Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Court played an important role in nationalizing the battle over immigration restriction, in defining whiteness, and considering who could be a citizen. While the "state of courts and parties" was yielding to the rise of the administrative state, the Court was paying attention to "social facts" and popular discourse about race and citizenship. The agendas of organized labor, suffrage activists, Progressive reformers, and nativists intersected in a virtue or merit-based discourse that supported efforts to add literacy qualifications for new U.S. entrants and later more severe restrictive meausres. Strategies and decisions made by each of these groups had an impact on federalism and on the institutional arenas in which battles would be fought.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Eminent domain is arguably the greatest demonstration of government power municipalities can exert over property owners. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that ¡§promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government¡¨ (2005). Therefore, the court concluded that economic development is a legitimate public purpose satisfying the requirements of the Fifth Amendment¡¦s takings clause. In the wake of the Supreme Court¡¦s ruling, debate at the national and state levels has centered on possible interventions to prevent abuse of eminent domain.

Although the popular press has focused on the plight of the homeowners in the Kelo case and other similar cases, municipal leaders and economic development advocates point to successful outcomes from condemnation of private property for economic development such as Baltimore¡¦s Inner Harbor project. However, legislative leaders have clearly been moved by the arguments of private property owners.

This paper investigated the legislative changes since the Kelo decision and the possible implications of both the decision and the subsequent legislation. While eminent domain was an issue appearing frequently on state legislative agendas pre-Kelo, since the decision, every state has considered eminent domain reform legislation. In most states, some form of eminent domain legislation was successfully passed by the legislature, although the degree of reform varies greatly from state to state. Contrary to the predictions of anti-eminent domain interest group leaders post-Kelo of rampant seizures for economic development, I conclude that the legislative changes and the significant increase in public attention to the eminent domain issue will make it more difficult to seize property for economic development in the future.


On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the landmark eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London. In a 5-4 decision, the justices held that economic development could be considered a public use under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to Kelo, the court had never directly addressed takings for the purpose of economic development, although they had made decisions related to urban revitalization and eminent domain. Lower court decisions on the issue were primarily based on earlier Supreme Court cases that addressed the question of public use as well as state constitutions and statutory law.

Despite the predictions of property rights advocates that seizures for economic development would occur unchecked after the Kelo decision, the state and federal legislative reaction to Kelo may make it more difficult to seize property for potential transfer to private entities than before the decision was issued. For this paper, I investigated the status of eminent domain law related to economic development in the United States. How will Kelo shape city governments¡¦ ability to assemble land for new development? In nearly every state legislature, new laws have been introduced to attempt to mitigate the affects of Kelo. This legislation differs greatly from state to state, with some states making very minor changes and others effectively barring takings for economic development or for transfer to private entities.

I begin with a brief description of the status of case law prior to 2005 related to the use for eminent domain for revitalization or economic development and discuss the Kelo case in greater detail. I then describe the findings of my research into the actions by state legislatures and the U.S. Congress in response to Kelo. Concluding the paper is a discussion of potential implications for municipal leaders resulting from the actions by the court and by legislators.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The study investigates the roles of multiple factors (e.g., individual demographics and values, message desirability, and media use), as well as perceived media effects on self and others, in predicting support for censorship of three types of media content. Analyzing survey data collected form student and adult groups, this study finds that the both groups tend to support more extreme forms of media restrictions for propaganda than for information and entertainment content. Further, our regression analyses indicate that message desirability and First Amendment support significantly predict censorship support, while self-other perception gap does not. Although general patterns for censorship support appear to be similar in both groups, close examination reveals that students and adults are different in terms of factors they consider for censorship support. Complex processes related to the development of opinions regarding policy options and future directions on the third-person effect research are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Throughout American history, partisan majorities have set the agenda and structured legislative decisions on the floor in the United States House of Representatives, and the partisan minority has often been greatly disadvantaged by the rules governing debate. When minorities become majorities, one might expect them to relax the rules, and for a time, that may be the case. From Congress to Congress, however, the size, ideological composition, and cohesion of the majority party change. Majority leaders respond to those changes in part by varying the nature of the rules of debate in order to promote and protect their legislative agenda. Thus, as majorities become entrenched and cohesive over time, one may observe that the rules become more restrictive. In this paper, we explore the variation in the restrictiveness of rules in the House from the 79th to the 105th Congresses and find that – after a new majority gains control of the chamber – the restrictiveness of the rules increases and grows substantially. Further, the majority’s distance from the House’s ideological median and its effective size considerably enhance rules restrictiveness.