This paper is the result of a nationwide study of polling place dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Research teams, recruited from local colleges and universities and located in twenty-eight election jurisdictions across the United States, observed and timed voters as they entered the queue at their respective polling places and then voted. We report results about four specific polling place operations and practices: the length of the check-in line, the number of voters leaving the check-in line once they have joined it, the time for a voter to check in to vote (i.e., verify voter’s identification and obtain a ballot), and the time to complete a ballot. Long lines, waiting times, and times to vote are closely related to time of day (mornings are busiest for polling places). We found the recent adoption of photographic voter identification (ID) requirements to have a disparate effect on the time to check in among white and nonwhite polling places. In majority-white polling places, scanning a voter’s driver’s license speeds up the check-in process. In majority nonwhite polling locations, the effect of strict voter ID requirements increases time to check in, albeit modestly.

Recent scholarship shows relatively low public approval for the president's use of unilateral powers, yet public attitudes are often susceptible to framing effects. We conduct a series of survey experiments to explore attitudes toward unilateral power while varying a range of contextual features, including the identity of the president, the unilateral tool used, the justification for the action, and the policy pursued. We find little evidence that context affects attitudes toward unilateral powers except in circumstances that invoke explicitly political factors. Our findings have important implications for understanding how public opinion responds to presidential power.

Good education requires student experiences that deliver lessons about practice as well as theory and that encourage students to work for the public good—especially in the operation of democratic institutions (Dewey 1923; Dewy 1938). We report on an evaluation of the pedagogical value of a research project involving 23 colleges and universities across the country. Faculty trained and supervised students who observed polling places in the 2016 General Election. Our findings indicate that this was a valuable learning experience in both the short and long terms. Students found their experiences to be valuable and reported learning generally and specifically related to course material. Postelection, they also felt more knowledgeable about election science topics, voting behavior, and research methods. Students reported interest in participating in similar research in the future, would recommend other students to do so, and expressed interest in more learning and research about the topics central to their experience. Our results suggest that participants appreciated the importance of elections and their study. Collectively, the participating students are engaged and efficacious—essential qualities of citizens in a democracy.

Objective. This article examines how people's lived experience of local weather might influence climate policy preferences in the presence of strong partisan bias. Methods. Using a comprehensive dataset combining four-wave panel survey responses from U.S. residents over three years with geocoded data on their local weather experience, we evaluate the impacts of local weather variations on beliefs about climate change, risk perceptions of climate change, and climate policy preferences. The panel structure of our data allows us to causally identify how one's actual experience of weather modifies climate change opinions over time. Results. We find that both long-and short-term unusual local weather experiences change individuals' climate change opinions and preferences on climate change policy. Conclusion. One's lived experience alters beliefs in climate change, risk perceptions of climate change, and preferences for government climate policy even in the context of strong partisan bias.

No abstract