Partisan Convergence around Criminal Justice Policy

• In Event: Interest Groups, Parties, and the Policies for Which They Advocate

Abstract

Political party differences at the intersection of race and criminal justice are not as straightforward as conventional wisdom suggests. While party polarization is the rule of the day and on the vast majority of policy fronts in American politics, this study suggests that party polarization is not as striking in connection with racial justice in law enforcement. Nor has it ever been. Criminal justice policymaking is instead among the handful of areas where we observe a remarkable degree of partisan convergence. Specifically in connection with actual policy reform and the Congressional legislative process, there is scarce daylight between the two major parties on the question of whether, when and how to redress racial disparities in criminal justice. Evidence from Congressional lawmaking proceedings indicates that Democrats and Republicans vote largely in tandem with one another in this critical policy sphere. Such that, whenever the unique criminal justice interests of racial-ethnic minorities are ignored or when they are remediated, both parties' voting patterns are derelict or dutiful in equal measure.

To support the claim of partisan convergence around race and law enforcement, this study offers an in-depth probe of U.S. House of Representatives committee and floor proceedings on race and criminal justice measures from the 107th through the 115th Congresses (2001 through 2018). Focusing on 113 measures, it combines roll call vote analysis with a review of substantive policy provisions. The provisions are grouped into seven categories of what I term “flash points” or recurring concerns in race and criminal justice reform. The flash points include: criminal processing by police officers; over-criminalization; drug criminalization; over-incarceration; collateral consequences; capital punishment; and civil rights protections. To capture party voting on these flash points, I use the final vote on passage or on agreeing to the conference report.

The analysis yields four main findings. First is that the legislative votes that are cast by Democratic lawmakers at the intersection of race and criminal justice are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republican lawmakers. Secondly, Congressional party convergence around race and crime-fighting maintains irrespective of the thrust of proposed provisions—whether designed so that they reform, sustain, or exacerbate existing disparities. Thirdly, significant party differences do not appear in connection with the types of parliamentary strategies used to dispose of the selected crime bills, indicating that legislators’ fears of electoral fallout do not vary markedly between the two parties. Finally, to the extent that partisan polarization is discernable in lawmakers’ handling of racial justice legislative proposals, it is in two respects. The first difference concerns the likelihood of success in advancing proposals through the procedural stages of the formal legislative process. The second concerns official sponsorship. Legislative measures that have a bearing on the flash points of racial justice have a greater chance of making it from one stage of the formal process to the next when Republicans are at the helm. Meanwhile, advocacy in the form of bill introduction and bill sponsorship is most frequently the enterprise of Democrats.

This work builds on research presented in my book, The Political Roots of Racial Tracking in American Criminal Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2015). The murder of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer affords yet another opportunity for political scientists and pundits alike to carefully unpack the political roots of a perennially vexing problem in American society and politics. The research presented in this paper indicates that—notwithstanding the usual Democratic Party calls to action and the reliably less sympathetic rhetoric of President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders—the two major political parties act in accord on the legislative floor.

Author

• Nina M. Moore, Colgate University