Finally, I show switching from at-large to district elections, a reform many localities in CA adopted in staggered fashion due to CA Voting Rights Act, seemed to decrease the wealth gap, at least for school board races, possibly bc the reform reduces costs of campaigning.

Candidate wealth no longer correlates with winning elections after adjusting for campaign fundraising. Purely descriptive, but suggests local campaign finance reform that equalizes candidate fundraising may be an important policy lever

I show that the wealthy are over-represented in local offices in part because elections favor them over lower-wealth candidates. Candidate pool is wealthier than the public, and those who win are even wealthier than those who run but lose.

Constraints on supply of qualified, lower-wealth candidates can’t explain the full wealth gap: it remains large when comparing those w/ similar backgrounds, like candidates for judgeships to similarly aged lawyers from the same law school.

I find that candidates for nearly all local offices live in higher-value homes than their constituents, meaning that wealth disparities appear even at the earliest stages of the candidate pipeline to higher office.

How much wealthier are local elected officials in the US than those they represent, and why? In a new paper, I link candidates in CA to their home values to estimate wealth gaps between candidates and constituents. (stanford.edu/~yoderj/candida…)

me watching 3 people in the same room together counting ballots

New paper w/ @justingrimmer: we link individuals’ ID-holding status to their turnout in North Carolina to estimate the effect of strict voter ID laws. We find NC’s law differentially deterred those w/o ID, and the effect persisted after the law's repeal. dropbox.com/s/ggl2ry6dyqnpz0…

Leaving this here

*tries to rid timeline of bed bugs*