Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ARTICLE
Illiberal attitudes among US state legislative
candidates
Michael Barber1✉, Hans J. G. Hassell 2& Michael G. Miller3
We examine the prevalence of illiberal attitudes among aspiring state legislative candidates in
the United States. While extensive research has questioned underlying levels of support for
liberal democratic principles among the general public in the United States, we are the first to
document the extent to which illiberal attitudes are present among the rising class of political
leadership in the United States. We find that while the support for democratic principles is
relatively high, there are substantial portions of candidates willing to encourage undemocratic
behaviors in some areas. We also see some notable differences between candidates of the
two major parties. Specifically, while Republicans are substantially more likely to agree that it
is sometimes necessary to challenge election results when they lose, Democrats are more
tolerant of restrictions—both from government and employers—on extreme viewpoints.
Overall, our findings suggest that support for many democratic principles are high, but certain
components of democracy may not be well sustained by those who aspire to elected office.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w OPEN
1Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA. 2Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA. 3Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA .
✉email: mbarber@byu.edu
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w 1
1234567890():,;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Introduction
Following Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential
election, academic assessments of the health of American
democracy became more common (e.g. Finkel et al. 2020;
Flavin and Shufeldt 2022; Ginsburg and Huq 2019; Grumbach
2022; Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018; Mettler and Lieberman 2020;
Slater 2022; Waldner and Lust 2018). In this vein, a growing body
of research has described illiberal attitudes and behaviors among
the mass public (e.g. Arceneaux and Truex 2023; Berlinski et al.
2023; Broockman et al. 2023; Cassese 2021; Chong et al. 2022;
Graham and Svolik, 2020; Kalmoe and Mason 2022; Kingzette
et al. 2021; Krishnarajan 2023; Malka and Costello 2023; Mar-
therus et al. 2021; Mernyk et al. 2022; Nichols 2021). These
include, but are not limited to, hostility towards members of
opposing political parties, acceptance or justification of politically
motivated violence, support for limitations on civil liberties, and
mistrust of electoral institutions and outcomes. This work has
often found that while a majority of Americans report nominal
support for democracy, this support is weaker and not as robust
as many might hope (e.g., Drutman et al. 2018; Graham and
Svolik 2020; Malka and Costello 2023). Moreover, assessments of
the quality and value of democracy in the mass public have grown
highly politicized and polarized (Carey et al. 2019; Flavin and
Shufeldt 2022; Graham and Svolik 2020; Simonovits et al. 2022).
These findings are especially salient given the events sur-
rounding Trump’s subsequent loss in the 2020 election. One goal
of the violent attempt to obstruct the election certification at the
U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was to convince Vice President
Mike Pence and Members of Congress to overturn the election
results. Presumably then, some of the attackers believed that at
least some public officials shared their willingness to seek extra-
constitutional remedies to their election loss. This belief might be
seen as understandable in context: At that time, Trump’s efforts
to overturn the 2020 election were tolerated (if not supported) by
many elected officials, including Members of Congress and state
legislators. These efforts included convening false slates of elec-
tors in seven states (Feuer and Benner 2023; Fischler and Shutt
2023), attempts by elected officials in several others to obstruct
vote certification (Homans 2020; Miller et al. 2020; Van Voris
2020; White 2020), and a sustained pressure campaign by Pre-
sident Trump and allies (including some federal employees) to
convince state officials to overturn the election results (Brumback
2023; Hendrickson 2023). These efforts were ultimately unsuc-
cessful, but they serve as an important reminder that the illiberal
views of public officials can pose a substantial threat to democ-
racy—perhaps an even more significant one than violent protest.
To understand how illiberalism might shape American politics
in the future, it is therefore critical to understand the degree to
which these attitudes persist among not only people who hold
public office, but those who aspire to do so. By examining views
of candidates for these positions as opposed to limiting our
inquiry to officeholders, we obtain a more complete picture of the
extent to which American politicians hold views that support
democratic backsliding—and the conditions under which they
might emerge. The attitudes of state legislative candidates provide
particular insights into the likelihood that future anti-democratic
efforts will gain more traction in at least two ways. First, state
legislators hold considerable power over elections in their state; if
they win office, legislative candidates are likely to be on the front
lines of future battles that directly shape the health (and even
survival) of American democracy. Second, the state legislature is a
natural stepping stone to higher office, including state executive
positions and Congress. Studying state legislative candidates’
attitudes therefore provides an important window into how
future efforts to erode democratic norms and institutions may
unfold at all levels of American government.
