State Residency, State Laws, and Public Opinion. Barbara Norrander Department of Political Science University of Arizona

Transcription

1 State Residency, State Laws, and Public Opinion Barbara Norrander Department of Political Science University of Arizona and Clyde Wilcox Department of Government Georgetown University Paper presented at the State Politics and Policy Conference, Michigan State, May 13-14, Abstract While considerable scholarly attention has been paid to the causes and consequences of citizen ideology and partisanship in the 50 U.S. states, less attention has been given to attitudes toward specific policies and issues. This paper uses the Senate National Election Surveys to study the influence of state residency on three abortion issues, capital punishment, government aid to African Americans, as well as partisanship and ideology. State residency can add 10 to 25 percent to the explained variance in individuals attitudes on these issues. Up to 25 percent of the effects of state residency is due to state laws, which have a legitimation effect on public opinion.

2 State Residency, State Laws, and Public Opinion Location, location, location, is the mantra of real estate agents in describing the worth of property. Echoing this theme, social scientists are increasingly readopting a geographic perspective in analyzing public opinion and electoral outcomes. New measures of state ideology and partisanship ignited a wealth of studies. Wright, Erikson and McIver (1985) developed their influential measure of state ideology and partisanship by pooling national media surveys over a number of years. Berry, Ringquist, Fording and Hanson (1998) created yearly indicators of citizen ideology based on congressional ratings and election returns. Jones and Norrander (1996) and Norrander (2001) demonstrate that the pooled Senate National Election Studies can be used to produce measures of state ideology and partisanship as well. State ideology has been successfully linked to a host of state policies, including laws governing rape, alcohol, drugs, budgets, economic development, welfare, and the death penalty (Berger, Neuman and Searles 1991; Berman and Martin 1992; Call, Nice, and Talarico 1991, Johnson and Meier 1990; Meier 1992; Meier and Johnson 1990; Nice 1991; and Nice 1992) State ideology also can be used to judge the behavior of state supreme court justices (Brace, Langer, and Hall 2000). Furthermore, states are being studied for their contribution to national outcomes, such as presidential elections (Campbell 1992; Erikson, McIver and Wright 1987; Holbrook 1991; Jackson and Carsey 1999a, 1999b; Shelley and Archer 1994). Because of data availability, most attention has been paid to state ideology or state partisanship. Yet ideology and partisanship are not always successful surrogates for opinions on a wider range of issues. Even with improvements in measuring issue positions (Sullivan, 1

3 Piereson and Marcus 1978) and a tighter connection between partisanship and ideology in recent years (Abramowitz and Saunders 1998), the American public still cannot be described as holding tightly constrained issue opinions that are shaped by an overarching ideology. Fortunately, measures of state-level opinion on specific issues have been developed from the Senate National Election Surveys (Jones and Norrander 1996; Norrander 2001 ) and the General Social Surveys (Brace, Sims-Butler, Arceneaux and Johnson 2002). These aggregated issue attitudes have been successfully linked to state policies on abortion (Norrander and Wilcox 1999) and capital punishment (Mooney and Lee 2000; Norrander 2000) and to the number of women in state legislatures (Arceneaux 2001). A complete understanding of public opinion in the states requires the examination of a host of specific issues as well as ideology and partisanship. State Variations in Public Opinion As state public opinion is increasingly linked to state policies and national politics, a better understanding of why public opinion varies by states is needed. The simplest explanation for state-level variations in public opinion would be that compositional effects of state electorates account for much of the variation in aggregate public opinion. In this vein, Cook, Jelen and Wilcox (1993a) found in a study of abortion opinion in six states that interstate differences could be accounted for by distributional differences in education, race, age and religion. State residency, per se, could have independent influences on public opinion in a number of manners. State laws vary and laws have legitimizing effects on public opinion. For example, Norrander (2000) notes approval of capital punishment is seven percentage points higher in 2

