Research

Peer-Reviewed Articles

Descriptive Representation in an Era of Polarization (2025). Anna Weissman. The Journal of Politics

Abstract

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.

As Racial Attitudes Go, So Goes Approval: Why White Democrats Favor Representatives of Color (2025). Anna Weissman and Anna Mikkelborg. Political Behavior.

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.

When Do Local Interest Groups Participate in the Housing Entitlement Process? (2024). Michael Hankinson, Asya Magazinnik and Anna Weissman. Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy.

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

Local Roots in Local Politics

Abstract

Who governs? To answer this central question in political science, scholars often study the people elected to office, but I argue that who is qualified to govern is decided before voters ever cast a ballot. Access to power can result from informal qualifications viewed as prerequisites for candidacy. Local politics offers a clear case: using novel datasets of campaign statements, linked voter file and candidate records, and original nationwide surveys of officials and constituents, I show that long-term residency operates as a de facto requirement for local candidacy. Roots shape who holds office and how candidates present themselves, resulting in a set of officials considerably more rooted than the people they represent. The descriptive overrepresentation of deeply rooted constituents can, however, translate into substantive underrepresentation for newcomers. I provide evidence consistent with such consequences. This reveals a tension between the legitimacy that traits may confer and the exclusion they generate.

When Partisanship Matters in Local Politics

Abstract

Recent scholarship challenges the traditional view that partisanship has little influence on local governance, but explanations for why partisanship matters assume conditions present only in major cities. I argue that partisanship structures municipal decision-making most in large cities, where greater capacity and expansive policy agendas create the context for partisan conflict, but in the majority of local governments, this is not the case. To test this theory, I use an original survey of 1,280 elected officials, council meeting transcripts, and a novel dataset of candidate statements. I find that partisan division is limited on core municipal issues and in most municipalities, emerging primarily where broader agendas create opportunities for cleavages. These results reconcile findings from early work and recent evidence by demonstrating that party influence on decision-making is context dependent. While elite partisanship shapes state and national politics, it is not the primary organizing force among officials in most municipalities.

Place-Based Connection and the Politics of Housing

Abstract

Opposition to housing development has long been explained by material self-interest and exclusionary attitudes, but scholars have recently proposed alternatives, such as aesthetic preferences. This paper offers an additional explanation for preservationist attitudes: place-based connection. Material, psychological, and social connections to place can produce an aversion to change that limits growth. Using an original survey of more than 1,000 registered voters across small-town and suburban municipalities with opportunities for growth, I generate six indices of place-based connection that are not strongly associated with one another nor with characteristics such as race, gender, or party. I find that distinct dimensions of place-based connection explain different preservationist attitudes: psychological attachment is the strongest and most consistent predictor, while long-term residency and growing up in a place matter most in growing communities where newcomers are salient. The paper develops a framework for understanding how place-based connection contributes to the politics of growth.

Selected Works in Progress

New in Town? An Experiment on Local Legislators’ Responsiveness to Newcomers and Locals (with Gustavo Novoa)

Who is Held Responsible for Local Corruption? Convictions and Electoral Accountability (with Elizabeth Mitchell Elder)

How Local Officials (Mis)perceive the Politics and Economics of Growth (with David Broockman, Christopher Elmendorf, and Olivier Bergeron-Boutin)

Changing the Guard: How Newcomers Break Entrenched Local Power (with Christian Caballero)

Book Project: How Place Conditions Local Politics