Our study utilizes a large-scale survey of candidates for
American state legislatures. Some existing work on other topics
has surveyed state legislative candidates in general elections across
some or all states (Abbe and Herrnson 2003; Broockman and
Skovron 2018; Francia and Herrnson 2003,2004; Herrnson et al.
2007; Hogan 2002; Miller 2013), but existing surveys of state
legislative candidates in primary elections have generally sampled
candidates in single states (Niven, 2006). In 2022, we fielded what
is to our knowledge the only survey ever conducted of nearly
every Democratic and Republican candidate who ran for state
legislative office (including primary candidates and those who ran
unopposed) in the United States during a single election cycle.
The 2022 election cycle was the first opportunity for people who
may have been influenced by the 2020 election to run for these
offices. Our survey was designed to assess the prevalence of
illiberal attitudes among these candidates and to determine what
factors correlate with these views. The inclusion of primary
candidates captures the full spectrum of aspiring legislators,
which is critical to assessing the illiberal positions of citizens who
are seeking to make policy as well as regulatory and oversight
power in future elections.
Our findings show both reasons for optimism and concern.
First, we find that overwhelming majorities of aspirants for state
legislative office reject politically motivated violence as a means to
power. Despite this, there are a small minority that are accepting
of violent protest and intimidation. Moreover, our results indicate
that Republican state legislative candidates are more inclined than
Democrats to agree that election results should be challenged, and
are also more likely to believe that some people should not vote.
Relative to Republicans however, Democrats advocate greater
censorship and government monitoring of political speech. These
results suggest that illiberalism is not a single-party phenomenon.
Moreover, our work indicates that illiberal views are not limited
to candidates on the fringes of political viability. Thus, although
large majorities of candidates support democratic principles, our
work finds potential cracks in support of democracy among those
who aspire to political leadership.
Methods
We fielded a national, online survey of state legislative candidates
during the 2022 United States primary elections. We identified all
candidates (including uncontested incumbents) in Democratic
and Republican primaries running for seats in each state’s lower
and upper legislative chambers.
1
We specifically focus on state
legislative candidates because many aspects of the democratic
process—including regulation and certification of local, state, and
federal elections—are controlled there (Grumbach 2022). More-
over, democratic decline at the hands of public officials is most
likely to happen when the public is inattentive to government
actions, and most individuals have little knowledge about the
actions of state government and state officials (Hogan 2008;
Rogers 2017).
To implement our survey of state legislative candidates, we
solicited all candidates whose email address we could obtain to
participate in an online survey. Some states’election agencies
provide email addresses for registered candidates; in those cases
we scraped all available email addresses from state records. More
typically, states do not provide this information, and in those
instances we searched campaign, party, and social media websites
for candidate contact information. We obtained email addresses
for 12,272 of the 13,583 candidates in the sampling frame
(90.3%). Wherever possible we attempted to locate a personal
email address for the candidate, as opposed to a staffer or a
general information address. We also employed a screening filter
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
2HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
intended to ensure that the survey was completed only by the
candidate themselves, and not someone else affiliated with the
campaign.
2
States determine the date of their primary election. In 2022, the
earliest primary elections occurred in March, with subsequent
primary elections held on dates through early September. Our
goal was to invite candidates immediately after their state’s pri-
mary, when their electoral experience would be fresh in their
minds but when their time was relatively less constrained. Given
the extended nature of the primary calendar, it was therefore
impractical to solicit all candidates at once. Instead, we sent initial
email invitations on a rolling basis, soliciting candidates within
48 hours of the completion of their state’s primary election. We
sent up to two additional solicitations to candidates who did not
respond to initial invitations.
We received responses from 1,173 candidates, for an overall
response rate of (9.6%). Notably, response rates for the 5,366
Democrats and 6533 Republicans were similar (9.97% and 9.06%,
respectively). This overall response rate is well in line with
response rates of other similar surveys of state legislative candi-
dates, minor political officials, and other comparable political
elites (e.g. Broockman and Skovron 2018; Butler and Dynes 2016;
Doherty et al. 2022; Dynes et al. 2023; Hassell 2021; Miller 2013).
More details are in the online supplementary materials where we
provide state-by-state response rates as well as a discussion of
potential non-response bias.
The survey instrument solicited information about candidates
that could not be readily obtained from public records, such as
demographic information and issue attitudes. We then asked
candidates three question batteries that probed their support of
various components of a liberal democracy (Dahl 2005): Their
support of electoral democracy, their tolerance of politically
motivated violence, and their views on restricting civil liberties.