4 states with death penalty laws versus those that do not have such statutes. State laws on partisan or nonpartisan voter registration and rules for primary participation influence levels of partisan identification (Burden and Greene 2000; Finkel and Scarrow 1985; Norrander 1989). Groups organize and promote their views, such that states with an actively organized group could strengthen the opinions of their supporters and perhaps, cause countermobilization among their opponents. In this vein, Cook, Jelen and Wilcox (1993b) in a study of abortion opinion in 42 states found that the distribution of Catholic and Protestant residents mattered. Protestants in heavily Catholic states became more supportive of abortion rights than Protestants in other states. Others attribute the influence of states on public opinion to variations across the states in political culture. Elazar (1966) divided the states into three categories: traditionalistic, individualistic, and moralistic. While these political cultures refer primarily to styles of governing, they also have been linked to public policy (Lowery and Sigelman 1982) and state opinion (Norrander 2000). Meanwhile, Erikson, McIver and Wright (1987) define state political culture as only that portion of state public opinion that cannot be accounted for by the group characteristic of the state electorate (p. 798, italic in original). Data and Methods State public opinion can be studied using the pooled Senate National Election Study (Miller et al 1999). Unlike other NES surveys, the Senate study employs a state-based sampling frame. Thus, the SNES provides representative samples of all 50 states. Jones and Norrander (1996) demonstrate the reliability of many of the issue questions in the SNES as indicators of 3

5 aggregated opinion for the states. In this study, the concentration is in the other direction. How much influence does state residency have on public opinion? We adopt a common methodology for judging the influence of state residency on public opinion (Cook, Jelen and Wilcox 1993a; Erikson, McIver and Wright 1987). We control for a variety of demographic traits to eliminate, as much as possible, the influence of varying population characteristics as reasons for state-level differences in opinion. Secondly, we add dummy variables for each state (minus one) to judge the independent influence of state residency on public opinion. We also designate as core political attitudes partisanship and ideology. These core attitudes will be included as determinants of attitudes on specific issues (three abortion measures, capital punishment, and government aid to blacks.) While the SNES provides an ideal sampling frame, it provides less than ideal measures of demographic characteristics. Basic measures of gender, race, job status, union membership, age and income are available. The only indicator of religious view is denominational affiliation. Still, including these basic demographic traits should account for much of the influence of an individual s background on public opinion. Measures of demographic variables were constructed along the following lines. Education is number of years of schooling (vps0606). Income (vps0629) and age (vps0604) were unchanged from their original format. Job status categories (vps0613) were: homemaker (codes 70 and 75), working (codes 10 though 18), unemployed (20, 40), retired (50), and student (80). Disabled is the excluded category. Marital status designates those currently married (code 1 in vps0605) from all others. With a large number of respondents in the SNES, racial categories (vps0631) were created for whites, blacks, Native Americans and Asian Americans. 4

6 The excluded category is other races. Latino designation includes all those with any Hispanic background (vps0632 codes 1 through 4). Four religion categories were created from the denomination variable (vps0630): no religion (codes ), conservative Christians (i.e., evangelicals, Pentecostals, fundamentalists and Mormons, codes 20, 120 through 128, 133 through 148, 180 through 219, 221, 222, 250 through 269, and 301), Jews (500 through 503), and Catholics (400). The excluded category represents mainly mainstream Protestants. Union membership includes anyone in the family setting (vps0617). All attitude questions were recoded such that a high response would indicate a conservative opinion. To maintain more respondents in the analysis, the summary ideology variable (vps0550) is used. This measure includes those who were reluctant to designate an ideological label in the first question but did select a label in response to a second question. Methodologically, OLS regression analyses were first run using only demographic variables to explain attitudes. State residency was then added by including 49 dummy variables. The excluded state in each analysis is the state whose citizens fall closest to the median opinion on the issue nationwide. Thus, Oregon is the excluded category for the partisanship model, Wisconsin for ideology, Texas for abortion attitudes, Pennsylvania for government funding of abortions for poor women, Florida for parental consent for abortions for women under 18, Kansas for the death penalty, and Iowa for government aid to blacks. The impact of state residency is gauged by the change in R 2 when the 49 dummy variables are added to the model based on demographic traits. For the more specific issue questions (abortion, capital punishment, aid to blacks), a change in R 2 also is computed for the addition of the two core attitudes (partisanship and ideology) to the demographic variable model. State residency is 5

