Research

Published Papers

The Societal Violence Scale: A Statistical Analysis of the Women’s Section of the U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Before and After the Trump Administration’s Directives
Published in Dignity: An Undergraduate Human Rights Journal

Abstract: The Societal Violence Scale highlights physical abuses perpetrated by non-state actors across 201 countries. In response to policy shifts under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of State reduced reporting requirements related to societal abuses. This study analyzes the Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the Societal Violence Scale’s scores from 2014 to 2018 to assess the impact of these directives. A two-sample t-test and hypothesis testing reveal that reporting on individual violence against women significantly declined following the administration’s changes.

Working Papers

Unraveling the End of Preclearance and Its Influence on Political Mobilization Efforts
Currently under review at American Politics Review
Presented at the 6th and 7th Annual Election Science, Research, and Administration Conferences (2022, 2023)

Abstract: I analyze how the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (2013) affects campaign engagement with voters in areas formerly subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Employing a difference-in-difference design, I examine data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and the Cooperative Election Study (CES) to determine whether Shelby County led to more or less campaign contact in states that had previously needed federal approval to change election laws. The findings reveal that the removal of the preclearance provision spurred intensified campaign outreach efforts by both Democrats and Republicans in preclearance states. I suggest that Democrats escalated their campaign contact because of the threat posed by the end of preclearance, while Republicans escalated their campaign contact out of opportunities to make gains in areas where election laws could be changed without federal approval.

District Populations and Partisan Bias
In collaboration with Dr. Barry Burden
R&R with Legislative Studies Quarterly

Abstract: We investigate whether the differing population sizes of state legislative districts affect the ability to engage in partisan gerrymandering. We conjecture that larger populations facilitate partisan gerrymandering by providing mapmakers with more “raw material” to manipulate  to advantage their parties. Evidence based on measures of partisan bias and district population within and across the states and over multiple redistricting cycles suggests that more populous districts encourage partisan distortion, and this might occur in part by creating districts that are less compact. Fixed effects regressions taking advantage of within-state variation in district populations between lower and upper chambers show that more populous districts lead to more partisan bias in maps even after accounting for factors such as Voting Rights Act requirements that affect how states draw district lines, the number of seats in a chamber, and the land areas of districts.

Private and Public Lobbying on Election Reform: The Electoral Count Reform Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act
In collaboration with Dr. Eleanor Powell
Presented at the 2025 Midwest Political Science Association Conference

Abstract: This paper explores the question of what corporations and non-profits lobbied on the legislation and why they did so. While substantial literature explores corporate lobbying on industry-related legislation that has financial implications for the corporation, little is known about why organizations engage in lobbying on election reform legislation. This paper examines public (letter-writing advocacy) and private (traditional) lobbying on two recent pieces of election reform legislation: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 (ECRA) and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 ( JRLVRAA). The ECRA was designed to address ambiguities within the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that resurfaced during the 2020 election. The JRLVRAA was designed to restore and strengthen parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court struck down in Shelby v. Holder (2013). This paper explores the intricate landscape of corporate lobbying surrounding the ECRA and JRLVRAA, examining whether corporate positions align with partisan giving patterns, utilizing logistic regressions. The results reveal that the partisan alignment of employee contributions consistently predicts both public lobbying on the JRLVRAA and private (traditional) lobbying on both bills. Firms that engage in higher levels of total lobbying are also more likely to engage in traditional lobbying on both bills again, but the relationship with public advocacy on the JRLVRAA is weaker. Together, these results highlight how corporate involvement in electoral reform reflects not only industry interests but also broader partisan dynamics, raising important questions about the role of business in safeguarding—or strategically navigating—democratic institutions.