Full question text for these questions and the full survey instru-
ment can be found in the supplementary material.
Results
Below, we provide descriptive results from all three of these
batteries separately for Democrats and Republicans. We then
provide multivariate regression analyses to determine what can-
didate traits and/or attitudes correlate with illiberal views among
American state legislative candidates.
Electoral democracy. We asked candidates five questions related
to the electoral process, including respecting the outcome of
elections and whether or not politicians and the public should
challenge the results of elections when they or their party are
deemed the loser. We include these items as a measure of the
potential for elected officials to embrace democratic backsliding
because other work has highlighted the necessity of democracy
having elected officials selected in “elections in which coercion is
comparatively uncommon”(Dahl 2005, 188) Thus, the unwill-
ingness to accept election results or the inclination to manipulate
the election process represents a departure from the democratic
process. Figure 1shows these results.
A majority of candidates in both parties felt that “it is
important to respect the outcome of elections, even when my
party loses.”More than 90% of Democrats agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement, compared to 73% of Republicans.
Similarly, about 12% of Republicans disagreed or strongly
disagreed with that statement—a rate more than twice that of
Democrats. On balance however, while we see clear differences
between how Democrats and Republicans engaged with that
statement, the results from that question show relatively high
levels of support for respecting election outcomes across parties.
Further questions on respect for electoral outcomes show that
there is, perhaps, less firm support for respecting traditional
democratic norms among American candidates than we might
hope. This is true among candidates of both parties, but is
especially so among Republicans. For instance, 27% of Democrats
indicate that they agree to some extent that politicians have a
“responsibility to challenge election results when they lose.”
When factoring the 31% of Republicans who neither agreed nor
disagreed with this statement, only a minority (43%) of
Republican candidates disagreed with this statement. Extrapolat-
ing from our sampling frame, this implies that more than 2,000
candidates who ran for state legislative office in 2022 agree that
election results should be challenged when their party loses.
We see similar results for the question about whether “the
people should challenge election results even if the official
certification deems their party the loser.”Note that this question
shifts the focus of election challenges from politicians to the
people. While only 5% of Democrats agreed with the statement,
27% of Republicans did. As before, we also see a much higher rate
of Republicans on the fence: 29% of Republicans neither agreed
nor disagreed with the premise of the people challenging election
results, compared to only 9% of Democrats. As with the idea of
politicians challenging results, a minority of Republicans 44%
disagreed that the people should object to election outcomes, even
when results are certified. As before, these results equate to
thousands of candidates in the United States who felt that election
results should be challenged even if the official certification
determines their party’s candidate to have lost.
We also included questions in this battery that asked about
changing electoral rules and suffrage, given the recent wave of
laws put forward by state legislators altering the rules governing
ballot access and voting procedures (Grumbach, 2022). When it
comes to their views on whether their party should change
election rules to help itself in the future, we see that the response
pattern among Democratic candidates largely mirrors that of
Republicans. Majorities from both parties (65%) disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the notion of changing election rules.
However, in both parties, sizeable minorities (around 35% for
both Democrats and Republicans) were either noncommittal or
were open to the possibility of changing electoral rules to benefit
their parties’future electoral prospects.
When thinking about whether the country would be better off
if certain people did not vote (potentially as a result of changes to
electoral procedures, but also more generally), we see significant
differences across the parties. While 79% of Democrats disagreed
with this statement, only a slim majority of Republicans (55%)
did. And, while only 7% of Democrats agreed or strongly agreed
that the country would be better off if some people failed to turn
out, a quarter of Republicans (26%) felt this way.
Overall, our results indicate that a sizable minority of
candidates are willing to set aside the basic norms of electoral
democracy if they lose. Moreover, these results also provide
evidence of clear partisan differences. Republican candidates are
much more likely than Democrats to feel that challenging election
results is acceptable, and that certain people should not vote.
Thus, our results suggest that Democrats in our sample were
more supportive of electoral norms (such as accepting election
results) than Republicans in the 2022 election.
Political violence. We also asked questions about the willingness
of state legislative candidate to embrace Political Violence as
another way of testing democratic backsliding and the respect for
the democratic process (Dahl 2005). The responses from the
Political Violence Battery, as shown in Fig. 2, indicate that solid
majorities of candidates in both parties reject political violence,
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
particularly when described as part of the partisan political pro-
cess. For instance, more than 90% of candidates from both parties
strongly disagreed that “it is sometimes justified for my party to
use violence in advancing their political goals.”This sentiment
was similarly strong when candidates were asked specifically
about the outcome of the 2022 elections.