7 added after the core attitudes. The significance of the change in R 2 is indicated by the F-statistic and its level of significance. The percent of explained variance due to demographic, core attitudes, and state residency also is indicated in the tables. Results Table 1 examines the influence of state residency and demographic traits on the core attitudes of party identification and ideology. Personal demographic traits explain 11.2 percent of the variation in party identification. State residency adds an additional 1.4 percent to the explanation of partisan preferences. For ideological self-identification, demographic traits account for 5.5 percent of the total variance and state residency provides an additional 1.5 percent of explained variance. The amount of variance in individual attitudes attributable to state residency at first appears to be quite small. The explained variances for demographic traits and state residency reported here are similar in size to those described by Erikson, McIver and Wright (1987) for their analysis of the pooled CBS News/New York Times polls. In addition, the impact of state residency on party identification is more than such individual demographic traits as income (change in R 2 of.006**) and only slightly less than union membership (change in R 2 of.018**). State residency accounts for 11 (.014/.127) to 21 (.015/.070) percent of the total variance explained. Regression coefficients for individual states (not shown) indicate that living in Oklahoma, West Virginia or Hawaii increases attachment for the Democratic party at a statistically significant rate (p #.05) while residing in Alaska increases Republican preferences. For ideology, living in the South increases conservatism as the following states have statistically 6

8 significant coefficients: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia. Living in Nebraska also contributes a conservative influence on ideological identification. Public attitudes on three abortion questions are explored in Table 2. In this analysis, the core attitudes of partisanship and ideology are included as predictive variables. Demographic variables alone explain from 4.9 percent (parental consent) to 7 percent (abortion position) of the overall variance in individual attitudes. Core attitudes contribute an additional 3.3 to 5.4 percent of explained variance. State residency explains an additional 1.9 to 2.7 percent of the variation in abortion attitudes. Living in Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota or West Virginia increases the chances that an individual will express a pro-life opinion while living in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada and New York increases the likelihood that one will hold a pro-choice opinion. More conservative attitudes on government funding of abortions for poor women are found in Louisiana and South Dakota while more liberal attitudes are found in Nevada and Rhode Island. No state had a regression coefficient significant at the.05 level in the parental consent model, but at the.10 level, residents in Indiana, Nevada and Tennessee have more conservative opinions and residents of Maine, Oregon and Vermont have more liberal opinions than their demographic traits or core attitudes would predict. Demographic traits and core attitudes are more important than state residency in explaining abortion attitudes, but state residency accounts for 18 to 20 percent of the total variation explained. Table 3 examines the same three sets of variables in explaining public opinion on capital punishment and government aid to minorities. For attitudes on capital punishment, state 7

9 residency explains as much of the variation in individual-level opinions as do the two core attitudes of party identification and ideology. (In fact, state residency explains a smidgeon more.) State residency and these core attitudes each contribute a quarter to the total variation explained. State residency accounts for 2.4 percent of the total variation in opinions on government aid to blacks but accounts for 20 percent of the explained variance. Residents of Florida and Oklahoma are more likely to express support of the death penalty than their demographic and core attitude background would predict, and residents of Vermont are more liberal. At the.10 level of significance, residency in Illinois, Missouri and Utah increases support for the death penalty and living in Maine, North Dakota and Rhode Island decreases support. Residency in many southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee) and a variety of other states (Idaho, Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, and Wyoming) leads to more conservative attitudes on government aid to minorities while only Vermont residency appears to increase liberalism on this attitude. Understanding the Influence of State Residency Results from the analyses in Tables 1 through 3 indicate state residency has a significant impact on individual-level public opinion. But what is the source of this influence? One possibility is that state residency is simply picking up missed measures of demographic variation. However, it is unlikely that untapped demographic variation would consistently match state residency. State residency may impact public opinion because states have a specific political milieu, whether it is political culture or political history. The concept of political culture, 8

