Replication Data for Understanding Public Attitudes toward Restrictive Voting Laws in the United States

Existing research on voting legislation argues that Republican lawmakers enact strict voting laws as part of a racialized, partisan electoral strategy—they believe that the laws will reduce minority turnout and benefit Republicans electorally. Yet, the empirical effects of strict voting laws on turnout are mixed, with some studies finding that restrictive legislation can actually increase minority turnout due to counter-mobilization effects. I leverage this empirical finding to study whether public opinion about voting laws is built on a racialized partisan strategy or on principle, specifically testing whether exposure to information that restrictive voting laws can boost minority turnout impacts Republicans’ or Democrats’ attitudes. My results show that Republicans do not appear to support strict voting laws out of strategic considerations, but Democrats are significantly less opposed when they become aware of potential strategic benefits. These results pose challenges for building majorities that will defend the franchise in the United States.

现有关于选举投票立法的研究指出，共和党议员所推行的严苛投票法规，本质上属于一种种族化的党派选举策略——其核心逻辑为，此类法规将降低少数群体的投票率，进而在选举层面为共和党谋取选举优势。然而，严苛投票法规对投票率的实证影响并未形成统一结论：部分研究显示，由于反向动员效应的作用，限制性投票法规反而可能提升少数群体的投票率。本研究依托这一实证发现，旨在探讨公众对投票法规的态度究竟是基于种族化的党派策略，还是基于原则立场；并专门检验了：当接触到“限制性投票法规可提升少数群体投票率”的信息后，共和党人与民主党人的态度是否会产生变化。研究结果表明，共和党人支持严苛投票法规似乎并非出于战略考量；而民主党人在获悉这类法规可能带来的战略收益后，其反对态度会显著弱化。上述研究结果，对美国构建捍卫选举权的多数派联盟形成了挑战。