We see slightly fewer candidates strongly disagreeing that it is
acceptable to send threatening or intimidating messages to the
other party’s leaders (82% for Democrats and 81% for Repub-
licans). However, when combining the candidates who merely
disagree (as opposed to strongly disagreeing), 94% of Democratic
candidates and 89% of Republican candidates disagree with this
action as well.
The clear outlier is the statement, “If elected leaders will not
protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it
requires taking violent actions.”Here, 87% of Democrats either
strongly disagree (77%) or disagree (10%). Just 6% of Democrats
agree or strongly agree, while 7% are undecided. In contrast,
nearly one-fifth of Republicans (19%) either strongly agree or
agree, and the same percentage are undecided. Just 62% of
Republicans disagree with the premise of people taking violent
action to “protect America.”Republicans therefore appear to be
more likely to believe that violence is an acceptable means of mass
political action if they feel the country is threatened.
Civil liberties. Finally, we consider how candidates view
restrictions on civil liberties such as free speech, freedom of the
press, and the freedom to assemble. These components are also
critical components of a democratic society. As Dahl (2005, 189)
notes, the right of citizens to “express themselves...on political
matters broadly defined,”and the right of citizens to “associa-
tional autonomy”are core democratic institutions. Thus the
rejection of these institutions represent a willingness to embrace
democratic backsliding. The results of our Civil Liberties Battery
are depicted in Fig. 3. In these questions we find Democratic
candidates more willing to endorse punishment for political
speech and government monitoring of political views. While
majorities in both parties disagree that “companies should fire
employees who post the other party’s extreme views on social
media,”there is more support for this course of action among
Democratic candidates than Republicans: 54% of Democratic
candidates disagreed to some extent with this statement, com-
pared to 76% of Republicans.
The other question where we find substantial partisan differences
is whether the “government should monitor people who post the
other party’s extreme views online.”Here, 39% of Democrats agreed
with this statement while only 10% of Republicans did. Likewise,
nearly three times as many Republicans strongly disagreed with this
statement as did Democratic candidates.
Fig. 1 Descriptive results for electoral democracy question battery, by candidate party. Response categories with less than 5% support are shown in the
figure but without corresponding text for legibility.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
4HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
On the other hand, a large majority of Republican state
legislative candidates either agreed or strongly agreed that
“there are too many extreme speakers of the other party invited
to speak on college campuses today”while only 27% of
Democrats agreed with this statement. However, 51% of
Democrats and 23% of Republicans neither agree nor disagree
with this statement, indicating a large amount of ambivalence
in both parties.
In the remaining two questions we see a quite a low willingness
among candidates in both parties to limit political speech in
newspapers, even when it favors a candidate’s opponents or is
critical of their own side.
Regression analyses. In this section, we consider whether or not
certain attributes and attitudes are associated with more illiberal
beliefs among state legislative candidates. To do so, we compile a
dataset of additional covariates for each candidate who responded
to our survey. Our intent is to test whether these additional
factors are associated with beliefs about liberal democracy. These
covariates fall into one of three categories:
●Demographic Factors: We measure the gender, race,
education, age, and religious affiliation of each candidate.
In studies of the public, many of these demographic factors
have been shown to be associated with views of democracy
and political violence (Kalmoe and Mason 2022).
●Electoral Factors: These variables measure different aspects
of a candidate’s electoral experience and are intended to
capture the degree to which the experience that a candidate
has running for office might impact their views of the
democratic process more generally. A candidate who loses,
for example, might come away from the experience with a
more negative view of elections and democracy more
generally than a candidate who won the primary election.
We also measure the distance between the candidate’s
primary vote share and the vote threshold necessary to
advance from the primary to the general election (distance
to advancement). Positive values indicate electoral perfor-
mance beyond the necessary vote threshold while negative
numbers indicate the gap in vote share needed to advance
to the general election. We also include the party of the
legislator and measure whether or not the candidate ran as
the incumbent in the primary election.
●Candidate Quality: To capture features of candidate
experience and quality we include variables measuring
whether the candidate has prior electoral experience (that is,
Fig. 2 Descriptive results for political violence battery, by candidate party. Response categories with less than 5% support are shown in the figure but
without corresponding text for legibility.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
they have been previously elected to some public office),
and the share of the total donations raised by the candidate
in the primary election. These variables are intended to
identify whether the illiberal attitudes we study are held
only among fringe candidates or are common among all
candidates, regardless of experience or electoral viability.