10 however, is often used as a catchall for other unmeasured effects. Another possibility is that state residency reflects concrete political conditions in a state such as variations in state laws. Laws may provide a legitimation effect to one side of a public opinion issue. It is this last point that can be most clearly tested. State laws on and usage of capital punishment have been remarkably stable over time, despite the disruption caused by the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Furman v. Georgia. Most states that employed capital punishment prior to the ruling simply rewrote their laws to conform to the newer standards. After the 1970s, few states changed their position on capital punishment and execution rates from the pre and post-furman eras are highly correlated, with Pearson s r =.61, significance #.01 (Norrander 2000). Given the longevity of state policies on capital punishment, such laws are more likely to have a legitimation effect. To analyze the contribution of state laws to the explanation given by state residency to public opinion, a dummy variable was developed for the presence or absence of a death penalty law in each state in (The capital punishment question was first asked in the 1990 wave of the SNES). The state law variable was added to the model containing demographic traits, core attitudes and state residency variables. To avoid collinearity between the dummy variables for state laws and state residency, the median state (in terms of public opinion) in each category of the state law variable was excluded: Oregon for states having death penalty laws and Wisconsin for states without such laws. The model was tested by sequentially adding demographic traits, core attitudes, state laws and finally state residency. Changes in explained variances (R 2 ) are used to demonstrate the importance of each component to the model. Results in Table 4 show that the presence of a state law contributed a small but 9

11 statistically significant portion of the model s ability to explain individual-level opinions on capital punishment (change in R 2 due to the law =.007**). State laws contributed about 6 percent (.007/.111) to the overall explained variance. More important, state laws constitute about one-fourth of the explanation that previously came from state residency. Twenty-seven percent (.007/.026) of a state s influence on public opinion is due to state law, while 73 percent (.019/.026) is attributable to other state characteristics. Abortion laws in the states are of more recent vintage. After Roe v. Wade overturned state bans on abortion, states enacted a number of laws qualifying the right to an abortion. These laws date from 1975 and cover topics such as prohibiting use of government funds for abortions for poor women, parental consent for minors, spousal consent, and various measures intended to constitute informed consent, such as waiting periods or distribution of printed materials. Abortion laws may have less influence on public opinion because of their relative recency. Specific abortion laws also may be less well known to the public than capital punishment laws. Pending executions and death penalties imposed at the conclusion of murder trials are stories covered on the nightly news. Abortion laws are publicized upon enactment but are unlikely to be discussed at other times. With less discussion of these laws, they may have a lesser legitimation effect. However, the public may have a vague sense of how much abortion is regulated in their states and this may influence public opinion. Four abortion laws were coded for their presence in 1987, the year prior to the first asking of the abortion questions in the SNES. Dummy variables were created for government funding bans and parental consent laws. These match the two specific abortion policy questions asked in SNES. For analyzing general abortion attitudes, an abortion law index was formed by 10

12 summing the number of the four abortion laws in place in a state in To prevent collinearity, the median state for the one and zero categories of the dummy variables were excluded (funding = Alaska and Arkansas; parental consent = Georgia and New Mexico) and for the abortion index, the median states for the zero versus all other categories were excluded (Virginia and Connecticut). The bottom section of Table 4 presents results for analysis of abortion laws. The index of state laws can account for 26 percent (.007/.027) of the influence of state residency on general abortion attitudes. This is an effect similar in magnitude to that found for capital punishment laws. Laws on government funding of abortion have a smaller influence on public opinion, accounting for 16 percent (.004/.025) of the influence of state residency. Finally, laws on parental consent for abortions have no influence on state opinion. The public may be unaware of the specific abortion laws in a state, which accounts for the lack or lesser influence for parental consent and government funding laws. However, a general sense of abortion laws may be guiding general abortion attitudes. Discussion State residency was demonstrated to be a small but important determinant of public opinion on a host of issues, from core attitudes such as partisanship and ideology, to opinions on the specific issues of abortion, capital punishment, and government aid to minorities. State residency adds 10 to 25 percent to the explained variation in individual-level opinion, while demographic factors contribute approximately half of the explained variation. The core attitudes of partisanship and ideology contribute from one-fourth to one-third of the explanation of 11

