A common narrative suggests that deeply polarized American voters always support their party's candidates, but a new study suggests otherwise in certain circumstances.
Researchers from Sacramento State and San Diego State universities asked more than 900 partisan voters about housing and homelessness - then asked them to choose, in a hypothetical local election - between a candidate from their party who disagreed with their views, or one from the opposite party who is aligned with them on policy.
Sacramento State Associate Professor of Political Science Danielle Martin co-authored the study.
"Overall, voters do support candidates from their own party - even when an opposite party candidate was closer to their views on one of those salient local issues," said Martin. "But we also found that about 40% defected from their party."
The study found that people with weak party loyalty were more likely to defect, as were people who are very invested in their policy position.
They also point out that in national and state-level races, people are much less likely to split their votes between parties.
Study co-author Professor of Public Policy and Administration Ted Lascher, also from Sacramento State, said the data show that voters are more flexible when an issue hits close to home.
"One of the implications is that somebody who's running, who's the out party, in terms of local party identification, may be able to win elections in city council and mayoral races," said Lascher, "if they choose the issue very carefully. Because voters will sometimes cross party lines on particular local issues."
San Diego State University Political Science Professor Brian Adams said this means that even though Democrats enjoy broad support in California, that support is more conditional than absolute in local races.
"A lot of this research suggests that if Republicans put forward candidates that actually agreed with some of the policy positions that Democratic voters have," said Adams, "at least some Democratic voters would be willing to switch."
About 96% of electoral contests in the U.S. are at the local level - for races such as the school board, the city council, and the county board of supervisors.
Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
Pro-worker and pro-democracy organizers and activists in Nevada are coming together to oppose some of the policies of President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the current administration.
The Hands Off! protest set for Saturday in Carson City is one of more than 1,000 taking place around the country.
Kimberly Carden, a leader of Indivisible Northern Nevada, said the national protest will be the largest single day of action since Trump took office for a second term. Carden said they'll be advocating for strengthening programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and they'll demand an end to federal worker layoffs and attacks on immigrants and transgender people.
"We aren't scared, we aren't going to be intimidated, and this is a big movement," she said, "and it's going to help our elected representatives buck up and fight back."
Carden said it's all about calling out attacks on democratic principles that affect everyone, regardless of political values and beliefs. The protest comes after an eventful week in the nation's capital - including enacting a range of tariffs on goods from foreign countries that are expected to increase prices.
A new survey finds Trump's approval rating has fallen to its lowest point so far.
The "Hands Off" event starts at noon outside the Legislative Building.
Lois Stokes, a member of the group Bans Off Our Bodies, said she's astonished by the number of people now unemployed because of federal mass firings. As a former statistician with the state who worked on employment and wage data, Stokes said she thinks the situation is particularly dire in Nevada.
"Getting rid of the federal maintenance workers that handle these old buildings - and well, even the new ones," she said. "The people that are monitoring our water quality, they've been fired. Who's looking out for those interests?"
Stokes said she hopes this weekend's event serves to remind folks they have a voice and power.
"For too long, we've let things like this slide," she said, "or, 'Oh well, that's too bad - maybe next time, you know, we'll vote someone in' - and I am really hoping it's a wake-up call."
get more stories like this via email
Some Colorado lawmakers are scrambling to protect voter rights after President Donald Trump issued an executive order to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. They say the requirement would disproportionately affect low-income voters and people of color.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the language in the U.S. Constitution is very clear that the authority to run elections is delegated to individual states.
"Everyone - Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative - wants to keep ineligible voters off the list. And there's always some value in discussing how to do it better," he explained. "Unfortunately that's not what this executive order does. It's really a remarkable seizure of power from the states."
Trump has cast doubt on the integrity of American elections for years, despite evidence that fraud is extremely rare. The new order claims the nation has failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections," and would allow the Department of Homeland Security and 'DOGE' to access state voter rolls. Colorado Senate Bill 1 - which would bar voter discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or gender identity - has cleared the state Senate and now moves to the House.
Becker noted that Congress does have constitutional authority to change election rules, and did so most notably after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And in 2021, he says House Democrats passed a sweeping set of election reforms that ended up dying in the Senate.
"But at least that was done through congressional action. What we have here is an executive power grab - an attempt by the President of the United States to dictate to states how they run elections, how they should exercise the power that is granted to them by the Constitution," he continued.
Becker noted the new order suggests serious misunderstandings, intentional or not, about the nation's election system, which he says is secure. It's already illegal for non-U.S. citizens to vote, and voter lists are as accurate as they've ever been. More than 95% of all U.S. voters use paper ballots, which are available in all states, and ballots are audited to confirm results.
get more stories like this via email
Indiana's school board elections moved closer to becoming partisan after the House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill requiring candidates to list political affiliations on ballots.
If enacted, candidates must declare a party affiliation, list themselves as independent or remain nonpartisan. Party-affiliated candidates would have their designation appear on ballots.
Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, spent nine years on a school board and opposes the bill.
"The whole premise of this bill is there's politics in the schools, let's just put more politics in the schools," Moseley pointed out. "You can choose to believe me or not believe me, but the fact of the matter is we kept politics out of that."
Supporters argued school boards already operate along party lines and said voters should know candidates' political leanings. The bill passed 54-40 with 14 Republicans joining 26 Democrats who voted no. It now returns to the Senate for final approval.
Opponents of Senate Bill 287 claimed the change would inject unnecessary partisanship into local education, making elections more divisive. Only Democrats spoke against the measure during debate, warning it would deepen political divides in schools.
Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said school boards are already partisan.
"One party is saying it's OK that biological males can compete with our daughters in sports; another party is pushing against that," Lucas contended. "One party thinks it's OK to sterilize and mutilate children; another party's pushing against that."
If the Senate approves the changes, Indiana will join a handful of states with fully partisan school board elections.
get more stories like this via email