Research
Peer-Reviewed Articles
Anna Weissman (2025), “Descriptive Representation in an Era of Polarization”, The Journal of Politics: Vol. 87, No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1086/732961Abstract
Studies of descriptive representation find that voters more positively evaluate representatives who share their ascriptive characteristics. I argue that this pattern can be upended when voters develop more positive affect towards outgroups. In the United States, Democrats have increasingly expressed more positive views towards marginalized groups, while Republicans’ attitudes about these groups have not shifted. Under such conditions, my argument predicts that the effect of representatives’ race and gender on constituent evaluations should vary more by constituents’ partisanship than by their own ascriptive characteristics. Applying a difference-in-differences design to 2008-2020 CCES data, I find that Democrats of all backgrounds now approve more highly of Congressmembers from historically marginalized groups, whereas Republicans’ approval is unrelated to Member identity. Democrats also give women and minority representatives leeway to diverge ideologically. These findings demonstrate that polarizing attitudes about race and gender can disrupt classic patterns in how constituents evaluate representatives.
Abstract
Local governments control a hidden flow of economic goods that never appear on city budgets. Through the housing entitlement process, city officials may condition approval on the benefits developers provide to organized interests. But the politics and policies created by this discretionary review have yet to be studied through the lens of interest group mobilization. We bridge this gap with an analysis of the behavior of construction unions in the housing entitlement process. Using data from 164 U.S. cities, we find that construction union representatives are more likely to attend public meetings to advocate for favorable labor agreements when the expected profitability of new housing developments is high — and thus, when there are more particularistic benefits on the table. While interest group competition within local participatory institutions may signal a robust, pluralist democracy, it also risks driving up housing costs, to the detriment of both organized and unorganized residents.
Working Papers & Works in Progress
“As Racial Attitudes Go, So Goes Approval: Why White Democrats Favor Representatives of Color”, with Anna Mikkelborg (invited to revise and resubmit)Abstract
Recent research shows that white Democrats have become more approving of politicians of color compared to white politicians in the last decade, in contrast with past research indicating that white voters typically prefer white representatives. White voters’ support for politicians of color has long been linked to their racial attitudes, implying that this change could be a result of white Democrats’ increasing racial liberalism. This mechanism deserves more than speculation, since understanding the cause of this shift influences expectations about its likely durability and broader implications for racial politics. This paper provides evidence of the persistence of this shift and evaluates the most plausible potential mechanisms behind it. We find that racial attitudes are strongly associated with white Democrats’ greater approval of representatives of color at the individual level and over time, while there is little evidence that either ideological stereotyping or differences in legislator quality are responsible. These results provide evidence that white Democrats’ increasing racial liberalism influences consequential political opinions like support for representatives of color.
Abstract
Recent scholarship challenges the traditional view that partisanship has little influence on local governance, showing that officials’ party affiliation affects municipal decision-making. However, the prevailing explanations for why partisanship matters often assume conditions present only in certain types of municipalities. I argue that partisanship matters more in larger cities, where diverse electorates and more professionalized legislators create the context for partisan division, while smaller municipalities focus on managerial concerns with limited partisan conflict. Using local council meeting transcripts, a novel dataset of candidate statements, and an original survey of 1,280 elected officials, I find that partisan divides emerge primarily in larger cities on nationally salient issues, whereas smaller municipalities show little evidence of partisan policymaking. These findings bridge perspectives from early work and recent scholarship by demonstrating that partisan influence in local governance is context-dependent. This research refines our understanding of when and why national political dynamics shape local governance.
Abstract
How do geographic ties affect democratic representation? This question has been largely overlooked in municipal governance. Unlike much of the policymaking in state and national politics, local governance demands deep place-based knowledge. Using municipal council candidates’ campaign statements, voter registration records, and original nationwide surveys of both local officials and members of the public, I show that local roots strongly predict candidate emergence in municipal elections. Nearly all candidates highlight their local connections, and most have lived in their municipalities for decades before running. Rather than affecting who wins an election, local roots determine who enters races in the first place. This has broad implications for representation, as both officials and constituents perceive differences in long-term residents’ and newcomers’ policy preferences on core local issues. In high-turnover cities, this dynamic may systematically under-represent mobile populations. These findings reveal that national-level geographic polarization is accompanied by distinct dynamics in local governance across rural and urban America.
“Rootedness, Preservation, and Land Use Politics”
“How Local Officials (Mis)perceive the Politics and Economics of Growth”, with David Broockman and Christopher Elmendorf
“Measuring Place-Based Attachment and its Implications: Evidence from the Politics of Growth and Land Use”