Political participation Americans don't vote because of apathy? No. Americans don't register to vote.

Once Americans register to vote, they will vote (?) > motor voter law other factors > age > race > perception of election > party organization > barriers to register most powerful determinants of participation: > schooling, information, and age race matters as well, but when the controls are in place for socioeconomic structure, then participation rates are the same. Americans vote at lower rates, more frequently, and for more offices elections make a big difference in the us Americans engage more frequently in non electoral forms of participation (write letters to reps, attend meetings/rallies, etc.) why are the rates so low? > bewildering number of elected offices (over 5000000) > too much info for the voters to familiarize themselves with > too much democracy? names, policies, sheer volume of elections > mechanics of voting (register, polling places, time)

Constitutional Basis for Suffrage Article 1, Section 2 requires each state to allow those qualified to vote for their own legislatures as well as the house of reps. 15th Amendment: freed slaves right to vote 17th: Eligible voters elect senators directly (seventeen: se, senators: se) 19th: women (iron jawed angels) 24th: outlaw the poll tax as a requirement for voting 26th: right of 18 year olds to vote in both state and federal elections Australian Ballots introduced during the Progressive office

Legal Basis for Suffrage Voting Rights Act 1957, 1960, 1965 increased opportunities for minorities to register to vote and prevent state interference in the voting


PARTY Identification > illustrates a voter's preference and loyalty to a political party > identify with a political party based on the political values one develops during the socialization process > more people identify as Democrats than Republicans > more Democrats and Republicans than independents > when party identification decreases for both parties and moves to independents, it is called dealignment d: african americans, jews, women, labor unioners, urban areas, income under 50,000 r: men, WASPs, business and corporate execs, rural areas, incomes over 50,000 divided government > one political party having control of 1 branch of government while the other political party controls another > > 1994: Bill Clinton w/Republican congress barriers to voting > registration process > voter fatigue (long ballot) > lack of strong candidate > > winner take all; two party system > type of elections/number of elections/day of elections > difficulty of getting absentee ballots requirements to vote > residency > age > registration > non-felon > citizenship who votes? > better educated > older > higher incomes > whites v. blacks besides voting, what are other ways people can get involved? > campaign work > campaign contributions > community activity > general involvement in the community and with campaigns political parties > political parties exist in three arenas > > among voters who identify with it > > grassroots organizations led/staffed by activists

> > elected officials who seek to act upon its ideals parties at the local level: > political machine > solidarity group > ideological party > sponsored party > personal followings national parties are weak coalitions of these local frames as organizations that influence political systems, parties are even weaker voters no longer identify with parties (!?) > is it better to win or be ideologically pure? The spread of the direct primary has made it harder for parties to control who is nominated for elective office, thus making it harder for the parties to influence the behavior of the office holders they once elected. Delegate selection, especially in the Democratic Party, have contributed to shifting power from the officeholders and toward the ideological wings. Minor parties have arisen from time to time, but the only ones that have affected the outcome of presidential elections have been those that represented a splinter group within one of the major parties. (I.E. Bull Moose, Tea Party) The two party system is maintained, and minor parties are discouraged, by an election system of winner take all plurality elections voters feel that voting for a 3rd party may be a waste of a vote, so why vote 3rd party? AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL democrats > torn by ideological differences > more factional > mobilize activists and concile activists > put forth a more liberal candidate republicans > bureaucratic > devoted to winning > raise $ > provide consulting services > appeal to middle class with What do shooting stars and third parties have in common? > you make a wish on them and nothing happens > they are temporary FRQ