We include each of these factors as independent variables in a
series of regression models. The dependent variables in these models
are additive scales from each of the question batteries discussed above.
In each case we sum each respondent’s answers to questions in each
battery with higher values indicating more illiberal views and lower
values indicating more liberal views. We then rescale the indices to
run from 0 to 1 and use them as the dependent variables in three
linear regression models. The results of those models are displayed in
Table 1below. Additional models with state-level fixed effects and
models testing differences among competitive states that are more
likely to be pivotal in the 2024 presidential election appear in the
supplemental materials.
We begin by considering those variables that have a consistent
relationship with illiberal attitudes across the three different
models. First, consistent with recent work that had found
education to be an important determinant of political views
and behavior (Barber and Pope 2023; Igielnik et al. 2021; Pew
Research Center 2018), in all three regression models, individuals
with more education are less likely to espouse illiberal attitudes.
We also find a strong relationship between illiberal attitudes and
partisanship in each of the three indices of illiberal attitudes.
However, the direction of that association is different depending
on the index we consider. In the indices measuring views of
electoral democracy and political violence, Republicans are more
likely to hold illiberal attitudes than Democrats. The magnitude
of the coefficient in the model measuring views of electoral
democracy is especially large (0.125, p< 0.01), given that the
dependent variable runs between 0 and 1, and the R2of that
model is also much higher than in the other regressions. In fact, a
model in which the electoral democracy dependent variable is
regressed on only a partisanship dummy variables has an R2of
0.21. It is noteworthy that this index is composed of questions
regarding challenging election results, changing electoral rules,
respecting the outcome of elections and access to the franchise —
things all heavily emphasized by Donald Trump in the months
surrounding the 2020 election.
In the final regression model, which examines candidates’
views on restricting and monitoring political speech, Republicans
are less likely to espouse illiberal views than Democrats. This
reversal of the sign of the coefficients (compared to the first and
second models in Table 1) is noteworthy as these models measure
Fig. 3 Descriptive results for civil liberties battery, by candidate party. Response categories with less than 5% support are shown in the figure but
without corresponding text for legibility.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
6HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
attitudes regarding government censoring of speech, monitoring
of individuals’online activity, and punishment for politically
extreme views.
Turning now to the rest of the variables included in the model,
we consider those factors that are not associated with illiberal views.
Amongthedemographicvariables,wedonotfind any consistent
relationship for gender, race, age, or religiosity—though we do find
that men are more willing to restrict civil liberties than women, all
else equal. Looking at electoral factors, we do not find a relationship
between illiberal attitudes and winning the primary election (i.e.
there is no “sore loser”effect), or how close a candidate came to
winning the primary election. Incumbency and financial factors are
not strongly associated with candidate attitudes, either. Prior elected
experience is only related to being less likely to endorse political
violence, but it is not correlated with support for electoral
democracy or free speech. Overall, our results do not provide
evidence that illiberal views are merely viewpoints held by
candidates on the political fringes. The lack of a significant
relationship between these measures of candidate viability and
holding illiberal views suggests instead that illiberal attitudes are
spread throughout all types of candidates, both long-shot candidates
and those more likely to win.
Discussion
Overall, our survey paints a concerning picture with regards to
the democratic attitudes of candidates for office. On the one
hand, an overwhelming share of both parties reject politically
motivated violence—though it is of course concerning that even
small minorities of both parties are accepting of violent protest
and threats of intimidation.
On the other hand, our results reveal that along with candi-
dates’education level, party is a consistent predictor of the extent
to which they harbor illiberal views. Republicans are more willing
to agree that election results should be contested by losing can-
didates or by the public, and are also more likely to agree that
certain people should not vote. Given these patterns, it comes as
no surprise that when we regress the Electoral Democracy index
on party, we find large effects: Republicans hold decidedly more
illiberal views than Democrats when it comes to the conduct of
elections. Though the relationship is less strong when we examine
willingness to engage in political violence, we see that Republicans
are more illiberal in that area as well.
Republicans do not hold a monopoly on illiberal views, however.
We find that Democrats are less supportive of unrestricted civil lib-
erties. We therefore see unsettling signs among candidates of both
parties for the continued health of liberal democracy in America.
While our survey reveals that candidates of both parties show
some illiberal tendencies, we find it especially concerning that a
large share of Republican state legislative candidates express
support for the types of actions that occurred in President
Trump’s efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election, and
that these candidates appear ready to support similar behaviors in
2024.
