Experience

Publications

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• Judicial Primary Elections: A Study of Texas High Courts

  Midsouth Political Science Review.

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• Judicial Primary Elections: A Study of Texas High Courts

  Midsouth Political Science Review.

• Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in State Legislative Primaries

  Journal of Power, Politics and Governance.

  his study uses a novel set of data from the National Institute for Money in State Politics to understand the impact that ballot access rules have on the emergence of women candidates the state legislative primary elections from 2001-2010. Most studies examine the candidacy decisions of women by studying their individual motivations and ambitious, but ignore institutional arrangements which produce potential opportunity costs and organizational costs. The data in this study clearly show that ballot access rules like signature requirements and filing fees pose undue costs on women candidates and decrease their likelihood of running for state legislative office. A binary cross sectional time series model with fixed effects is used to test hypotheses across 49 states and over 37,000 primary races.

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• Judicial Primary Elections: A Study of Texas High Courts

  Midsouth Political Science Review.

• Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in State Legislative Primaries

  Journal of Power, Politics and Governance.

  his study uses a novel set of data from the National Institute for Money in State Politics to understand the impact that ballot access rules have on the emergence of women candidates the state legislative primary elections from 2001-2010. Most studies examine the candidacy decisions of women by studying their individual motivations and ambitious, but ignore institutional arrangements which produce potential opportunity costs and organizational costs. The data in this study clearly show that ballot access rules like signature requirements and filing fees pose undue costs on women candidates and decrease their likelihood of running for state legislative office. A binary cross sectional time series model with fixed effects is used to test hypotheses across 49 states and over 37,000 primary races.

• Executive Type and Trade Protection in the 1990’s: Where’s the Pork?

  Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy

  Throughout the 1990’s the levels of trade protection have decreased across most nations. However, some countries are more protectionist than others. Extending work done in the United States cross nationally, this paper seeks to discern what institutional arrangements lead to higher levels of protection. By looking at macroeconomic and political institutions data from 1990 to 2000, this paper develops a model of trade protection that suggests that presidential systems are overall less protectionist than parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems have higher tariff rates than other systems, but this is contingent on the type of electoral system. This paper also finds evidence that strong executives are able to circumvent the legislature to provide pork on their own. The findings in this paper suggest that globalization does not limit the choices of nations.

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• Judicial Primary Elections: A Study of Texas High Courts

  Midsouth Political Science Review.

• Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in State Legislative Primaries

  Journal of Power, Politics and Governance.

  his study uses a novel set of data from the National Institute for Money in State Politics to understand the impact that ballot access rules have on the emergence of women candidates the state legislative primary elections from 2001-2010. Most studies examine the candidacy decisions of women by studying their individual motivations and ambitious, but ignore institutional arrangements which produce potential opportunity costs and organizational costs. The data in this study clearly show that ballot access rules like signature requirements and filing fees pose undue costs on women candidates and decrease their likelihood of running for state legislative office. A binary cross sectional time series model with fixed effects is used to test hypotheses across 49 states and over 37,000 primary races.

• Executive Type and Trade Protection in the 1990’s: Where’s the Pork?

  Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy

  Throughout the 1990’s the levels of trade protection have decreased across most nations. However, some countries are more protectionist than others. Extending work done in the United States cross nationally, this paper seeks to discern what institutional arrangements lead to higher levels of protection. By looking at macroeconomic and political institutions data from 1990 to 2000, this paper develops a model of trade protection that suggests that presidential systems are overall less protectionist than parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems have higher tariff rates than other systems, but this is contingent on the type of electoral system. This paper also finds evidence that strong executives are able to circumvent the legislature to provide pork on their own. The findings in this paper suggest that globalization does not limit the choices of nations.

• The History of Judicial Selection Reform in Texas

  British Journal of American Legal Studies

  Texas is often considered the perfect illustration for the recent era of judicial selection politics complete with the huge amounts of campaign financing, intense interest group participation, and plenty of mudslinging evident in many states that use some form of election process to choose their judges. Several states have also experienced their share of scandals that have resulted in reform movements and significant changes. Major scandals have rocked the Texas judiciary but only incremental reforms have been successful despite reform efforts spanning decades. This begs the question – why? This article uses a detailed case study approach to try to offer an explanation. The findings are complex, with both institutional and political reasons, but the story is definitely an interesting one.

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• Judicial Primary Elections: A Study of Texas High Courts

  Midsouth Political Science Review.

• Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in State Legislative Primaries

  Journal of Power, Politics and Governance.

  his study uses a novel set of data from the National Institute for Money in State Politics to understand the impact that ballot access rules have on the emergence of women candidates the state legislative primary elections from 2001-2010. Most studies examine the candidacy decisions of women by studying their individual motivations and ambitious, but ignore institutional arrangements which produce potential opportunity costs and organizational costs. The data in this study clearly show that ballot access rules like signature requirements and filing fees pose undue costs on women candidates and decrease their likelihood of running for state legislative office. A binary cross sectional time series model with fixed effects is used to test hypotheses across 49 states and over 37,000 primary races.

• Executive Type and Trade Protection in the 1990’s: Where’s the Pork?

  Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy

  Throughout the 1990’s the levels of trade protection have decreased across most nations. However, some countries are more protectionist than others. Extending work done in the United States cross nationally, this paper seeks to discern what institutional arrangements lead to higher levels of protection. By looking at macroeconomic and political institutions data from 1990 to 2000, this paper develops a model of trade protection that suggests that presidential systems are overall less protectionist than parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems have higher tariff rates than other systems, but this is contingent on the type of electoral system. This paper also finds evidence that strong executives are able to circumvent the legislature to provide pork on their own. The findings in this paper suggest that globalization does not limit the choices of nations.

• The History of Judicial Selection Reform in Texas

  British Journal of American Legal Studies

  Texas is often considered the perfect illustration for the recent era of judicial selection politics complete with the huge amounts of campaign financing, intense interest group participation, and plenty of mudslinging evident in many states that use some form of election process to choose their judges. Several states have also experienced their share of scandals that have resulted in reform movements and significant changes. Major scandals have rocked the Texas judiciary but only incremental reforms have been successful despite reform efforts spanning decades. This begs the question – why? This article uses a detailed case study approach to try to offer an explanation. The findings are complex, with both institutional and political reasons, but the story is definitely an interesting one.

• Where do Women Run? A Case for Women Friendly Districts.

  Where do Women Run? A Case for Women Friendly Districts.

  This study explores the political, institutional, and socio-demographic factors that contribute to the entry of women candidates in state legislative primaries. Using a dataset constructed from 49 partisan state legislative primary elections from 2001- 2010, a binary time series cross-sectional logistic model is used to determine which factors are independently related to the probability of a woman candidate running for office. Women candidates run in districts that have a higher income, more professional people, are typically in cities with a higher urban population. Women candidates typically do not run in states with more professionalized legislatures, but are more likely to run in districts that are in session longer. Women are more likely to be present in districts where there is a lot of competition for a seat, i.e. multimember districts. The electoral environment that women face is different than men.

• An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisprudence Matter?

  Journal of Politics and Law

  The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

• Judicial Primary Elections: A Study of Texas High Courts

  Midsouth Political Science Review.

• Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in State Legislative Primaries

  Journal of Power, Politics and Governance.

  his study uses a novel set of data from the National Institute for Money in State Politics to understand the impact that ballot access rules have on the emergence of women candidates the state legislative primary elections from 2001-2010. Most studies examine the candidacy decisions of women by studying their individual motivations and ambitious, but ignore institutional arrangements which produce potential opportunity costs and organizational costs. The data in this study clearly show that ballot access rules like signature requirements and filing fees pose undue costs on women candidates and decrease their likelihood of running for state legislative office. A binary cross sectional time series model with fixed effects is used to test hypotheses across 49 states and over 37,000 primary races.

• Executive Type and Trade Protection in the 1990’s: Where’s the Pork?

  Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy

  Throughout the 1990’s the levels of trade protection have decreased across most nations. However, some countries are more protectionist than others. Extending work done in the United States cross nationally, this paper seeks to discern what institutional arrangements lead to higher levels of protection. By looking at macroeconomic and political institutions data from 1990 to 2000, this paper develops a model of trade protection that suggests that presidential systems are overall less protectionist than parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems have higher tariff rates than other systems, but this is contingent on the type of electoral system. This paper also finds evidence that strong executives are able to circumvent the legislature to provide pork on their own. The findings in this paper suggest that globalization does not limit the choices of nations.

• The History of Judicial Selection Reform in Texas

  British Journal of American Legal Studies

  Texas is often considered the perfect illustration for the recent era of judicial selection politics complete with the huge amounts of campaign financing, intense interest group participation, and plenty of mudslinging evident in many states that use some form of election process to choose their judges. Several states have also experienced their share of scandals that have resulted in reform movements and significant changes. Major scandals have rocked the Texas judiciary but only incremental reforms have been successful despite reform efforts spanning decades. This begs the question – why? This article uses a detailed case study approach to try to offer an explanation. The findings are complex, with both institutional and political reasons, but the story is definitely an interesting one.

• Where do Women Run? A Case for Women Friendly Districts.

  Where do Women Run? A Case for Women Friendly Districts.

  This study explores the political, institutional, and socio-demographic factors that contribute to the entry of women candidates in state legislative primaries. Using a dataset constructed from 49 partisan state legislative primary elections from 2001- 2010, a binary time series cross-sectional logistic model is used to determine which factors are independently related to the probability of a woman candidate running for office. Women candidates run in districts that have a higher income, more professional people, are typically in cities with a higher urban population. Women candidates typically do not run in states with more professionalized legislatures, but are more likely to run in districts that are in session longer. Women are more likely to be present in districts where there is a lot of competition for a seat, i.e. multimember districts. The electoral environment that women face is different than men.

• Texas Judicial Elections: A Quantitative Analysis

  Journal of Political Science

  Campaign financing and party identification are generally considered to be the most important explanatory variables in determining judicial election outcomes, judicial primary elections make it possible to test the importance of other explanatory variables by controlling for party identification. The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also makes it possible to test the role of campaign financing. This article compares primary elections for these two courts of last resort by using logit analysis in an effort to explain election outcomes from 1988 until 2004. The hypothesis that differences in jurisdiction would also create systematic differences in the selection politics for these two courts was supported by the results of this study.