The national government can force or entice state governments to act on policy through a variety of actions, including providing monetary incentives and sanctions. We examine how and under what conditions actions of the national government influence the diffusion of policy across the states. We test our hypotheses on the cases of the diffusion of partial birth abortion laws, truth-in-sentencing laws, and hate crime laws using event history analysis on pooled cross-sectional data from the 50 states. Our results suggest that, in addition to fiscal incentives, the national government can influence state policymaking when it sends strong, clear signals to the states concerning its preferences and the potential for future action. But even national-level signals that are weak and ambiguous may influence state policymaking indirectly.

The theoretical and empirical debate over the ability of the U.S. Supreme Court to influence public opinion through its decisions is far from settled. Scholars have examined the question using a variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence, but there is no theoretical consensus, nor are the empirical studies without methodological weaknesses. We enter this debate in an attempt to bring some clarity to the theoretical approaches, overcome some of the methodological shortcomings, and bring a yet unstudied issue area, Court decisions on gay civil rights, under scrutiny. We argue that the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is a function of the salience of the issue, the political context, and case specific factors at the aggregate level. At the individual level these factors are also relevant, but citizen characteristics must also be taken into consideration. Our analysis of aggregate level and individual level opinion does indeed suggest that Court decisions can influence public opinion. However, the ability of Court decisions to influence public opinion is conditional. Our findings lend support to the legitimation hypothesis and the structural effects model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings and suggestions for future research.

Since the late 1960s, the number and types of organized interest groups working at the state level have increased dramatically, but research shows that traditional organized interest groups, such as business and labor unions, are still the most influential in state policymaking (Thomas and Hrebenar 1996). Less is known, however, about the influence of non‐economically focused interest groups in the state policy process. Using pooled cross‐sectional data from the American states, I explore the effect that nontraditional organized interests can have on state policy. Specifically, I examine the influence of the Humane Society of the United States on state adoption of animal cruelty felony laws. Although the Humane Society is not one of the traditional groups expected to have a significant influence in state policymaking, my results suggest that it has played a significant role. However, I also find that the Humane Society's influence on the stringency of these laws is less pronounced.

Given the central importance of news media in providing the public with information about court decisions,this study examines variations in local and national media coverage of the Supreme Court decision on a Texas antisodomy law known as Lawrence v. Texas.The authors use content analysis of newspaper articles to test hypotheses concerning how media coverage of the case might vary by media outlet. The authors assess bias by examining overall coverage and the tone of coverage.The analysis suggests that media outlets varied in their coverage of the case,with states that had existing sodomy laws providing more coverage,and that some outlets tended to be more biased in their tone than others. The analysis confirms the importance of local relevance,but the authors also find that media outlet size and political context may play a role in determining coverage of an issue.