.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Cayton, Adam and Lena Siemers. 2025. “The Dynamics of Constituency Representation on Immigration Policy in the U.S. House.” Policy Studies Journal 53(2): 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12579.

About the Article’s Authors

Adam Cayton is an associate professor in the Reubin O’D. Askew Department of Government at the University of West Florida. His research focuses on legislative representation. He received a Ph.D. from The University of Colorado – Boulder, and a B.A. from The University of North Carolina at Asheville.

Lena Siemers is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Her research focuses on migrant and refugee studies. She received a M.A. from the University of West Florida and a B.A. from the University of South Alabama.

, , ,