3
Our results shed new light on the threats to democratic
norms from within the political system, and show that while there
Table 1 Predictors of Illiberal Attitudes.
Electoral Democracy [0-1] Political Violence [0-1] Free Speech [0-1]
(1) (2) (3)
Male [0/1] 0.004 0.002 −0.033***
(0.010) (0.007) (0.012)
Other Race [0/1] 0.035** 0.025 −0.006
(0.017) (0.018) (0.019)
Black [0/1] 0.011 −0.021*0.052*
(0.029) (0.012) (0.030)
Hispanic [0/1] 0.024 −0.007 0.075**
(0.027) (0.018) (0.036)
Education [1-5] −0.013*** −0.012*** −0.015***
(0.005) (0.004) (0.005)
Age [18-80] 0.001** −0.0002 −0.0003
(0.0003) (0.0003) (0.0003)
Born Again [0/1] 0.022 0.005 0.013
(0.016) (0.010) (0.015)
Religiosity [1-5] 0.004 −0.001 0.002
(0.004) (0.003) (0.004)
Republican [0/1] 0.125*** 0.028*** −0.026**
(0.013) (0.009) (0.013)
Won Primary [0/1] −0.045*−0.004 −0.002
(0.024) (0.017) (0.020)
Dist. to Advancement [-1-1] 0.029** 0.002 −0.010
(0.015) (0.015) (0.014)
Incumbent [0/1] −0.019 −0.005 −0.003
(0.021) (0.015) (0.023)
Prior Experience [0/1] −0.015 −0.021** −0.011
(0.016) (0.010) (0.014)
Fraction of Money [0-1] −0.028 −0.018 0.023
(0.018) (0.019) (0.014)
(Intercept) 0.362*** 0.333*** 0.545***
(0.027) (0.031) (0.030)
Obs. 723 727 710
R-Squared 0.28 0.07 0.05
*p< 0.1; **p< 0.05; ***p< 0.01. Standard errors, clustered by state, are shown below regression coefficients.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w 7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
is room for optimism in the beliefs of candidates for elected office,
there are also areas of troubling disregard for the enduring suc-
cess of democracy in America.
Data availability
Upon publication of this article, all data used in the article and
code used to produce all results will be made freely and publicly
available through the Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.
7910/DVN/JCM7OC.
Received: 6 March 2024; Accepted: 24 July 2024;
Notes
1 The obvious exception is Nebraska, which has a unicameral, non-partisan legislature.
In Nebraska, we emailed all candidates that had qualified for the primary ballot
regardless of party. Respondents were asked their partisan identity in order to identify
co-partisans and out-party partisans for the purposes of the survey questions.
2 Unsurprisingly, given the low profile nature of most state legislative campaign, only 25
total responses were filtered out because they were initially responded to by an
individual who was not the candidate. Two of these campaigns reached out to have the
survey resent to be completed by the candidate.
3 As of the writing of this paper, Donald Trump appears to be the clear favorite to be the
Republican presidential nominee in 2024.
References
Abbe OG, Herrnson PS (2003) Campaign professionalism in state legislative
elections. State Politics Policy Q 3(3):223–245
Arceneaux K, Truex R (2023) Donald trump and the lie. Perspect Politics
21(3):863–879
Barber M, Pope JC (2023) The Crucial Role of Race in 21st Century U.S. Political
Realignment. Public Opinion Quarterly, forthcoming
Berlinski N, Doyle M, Guess AM, Levy G, Lyons B, Montgomery JM (2023) The
effects of unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud on confidence in elections. J
Exp Political Sci 10(1):34–49
Broockman DE, Skovron C (2018) Bias in perceptions of public opinion among
American political elites. Am J Political Sci 112(3):542–563
Broockman DE, Kalla JL, Westwood SJ (2023) Does affective polarization under-
mine democratic norms or accountability? maybe not. Am J Political Sci
67(3):808–828
Brumback K (2023) Giuliani turns himself in on Georgia 2020 election charges after
bond is set at $150,000. The Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/
trump-giuliani-georgia-election-indictment-fulton-county203b1e69cbff227a0bf8
cc59a6bb645f
Butler DM, Dynes AM (2016) How politicians discount the opinions of con-
stituents with whom they disagree. Am J Political Sci 60(4):975–989
Carey JM, Helmke G, Nyhan B, Sanders M, Stokes S (2019) Searching for bright
lines in the trump presidency. Perspectives on Politics 17(3):699–718
Cassese EC (2021) Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Political Behav
43:29–50
Chong D, Citrin J, Levy M (2022) The realignment of political tolerance in the
United States. Perspect Politics 1–22
Dahl RA (2005) What political institutions does large-scale democracy require?
