California Journal of Politics and Policy

The COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for an unprecedented crisis in the rental housing market, as families faced eviction as a consequence of pandemic lockdowns and resulting economic recession. In response, for the first time ever in US history, eviction moratoria were introduced to protect renters from being evicted for nonpayment; these were accompanied by several stimulus measures to support renters and the overall economy. This study asks whether these pandemic-era policies had any lingering effects after they had ceased to be implemented, by examining whether renters’ housing vulnerability at the state level saw any improvement in the post-pandemic years of 2022-23. For comparison, the study also evaluates the effects of variables reflecting economic fundamentals and renters’ housing burden. The findings suggest that the included policies had little effect on renters’ post-pandemic housing precarity.

Many have identified the tension between conceptualizing judges as legal versus political actors. One dimension of this tension is the extent to which we should or do think of judges as political representatives, both broadly and in ways that are either similar to or distinct from elected political representatives. In this project, we address the role of judges as representatives and then assess whether and to what extent California residents think of judges as representatives. Using public opinion data of California residents from the CalSpeaks survey fielded in the spring of 2021, we find that about a third of respondents do consider judges representatives in some way. While we find no gender differences in perceptions of judicial representation and very limited racial differences, there are strong age differences: younger respondents were significantly more likely to indicate that judges are representatives in some way compared to older respondents. This project informs how Californians understand the role of the courts, which might have consequences for judicial legitimacy and effectiveness.

Scholars seek to understand campaign donor behavior and its effects on candidates. Researchers generally agree that individual donors are more ideologically extreme than most organizational donors but disagree as to whether small individual donors (those giving less than $200 per cycle) are especially correlated to extremist candidates. We study the relationship between small individual donors and legislators’ NPAT and CFscores for the California, Washington, and Oregon legislatures between 2016 and 2022. We find both that individual donors correlate to more partisan legislators in general and that the correlation between donors and politically polarized legislators is even greater for small individual donors than for large individual donors in most cases.

California has produced some of the most important women leaders in American politics in recent decades. Yet California remains one of 17 states where a woman has not served as governor. This isn’t for lack of trying. Since 1978, 16 women have appeared on primary ballots and three have been party nominees. Why have so many women run, and yet none have won? Political science research, our own data gathering, as well as journalistic accounts, provide a few possible insights.