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

More than 1,000 protests against the policies of President Donald Trump are set for Saturday across the country, with 117 planned in California alone.

The so-called "Hands Off" protests are sponsored by a coalition of dozens of civil rights, environmental, education, social justice and labor groups.

Hunter Dunn is press and public relations director for the grassroots group 50501 So Cal, which stands for "50 protests in 50 states, one movement."

"We oppose executive overreach, including pardon abuse, the institution of Project 2025 policies, and mass deportations by ICE," Dunn outlined. "We also oppose the use of the unitary executive theory to justify ignoring the court system."

Trump has said policies are intended to save money, fight crime and support the domestic oil and gas industry. The rallies in downtown Los Angeles and Sacramento are expected to draw huge crowds for this national day of action.

Dunn argued large-scale protests over a sustained period will slow down the Trump administration's priorities and motivate people to make their voices heard at polls going forward.

"In 2026 and 2028, all the people that are in the streets, they will vote for pro-democracy candidates that are in favor of affordable housing, universal health care, workers rights," Dunn contended. "Any policies that actually make a difference in the lives of the average American."

Some of the groups involved in the protests include the Women's March, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Indivisible, MoveOn.org, Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO and the League of Conservation Voters.


get more stories like this via email

A bill known as the Act for Civic Engagement did not make it out of committee in Olympia before the deadline but advocates for people who are incarcerated said they are not giving up.

The act would ensure people in Washington prisons and other facilities are able to form political organizations, communicate with community groups and elected officials and access spaces for meetings.

Karen Peacey was formerly incarcerated and now works with the advocacy group "I Did the Time." She said when people behind bars are able to stay engaged in politics and their communities, it reduces recidivism.

"They feel like they're a bigger part of society and an important part of society," Peacey explained. "Because they're helping to make it better."

Backers of the bill said more incarcerated people have submitted virtual testimony in Olympia since the pandemic but the process could be more accessible. Peacey argued people are being punished for doing political work from prison and the bill would prevent such retaliation.

The Washington Department of Corrections said implementing the bill would have cost more than $26 million and require over 100 additional employees, rendering it too expensive. Peacey countered the department already has the infrastructure in place for people in prison to communicate online with politicians and organizations.

She thinks the bill would have been important for the mental health of people in custody.

"You need to keep active, you need to keep your mind engaged," Peacey pointed out. "That's what creates a lesser evil within the prison."

Supporters of the bill said it followed other legislation passed in Olympia last year. The Nothing About Us Without Us Act guarantees legislative groups would include at least three people with direct lived experience of the issue they are working on. Peacey noted many incarcerated individuals have been part of the foster system or experienced abuse or a lack of support, giving them valuable insight into improving systems to reduce crime rates.


get more stories like this via email

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump to dramatically overhaul voting laws is unlikely to stand up in court, according to an election law expert. But some states may adopt its provisions to gain political favor.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the order an "executive power grab" meant to dictate how all 50 states will run their future elections. He noted that the president's order would require proof of citizenship on the national voter registration form and require the invalidation of ballots received after Election Day.

"I think it's very, very unlikely that this will take legal effect," he said. "It may be that some states adapt procedures, if they're friendly to the president, to comply with the EO, but it's very unlikely that federal government will be able to enforce many aspects of this EO, if not all of the aspects."

The order also would give the Elon Musk-led team known as the Department of Government Efficiency access to state voter rolls to check for "consistency with federal requirements." Becker said he expects voting-rights groups and state attorneys general to file challenges.

The order threatens to withhold federal funding from states that don't comply with its directives ahead of the 2026 midterms. Becker said that would come with a hefty price tag.

"It's creating an entirely new bureaucracy in every single state," he said. "The entire price tag of this entire executive order, if it were to be upheld, is well into the billions - and possibly tens of billons - of dollars."

The Trump administration has said the EO would prevent non-Americans from voting in federal elections by requiring a government-issued ID or a passport, but not a birth certificate, as proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans don't have a passport - including many in areas of the South and Midwest that voted for Trump in the 2024 election.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email