Introduction

• Author: Soren Jordan,Cynthia J. Bowling
• Date: 01 December 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17699527
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Subject Matter: Introduction

Introduction
State and Local Government Review
2016, Vol. 48(4) 220-226
Introduction: The State of
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
Polarization in the States
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17699527
journals.sagepub.com/home/slg
Soren Jordan1 and Cynthia J. Bowling1
Keywords
polarization, states, politics, policies
In American politics, the two major political
impact and complicate policymaking in states
parties are more separated ideologically than at
(Gamkhar and Pickerill 2012; Bowling and
any point in the last fifty years. This separation,
Pickerill 2013). States make policy on most
commonly referred to as polarization, implies an
issues directly impacting their citizens as well
intense disagreement in the preferred policy
as implement federal law and rules: in these
solutions and preferences of political actors. It
“laboratories of democracy,” policy can be
is well known that American political elites,
innovative, mainstream, or ideologically
especially those in the national political context,
extreme. Thus, it becomes extremely important
have been polarized for some time (Theriault
to investigate the extent of polarization among
2008; Fleisher and Bond 2004; Wood and
state elites and among individuals within states
Jordan Forthcoming). Evidence at the mass level
to understand the effect of either form of polar-
is more mixed; it is unclear whether American
ization on the politics within the states.
individuals hold relatively moderate (Fiorina,
The special issue of State and Local Govern-
Abrams, and Pope 2011) or more extreme
ment Review begins this exploration. It features
(Abramowitz and Saunders 2008) policy posi-
five articles illustrating important potential
tions. At the very least, citizens’ evaluations of
consequence of polarization within the states.
the other party have grown more extremely neg-
The articles address changing an individual’s
ative (so-called affective polarization; Iyengar
perception of state governments, citizen eva-
and Westwood 2015).
luations of the policy outputs of the states, and,
While polarization in the national political
perhaps more importantly, the effects of polar-
arena is evident with every media story as well
ization on the policy outputs themselves. We
as at the forefront of American politics
introduce these papers individually after briefly
research, we have had less exploration of this
outlining the broader improvements in data
phenomenon at any subnational level. State
availability that have made such state-level
government scholars have measured ideology
research a possibility.
of citizens and elites (Erikson, Wright, and
McIver 1993; Berry et al. 1998), party compe-
tition (Ranney 1976), and divided government
(Bowling and Ferguson 2001). More recently,
1 Department of Political Science, Auburn University,
Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope (2011) made a
Auburn, AL, USA
cross-state comparisons of political polariza-
Corresponding Author:
tion. Broadly, over the last several years, scho-
Soren Jordan, Department of Political Science, Auburn
lars have begun discussing “fragmented
University, 7080 Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
federalism” or how party polarization might
Email: scj0014@auburn.edu

---

Jordan and Bowling
221
New Data for State-level
explanation). Additionally, new statistical
Polarization
advances have allowed scholars to pool
national estimates of individual opinion to
Scholars have long recognized the importance
inform estimates of local opinion (Warshaw
of states as independent units in policy creation
and Rodden 2012). Both new data and new
and variation; states are the laboratories of
methods have allowed us to measure only
democracy. From the earliest studies of policy
recently the quantities of interest—individual-
innovation (Walker 1969), scholars of state pol-
level opinion—at the subnational level.
itics and federalism have noted the leading role
Second, quality data for elites, like state leg-
of states in making and implementing policies
islatures, are also notoriously problematic,
that then spread across the other states. States
especially when attempting to build time-
also make choices in creating innovative or
series cross sections of all fifty states over an
individualized programs as they implement
extended amount of time. Here, the discipline
federal policy, such as the Affordable Care Act
owes a debt to Shor and McCarty (2011). They
(ACA), Medicaid, or Race to the Top education
collected data on individual state legislators in
initiatives. With party polarization comes the
all fifty states from 1993 to present and then
potential for policy choices to become ideologi-
used Bayesian item response models to scale
cally more divergent and/or extreme.
legislator responses to ideal points. They use
However, there has been little work investi-
the National Political Awareness Test from
gating the extent of polarization in the states or
Project Vote Smart to project the legislatures
the effects of that polarization. For the most
into a common space across the states. These
part, the problem has been one of data avail-
data allow scholars potentially to make com-
ability, not scholarly interest. The data problem
parisons across individual legislators, across
is twofold. First, quality data with reliable sam-
chambers within states, and, ultimately, across
ples for individuals (for instance, for measuring
legislators or chambers...