Political Sci Q 120(2):187–197
Doherty D, Dowling CM, Miller MG (2022) Small power: how local parties shape
elections. Oxford University Press, New York
Drutman L, Diamond L, Goldman J (2018) Follow the leader: exploring American
support for democracy and authoritarianism. Democracy Fund Voter Study
Group. https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/follow-the-leader
Dynes AM, Hassell HJ, Miles MR (2023) Personality traits and approaches to
political representation and responsiveness: an experiment in local govern-
ment. Political Behav 45:1791–1811
Feuer A, Benner K (2023) The fake electors scheme, explained. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-
jan6.html
Finkel EJ, Bail CA, Cikara M, Ditto PH, Iyengar S, Klar S (2020) Political sectar-
ianism in America. Science 370(6516):533–536
Fischler J, Shutt J (2023) How the fake electors in seven states are central to the
trump Jan. 6 indictment. AZ Mirror. https://www.azmirror.com/2023/08/
03/how-the-fake-electors-in-seven-states-are-centralto-the-trump-jan-6-
indictment/
Flavin P, Shufeldt G (2022) Citizens’perceptions of the quality of democracy in the
American states. Meetings of the American Political Science Association.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.baylor.edu/dist/2/1297/files/2022/08/
Flavin_Shufeldt_APSA_2022.pdf
Francia PL, Herrnson PS (2003) The impact of public finance laws on fundraising
in state legislative elections. Am Politics Res 31(5):520–539
Francia PL, Herrnson PS (2004) The synergistic effect of campaign effort and
election reform on voter turnout in state legislative elections. State Politics
Policy Q 4(1):74–93
Ginsburg T, Huq A (2019) How to save a constitutional democracy. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago
Graham MH, Svolik MW (2020) Democracy in America? Partisanship, polariza-
tion, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. Am
Political Sci Rev 114(2):392–409
Grumbach JM (2022) Laboratories against democracy. Princeton University Press,
Princeton
Hassell HJ (2021) Desperate times call for desperate measures: electoral competi-
tiveness, poll position, and campaign negativity. Political Behav. 43:1137–1159
Hendrickson C (2023) Michigan commission: discipline ’kraken’lawyers for
lawsuit to overturn 2020 election. Detroit Free Press. https://www.freep.
com/story/news/politics/2023/05/05/sidney-powell-kraken-lawyerstrump-
election-michigan-complaint/70187859007/
Herrnson PS, Stokes-Brown AK, Hindman M (2007) Campaign politics and the
digital divide: Constituency characteristics, strategic considerations, and
candidate internet use in state legislative elections. Political Res Q
60(1):31–42
Hogan RE (2002) Candidate perceptions of political party campaign activity in
state legislative elections. State Politics Policy Q 2(1):66–85
Hogan RE (2008) Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Leg-
islatures. Am J Political Sci 52(4):858–873
Homans CG (2020) o.p.-controlled county in Arizona holds up election results.
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/28/us/politics/arizona-
county-election-resultscochise.html
Igielnik R, Keeter S, Hartig H (2021) Behind Biden’s 2020 victory. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/
Kalmoe NP, Mason L (2022) Radical American partisanship: mapping violent
hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago
Kingzette J, Druckman JN, Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Levendusky M, Ryan JB (2021)
How effective polarization undermines support for democratic norms. Public
Opin Q 85(2):663–677
Krishnarajan S (2023) Rationalizing democracy: the perceptual bias and (un)
democratic behavior. Am Political Sci Rev 117(2):474–496
Levitsky S, Ziblatt D (2018) How democracies die. Crown, New York
Malka A, Costello TH (2023) Professed democracy support and openness to
politically congenial authoritarian actions within the American public. Am
Politics Res 51(3):327–342
Martherus JL, Martinez AG, Piff PK, Theodoridis AG (2021) Party animals?
extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behav
43:517–540
Mernyk JS, Pink SL, Druckman JN, Willer R (2022) Correcting inaccurate meta-
perceptions reduces americans’support for partisan violence. Proc Natl Acad
Sci 119(16):e2116851119
Mettler S, Lieberman R (2020) Four threats. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Miller MG (2013) Subsidizing democracy: how public funding changes elections
and how it can work in the future. Cornell University Press
Miller Z, Cassidy CA, Long C (2020) Trump targets certification process to block
biden: What is it? The Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.