What's up with third parties? > tend to represent social or economic protests that is not given voice by major parties > rarely successful in winning elections or even becoming a stable party > > winner take all plurality > > > Electoral College (division of votes is by state) > > Republicans take a notable exception when they defeated the Whigs in 1856 to become the opposition to the Democrats > can wield more influence than electoral size because their programs become co-opted by major party candidates (FDR and Social Security [originally a Socialist idea] - Francis Perkins) > > Huey Long > > does this explain why third parties don't last long? > primary and national convention system can allow dissidence to influence the choice of candidates > > Michelle Bachmann >perception that a third party vote is a wasted vote under our plurality system Types of Third Parties > ideological: a comprehensive view of American society radically different than the two major parties > > libertarians > > communists > one-issue > > prohibition, "know-nothing" > economic protest: usually based in one region that protests economic conditions > > Populists > > Greenbacks > factional: parties created by a split from a main party which can be very damaging to the party in which the division has occurred > > Bull Moose Party > > Ralph Nader in 2000 > > Dixiecrats The Electoral Process > Self Announcement > Caucus > > Group of politically minded people come together and make decision > Convention > > Party convention to nominate a presidential candidate, the idea being that local voices are heard via caucus and election [primaries] and then at the national level, a consensus is made > > Conventions have come to dominate local elections in that the 'power brokers' try to influence every stage of the decisions making > Direct Primary > > Used as party nominating elections > > Closed versus Open Elections > Election laws are designed to protect the integrity of elections. Constitutionally, Congress has the power to set the elections of members of Congress, as well as the dates and times for the Presidential elections. > > Most states use the same date for state elections as for the Congressional elections > The appeal of the Coattail Effect: Stronger candidates help bring in votes for lesser known or popular candidates > Vocabulary

> > Precinct - voting district > > Polling place - where voters go in their precinct > > Ballot - we now use the secret ballot > > Voting Machines > > Electronic vote counting > > Vote-by-mail Electoral College > Winner take all (except for Main and Nebraska) > > win popular vote, get all of the electoral votes > Electors vote in December and are not legally bound to vote for state winner > Popular vote victor may lose electoral vote > > Eg: 1824, 1876, 1888 elected Adams, Hayes, and Harrison respectively > > 2000; Gore won popular vote, Bush won electoral college > 270 votes needed to win the electoral college soft money: money goes to party (unlimited amounts can be given) hard money: direct donation to candidate (restricted amount) Buckley v. Valeo (1976) > Reviewed campaign finance law set up as a result of the FEC that set limits on hard money and no limits on soft money. > Issue: Do campaign finance donation limits violate the 1st amendment right of free speech? Should these donations be considered a form of political free speech? Court ruling: 1. Hard money donation restrictions did not violate free speech because the intent was to prevent corruption in the electoral system 2. Limits on soft money were unconstitutional and do violate free speech Citizens United v. FEC (2010) [latest ruling] > 5-4 ruling > > Government may not ban political spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections > eliminates McCain-Feingold limit on corporation or union sponsored ads (issue ads) Interest Groups > main goal: provide information political parties > label > run for/win office > legislative/executive branch > appeal to electorate > wide range of views Interest groups > narrow in focus > have an agenda > don't run people for office

> policy making power? > narrow group PACs financial wing of interest groups. give $5,000 to a candidate per PAC (50 members) Linkage institution > connect citizens with formal institutions of government > Act as an umbrella for congress primary responsibility to heir district (constituents) not to congressional leadership, party, or nogress as an institution differences between house and senate minimum age (25, 30) us citizenship (7, 9) term length (2, 6) number of reps per state (varies, 2 per) constituency (local (homogeneous), local and national (heterogeneous)) In a rep. government, how do we know that those who call themselves our reps are actually speaking on our behalf rather than pursuing their own interests? > > Sociological representation: individuals are so similar in background, character, interests and perspectives that anything said by one standing committees > most important arenas of congressional policy making > permanent > power to propose and write legislation that covers a particular subject select committees > not permanent > typically do not have power to propose legislation > hold hearings > focal points for issues > ex: house select homeland security committee in 2003 made permanent in 2005) joint committees Powers of Congress Impeachment Legislative supremacy Organization of Congress Making laws Passing Budgets Amending bills Oversight > Congress has the power to subpoena, take oaths, cross-examine, compel testimony and bring criminal