13 attitudes on the specific issues. A variety of reasons may account for the relationship between state residency and public opinion. In this analysis, the influence of state laws was tested. With only a single measure of public opinion and state laws, it is difficult to untangle the direction of influence. A longer time perspective allows for the historical chain of interactions between public opinion and public policy to be untangled (Norrander 2000). Nevertheless, analyses presented in this research provide a maximum influence of state laws on public opinion. If the causal direction is solely from state laws to public opinion, in a legitimation effect, state laws account for up to 25 percent of the influence of state residency on public opinion. The causal arrow may go in the other direction, despite the fact that state laws were measured prior to public opinion. If public opinion in a state is relatively stable, then our measure of public opinion in the 1990s may reflect public attitudes in the states in the 1970s when the capital punishment and abortion laws were being rewritten in response to Supreme Court cases. These earlier attitudes may have helped to shape laws in the state and these earlier attitudes continue to shape public opinion today. Nevertheless, even in this last scenario where prior public opinion influences both policy and current opinion, public policy still plays a role in cementing public opinion in a state. Public laws contribute to the continuity in public opinion overtime by providing a legitimation effect. Not all laws will have equal effect on public opinion. When public laws are such that their implementation is an ongoing news story, such as capital punishment sentencing, these laws will have a greater opportunity to influence public opinion. When the implementation of public laws is a more quiet, private activity, such as parental consent for abortions, the public may be 12

14 less aware of the existence of the law, and the law will have little to no influence on public opinion. 13

15 References Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate. Journal of Politics 60 (August): Arceneaux, Kevin The Gender Gap in State Legislative Representation: New Data to Tackle an Old Question. Political Research Quarterly 54 (March): Berger, Ronald J., W. Lawrence Neuman, and Patricia Searles The Social and Political Context of Rape Law Reform: An Aggregate Analysis. Social Science Quarterly 72: Berman, David R., and Lawrence L. Martin The New Approach to Economic Development: An Analysis of Innovativeness in the States. Policy Studies Journal 20: Brace, Paul, Laura Langer, and Melinda Gann Hall Measuring the Preferences of State Supreme Court Justices. Journal of Politics 62: Brace, Paul, Kellie Sims-Butler, Kevin Arceneaux, and Martin Johnson Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Survey Data. American Journal of Political Science 46 (January): Burden, Barry C., and Steven Greene Party Attachments and State Election Laws. Political Research Quarterly 53 (1, March): Call, Jack E., David Nice, and Susette M. Talarico An Analysis of State Rape Shield Laws. Social Science Quarterly 72: Campbell, James E Forecasting the Presidential Vote in the States. American Journal of Political Science 36 (2, May): Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Ted. C. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. 1993a. State Political Cultures and Public Opinion About Abortion. Political Research Quarterly 46 (4, December): Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Ted. C. Jelen, and Clyde Wilcox. 1993b. Catholicism and Abortion Attitudes in the American States: A Contextual Analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32: Erikson, Robert S., John P. McIver, and Gerald C. Wright, Jr State Political Culture and Public Opinion. American Political Science Review 81 (3, September): Finkel, Steven E., and Howard A. Scarrow Party Identification and Party Enrollment: The Difference and Consequence. Journal of Politics 47: Holbrook, Thomas M Presidential Elections in Space and Time. American Journal of Political Science 35 (1, February): Jackson, Robert A., and Thomas M. Carsey. 1999a. Group Components of US Presidential Voting Across the States. Political Behavior 21 (2, June): Jackson, Robert A. and Thomas M. Carsey. 1999b. Presidential Voting Across the American States. American Politics Quarterly 27 (4, October): Johnson, Cathy Maries, and Kenneth J. Meier The Wages of Sin: Taxing America s Legal Vices. Western Political Quarterly 43: Jones, Bradford S. and Barbara Norrander The Reliability of Aggregated Public Opinion Measures. American Journal of Political Science 40 (February): Lowery, David, and Lee Sigelman Political Culture and State Public Policy: The Missing Link. Western Political Quarterly 35:

16 Meier, Kenneth J The Politics of Drug Abuse: Laws, Implementation, and Consequences. Western Political Quarterly 45: Meier, Kenneth J., and Cathy M. Johnson The Politics of Demon Rum: Regulating Alcohol and Its Deleterious Consequences. American Politics Quarterly 18: Miller, Warren E., Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies American National Election Study: Pooled Senate Election Study, 1988, 1990, 1992 [Computer file]. 3 rd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Mooney, Christopher Z. and Mei-Hsien Lee The Influence of Values on Consensus and Contentious Morality Policy: US Death Penalty Reform, Journal of Politics 62 (1, February): Nice, David C The Impact of State Policies to Limit Debt Financing. Publius 21: Nice, David C The States and the Death Penalty. Western Political Quarterly 45: Norrander, Barbara Explaining Cross-State Variation in Independent Identification. American Journal of Political Science 33(2, May): Norrander, Barbara Measuring State Public Opinion with the Senate National Election Study. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (1, March): Norrander, Barbara The Multi-Layered Impact of Public Opinion on Capital Punishment Implementation in the American States. Political Research Quarterly 53 (December): Norrander, Barbara and Clyde Wilcox Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy. Policy Studies Journal 27 (December): Shelley, Fred M., and J. Clark Archer Political Geography of Contemporary Affairs: Some Geographic Aspects of the American Presidential Election of Political Geography 13 (2, March): Sullivan, John L., James E. Piereson, and George E. Marcus Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings. American Journal of Political Science 23: Wright, Gerald, Robert Erikson, and John McIver Measuring State Partisanship and Ideology with Survey Data. Journal of Politics 47:

17 Table 1: The Influence of Demographic Traits and State Residency on Core Attitudes of Party Identification and Ideology Party Identification Ideology b / (SE) R 2 % b / (SE) R 2 % Demographics Education.05** / (.01) -.04** / (.01) Homemaker.60** / (.17).23 / (.14) Working.42** / (.15).04 / (.13) Unemployed.20 / (.19).09 / (.16) Retired.52** / (.16) -.07 / (.13) Student.48* / (.21) -.01 / (.17) Female -.26** / (.05) -.20** / (.04) Married.14** / (.05).22** / (.04) White.56** / (.22) -.17 / (.17) Black -1.35**/ (.24) -.56** / (.19) Native American -.04 / (.30) -.47 / (.25) Asian American.52 / (.32).15 / (.26) Latino -.38** / (.14) -.10 / (.12) No Religion -.63** / (.11) -.67** / (.08) Conservative Christian -.02 / (.06).09 / (.05) Jew -1.68**/ (.26) -1.16**/ (.22) Catholic -.50** / (.07) -.16** / (.06) Union -.80** / (.07) -.20** / (.05) Age -.01** / (.00).012** /(.002) Income.08** / (01).112** 88%.004 / (.01).055** 79% States.014** 11%.015** 21% Total R 2.127**.070** Number of Cases * p #.05; ** p #.01