com/USA/Politics/2020/1119/Trump-targets-certificationprocess-to-block-
Biden-What-is-it
Nichols T (2021) Our own worst enemy: the assault from within on modern
democracy. Oxford University Press, New York
Niven D (2006) Throwing your hat out of the ring: Negative recruitment and the
gender imbalance in state legislative candidacy. Politics Gender 2(4):473–489
Pew Research Center (2018) Pew Research Center for most trump voters, ‘very
warm’feelings for him endured. Pew Research Center. https://www.
pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-
electoratebased-on-validated-voters/
Rogers S (2017) Electoral accountability for state legislative roll calls and ideolo-
gical representation. Am Political Sci Rev 111(3):555–571
Simonovits G, McCoy J, Littvay L (2022) Democratic hypocrisy and out-group
threat: explaining citizen support for democratic erosion. J Politics
84(3):1806–1811
Slater D (2022) Threats or gains: the battle over participation in america’s care-
ening democracy. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 699:90–100
Van Voris B (2020) Pennsylvania Republicans seek to block vote certification.
Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-23/pennsylvania-
republicans-seekorder-blocking-vote-certificationxj4y7vzkg
Waldner D, Lust E (2018) Unwelcome change: coming to terms with democratic
backsliding. Annu Rev Political Sci 21:93–113
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
8HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
White E (2020) Michigan gop backtracks after blocking vote certification. The
Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-
trump-local-electionsmichigan-64c18e12e0d409d9629871cda3c07293
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Riley Callahan, Nicki Camberg, Madeline Breeden, and
Emma Sherman-Hawver for their research assistance. This research was approved by the
IRB at Barnard College, Columbia University (Approval Number 2021-1120-055).
Author contributions
All authors contributed equally to all parts of the research, including the design of the
survey instrument, collection of data, analysis of data, and the writing of the results.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This research was approved by the IRB at Barnard College, Columbia University
(Approval Number 2021-1120-055). All research was performed in accordance with
relevant guidelines and regulations as outlined in the IRB application and in accordance
with the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Code of Pro-
fessional Ethics and Practices.
Informed consent
All survey subjects were asked their informed consent before any data collection
took place. Prior to answering any questions, respondents were presented with the
following information: Informed Consent You are being asked to participate in a
national study of state legislative candidates. This survey is part of a research study
conducted by researchers at Barnard College, Brigham Young University, and
Florida State University. We are non-partisan researchers conducting a study of both
parties’candidates, funded exclusively by our non-profit institutions. We will not
use our results for political purposes. The goal of this survey is to learn more about
American political campaigns, candidates, and elections, but we will not ask you to
discuss proprietary information or tactics. We will ask you some questions about
yourself, your views on issues of the day, and why you decided to run for office. We
know your time is valuable. To help compensate you for your participation, we are
offering a benefit to survey participants in the form of a summary report containing
some findings of this survey, to be emailed to you (if you so choose) after we have
completed the study. This document will allow you to gain a sense of aggregate
demographics and opinions among Democratic and Republican state legislative
candidates. There are no known risks associated with this study beyond those
associated with everyday life. Your participation in this online survey involves risks
similar to a person’s everyday use of the Internet, and there are no known risks
associated with this study beyond those associated with everyday life in your
capacity as a candidate. We hope that our results will add to the knowledge about
how American elections are conducted. Findings from this study may be reported in
scholarly journals, at academic seminars, and at research association meetings. The
data will be stored at a secured location and retained indefinitely. Confidentiality will
be maintained to the degree permitted by the technology used. No identifying
information about you will be made public and any views you express will be kept
completely confidential. Your participation is voluntary. Even if you decide to
participate, you are free not to answer any question or to withdraw from partici-
pation at any time without penalty. If you have any questions about the research, you
can contact Professor Michael G. Miller at mgmiller@barnard.edu. This study has
been approved by Barnard College’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). If you have
any questions about your rights as a research participant or concerns about the
conduct of this study, you may contact the Barnard College IRB chairs at irb@-
barnard.edu. () I understand the risks of this study as described above. I understand
that I may opt into receiving a summary of some of the study’sfindings, and that I
may also opt into a raffle for an iPad Mini, but that winning that raffleisnot
guaranteed. I understand that my participation is voluntary and I may withdraw at
any time. I agree to participate. () I do not agree to participate.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Michael Barber.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License,
which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified
the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted
material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2024
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1036 | https://doi.org /10.1057/s41599-024-03529-w 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com