charges for contempt of perjury--most programs and agencies undergo some oversight annually as part of the appropriations process. hearings are usually held on bills while investigations usually cover a broad area or problem. Legislative Veto Powers of Congress Impeachment Legislative supremacy Organization of Congress Making laws Passing Budgets Amending bills Oversight > Congress has the power to subpoena, take oaths, cross-examine, compel testimony and bring criminal charges for contempt of perjury--most programs and agencies undergo some oversight annually as part of the appropriations process. hearings are usually held on bills while investigations usually cover a broad area or problem. Legislative Veto Article III courts Judiciary Branch Powers found in article three of the constitution judicial power in the supreme court and inferior courts established by congress judicial review: Marbudy v. Madison Constitutional requirements for federal judges: 1. President appounts Supreme Court judges and federal judges 2. Senate judiciary committee holds hearings 3. Full senate must vote by majority to confirm Tenure for Life > > By having such tenure, the Federalist papers argued that judges would be immune to political pressures (would not have to be elected). process to remove a federal justice is the same as the president function of the supremme court > last resort > > accepts cases either on appeal or directly original jurisdiction > > cases that go directly to the supreme court > > involving: ambassadors, interstate dispute, public ministers/consuls > > small % of cases > > eg: NY/NJ fight over Ellis Island appellate jurisdiction > hear cases that are on appeal from lower courts > petitioner appealing case from lower court > eg: Miranda v. Arizona original intent

> what the authors of the Constitution mean when they were authored > > eg: 14th amendment written during reconstruction, meant to apply to former slaves but later applied to incorporations > also applies to amendments > often used by conservative justices to decide cases rule of four > four justices agree to hear case > 8000 cases appealed > take 75-100 > law clerks often make reocmmendations regarding which cases to review writ of certoriari > written appeal made by a party for a case to be heard > criteria: 1. us court of appeals decision differs significantly from another court of appeals decision 2. us court of appeals made decision that decides federal issue different than state 3. state court makes a decision that decides a federal issue differently than state 4. state court makes a decision that differs from another state court or us court of appeals 4. us court of apeals or state cout makes a decision that differs from the us supreme court

oral arguments > 30 minutes for each side to present their case to the 9 justices > any justice can ask a question or interrupt an attourney amicus curiae > friend of the court > > brief submitted by special interest group, government, interested party > > wants the court to hear its position about the case that the court is deciding on > > often give information about other relevant cases > > give policy statements that apply to the case being heard > eg: pro and or anti abortion groups in the case of roe v. wade Judicial Conference > presided over chief justice > review of case > justices give opinions in order of seniority > chief justice chooses someone from the majority to write their opinion, circulated for approval by other consenting judges > minory drafts dissenting opinion > opinion announced before session ends in June > concurring decision > > one or more justices from the majority who wants to express a separate opinion from the justice who writes the majority decision stare decesis > stand by that which is decided > case precedents guide the supreme court when they are ruling on a case before them > eg: plessy v. ferguson, brown v. board

John Marshall Court > longest serving chief justice > made judiciary branch equal to others > Marbury v. Madison (judicial review) > McCulloch v. Maryland (federal supremacy) > Gibbons v. Ogden (interstate commerce) Earl Warren Court > picked by Eisenhower who thought he'd be a conversative (as attorney general of CA Warren was responsible for relocating Japanese during WWII) > legacy: "activist court" - expanded rights of the accused > Brown v. Board (segregation is illegal) > Mapp v. Ohio (search warrant) > Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) > Miranda v. Arizona (right to silence) Warren Burger Court > Appointed by Nixon to lead the court in a more conservative direction > known as a strict constructionist but also expanded civil liberties > Roe v. Wade (right to choose) > US. V. Nixon (executive privilege can't withold evidence) > NYT v. US (danger test) > Bakke v. University of CA Board of Regents (affirmative action, no quotas) William Rehnquist > Appointed by Nixon, hoped Rehnquist would reverse many of Warren's decisions > judical restraint > pro states rights > limited rights of students at public schools > Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion allowed but defined by states) > US v. Lopez (guns by school is not commerce and can't be regulated by Congress) > Printz v. US (local law enforcement can't be forced to conduct backgroud check for handguns) > Bush v. Gore (recount = unconstitutional) John Roberts Court > appointed by G.W. Bush > follow in steps of Rehnquist > limited rights of the accused > limited race as means for school integration (busing) Sandra Day O'Commor > first woman associate justice, 1981 > 'swing vote' > deciding vote in: > > Planned Parenthood v. Casey > > U.S. v. Lopez > > Grutter v. Bollinger (upheld affirmative action) > > Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (exclude membership based on 1st amendment)