18 Table 2: The Influence of Demographic Traits, Core Attitudes, and State Residency on Attitudes on Abortion, Abortion Funding, and Parental Consent. Abortion Abortion Funding Parental Consent b / (SE) R 2 % b / (SE) R 2 % b /(SE) R 2 % Demographics Education -.04** / (.01) -.06** / (.01) -.07** / (.01) Homemaker.13 / (.11).31 / (.17).36* / (.16) Working -.08 / (.10).16 / (.15).21 / (.14) Unemployed -.02 / (.12).15 / (.19) -.14 / (.18) Retired -.15 / (.11).19 / (.16).22 / (.15) Student -.25 / (.13).16 / (.20).22 / (.19) Female -.07* / (.03).27** / (.05) -.17** / (.05) Married.10** / (.03).13* / (.05).15** / (.05) White -.14 / (.14).49* / (.20) -.08 / (.19) Black.12 / (.15).35 / (.22) -.18 / (.22) Native American -.06 / (.20).36 / (.30).07 / (.29) Asian American.21 / (.20).87** / (.30) -.09 / (.29) Latino.07 / (.09).07 / (.14) -.08 / (.13) No Religion -.32** / (.07) -.22* / (.09) -.41** / (.09) Conservative Christian.33** / (.04).70** / (.09).15 / (.09) Jew -.33* / (.17) -.49* / (.22) -.51* / (.22) Catholic.31** / (.04).38** / (.06).25** / (.06) Union -.01 / (.04).12 / (.07) -.03 / (.06) Age.005**/(.001) -.00 / (.00) /(.002) Income -.04** / (.01).070** 51% -.02 / (.01).064** 45% -.03* / (.01).049** 49% Core Attitudes Party Identification.03** / (.01).10** / (.01).05** / (.01) Ideology.14** / (.01).039** 29%.17** / (.02).054** 38%.15** / (.02).033** 33% States.027** 20%.025** 18%.019** 19% Total R 2.136**.142**.100** Number of Cases * p #.05; ** p #.01

19 Table 3: The Influence of Demographic Traits, Core Attitudes, and State Residency on Attitudes on Capital Punishment and Aid to Blacks. Capital Punishment Aid to Blacks b / (SE) R 2 % b / (SE) R 2 % Demographics: Education -.03** / (.01) -.02* / (.01) Homemaker -.09 / (.15) -.24 / (.16) Working.02 / (.13) -.13 / (.14) Unemployed.02 / (.17).04 / (.17) Retired -.01 / (.14) -.07 / (.15) Student -.06 / (.17) -.65** / (.18) Female -.33** / (.04) -.10* / (.04) Married.19** / (.05).07 / (.05) White.21 / (.17).50** / (.19) Black -.55** / (.20) -1.09** / (.21) Native American -.03 / (.26).38 / (.27) Asian American.31 / (.26).48 / (.28) Latino.01 / (.12) -.18 / (.13) No Religion -.21** / (.08).07 / (.09) Conservative Christian.01 / (.08) -.20** / (.05) Jew -.50** / (.19).23 / (.24) Catholic -.16** / (.05).19** / (.06) Union.06 / (.06).09 / (.06) Age -.004* / (.002).001 / (.002) Income / (.011).059** 53%.005 / (.011).060** 51% Core Attitudes: Party Id..07** / (.01).06** / (.01) Ideology.09** / (.01).0259** 23%.16** / (.01).035** 30% States.0263** 24%.024** 20% Total R 2.111**.118** Number of Cases * p #.05; ** p #.01

20 Table 4: The Effect of State Laws, State Residency, Demographic Traits and Core Attitudes on Public Opinion on Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment Without State Laws Demographic Traits.059**.059** Core Attitudes.026**.026** State Laws.007** State Residency.026**.019** Total R 2.111**.111** Government Funding of Abortion Demographic Traits.064**.064** Core Attitudes.054**.054** State Laws.004** State Residency.025**.021** Total R 2.142**.142** Parental Consent for Abortions Demographic Traits.049**.049** Core Attitudes.033**.033** State Laws.000 State Residency.019**.019** Total R 2.100**.100** Abortion Law Index Demographic Traits.070**.070** Core Attitudes.039**.039** State Laws.007** State Residency.027**.021** Total R 2.136**.136** Entries are R 2 and change in R 2. * p #.05; ** p #.01 With State Laws