Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: While past research on the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda setting decisions
has primarily focused on exploring aspects of the legal and attitudinal
models, this paper investigates the applicability of one aspect of the
strategic model on the justices' certiorari decisions. I hypothesize
that a justice's decision to grant or deny certiorari is motivated in
part by inter-personal influences between the justices. Specifically, I
posit that these decisions are structured by the Court' voting order,
with junior justices susceptible to influence by their more senior
counterparts in order to promote their reputations at the Court.
Building on spatial models, I subject this argument to empirical
validity by examining the justices' certiorari votes in the Vinson and
Warren Courts. The results indicate that voting order matters: the
likelihood of voting to grant certiorari increases sequentially as more
justices vote in favor of certiorari, thus showing an inclination
towards consensus on the Court.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Much of the ontology in international relations is comprised of processes of spontaneous order and their products. Patterns of behavior including customary international law, interstate market interaction, and potentially even systemic phenomena such as

Publication Type: Paper/Poster Proposal
Abstract: In Ohio, the so-called ‘Epicenter’ of the 2004 national elections, did the order in which presidential candidate names were read matter in the levels of support they received in telephone surveys?
Researchers conducting pre-election surveys by telephone often administer multiple forms of trial heat questions that rotate the order in which candidate names are presented. In Ohio, the University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Poll uses this practice because
1) codified directives mandate rotation of candidate order on Election Day ballots and 2) research has shown that formulating research designs sensitive to the potential for response order effects improves pre-election measures of voter preferences (see, e.g. Rademacher and Smith, 2001; Visser et al. 2000; Miller and Krosnick 1998).
In this research, we examine whether ballot order impacted voter preference distributions in telephone surveys conducted in a state widely portrayed as one of the key battlegrounds in the race for the presidency. During the 2004 election campaign the University of Cincinnati’s Institute for Policy Research conducted telephone surveys designed to measure voter preferences in statewide races for president and U. S. Senate. These surveys included numerous ballot order experiments.
While the 2004 race for the presidency in Ohio was highly competitive, and received a great deal of campaign and media attention, the race for U.S. Senate was not competitive, and was relegated to the equivalent of a “down-ticket” race as a result. Analyses will examine the impact ballot order had on reported vote preferences in these two contests for president and U.S. Senate. In addition, we will also report the results of ballot order experiments in various types of races, including for president and U.S. Senate, conducted using the Ohio Poll in 2000 and 2002.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Citizenship is fundamentally a politics of ordering based not only on the regulation of domestic populations but also on the division and construction of the world?s peoples into distinct populations within nation-states or what Barry Hindess (2000) has called the ?international management of populations?. From this perspective of citizenship as government, citizenship is not simply a matter of domestic politics within the nation-state. Rather citizenship is an integral part of global politics and the foreign policy work of states. For citizenship is also fundamentally about border control and governing the mobility of populations between and across states and, ultimately, the securing of a particular global order of mobility rights, one that is highly gendered, racialized and classed based. This paper reflects on the above discussion of citizenship, security and borders by examining recent changes to Canadian Foreign Policy in light of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the area of citizenship and border controls. The paper examines these policy changes from the perspective of foreign policy as government, or the way that foreign policy is integral to the ordering of populations both domestically within Canada but also more globally. As such, the paper critically problematizes more traditional international relations approaches to foreign policy analysis. The paper argues that recent changes to Canadian border control policy must be understood within the context of changes occurring more globally through the harmonization of border controls across and between industrialized countries (especially Anglo-American countries such as Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom). In particular, the paper investigates such border controls as the implementation and harmonization of biometric traveler identification; the compilation and sharing of traveler information through electronic databases; and the use of risk profiling technologies. The paper argues that while border controls provide an internal ordering of populations domestically within Canada, they must also be understood as part of a larger and more global ordering of populations. This new global ordering, particularly post September 11, is one that is increasingly based on notions of risk and that challenges the guarantee of certain traditionally held citizenship rights.