����logo�������

If you had a public voice in late January to mid-March, what one thing would you have done/said? Same question...tomorrow, what one thing would you do/say from a national stage?

This is a tough question!�� I think my number one thought as of January/February was that there were a lot of unknowns.�� We didn’t, and still don’t know all that much about the virus and how it attacks people differently.�� So my advice would have been, and still is, to be cautious in how we proceed with opening up our economy and daily lives.�� This is not to say to give into a greater sense of fear, but more so to make sure we are able to protect the public health.�� This also is not to say that we must shut everything down until a vaccine is available (and administered to 300+ million Americans), but rather that we should make decisions prioritized on safeguarding public health.

There’s the whole debate about whether or not elected officials should act as delegates or trustees while in public office. To your point about the decision making processes going on at the state level, especially in light of intense public pressure and an erosion of public trust in science, how do you think that delegate trustee tug of war is approached differently by elected officials in items of crisis?

This is a great question and I haven’t seen any data or other explorations into this during COVID.�� In talking with state legislators over the years, I’ve learned that they often listen to those who make a lot of noise.�� In other words, constituencies who reach out on a consistent basis with a consistent message are the most memorable.�� In many districts, these constituents represent a legislator’s primary election base.�� So, it’s not surprising when an Ohio legislator posts on social media that people should stop getting tested for COVID if that’s what their primary base is telling them.�� By the same token, it’s also not surprising when a fellow legislator of the same political party argues that we should be wearing masks in public and that public health officials are doing a great job under the circumstances.�� Both legislators are looking at their districts and doing their best to be delegates.

A crisis provides legislators an incentive to behave more as delegates because they will hear from constituents about the issue(s) of concern.�� It’s easier for them to see the direct link between ignoring their constituents and being penalized at the polls.�� For issues that are less salient, however, the incentives are greater for a legislator to behave more like a trustee.

What are the chances supreme court case (possibly out tomorrow) regarding taxes could be that case?

Of course, with hindsight being 20-20, it’s obvious that the Supreme Court is going to send the case back to the lower courts!�� In all honesty, my understanding of the Supreme Court is that it is often reticent to weigh in on inter-branch squabbles.�� In some ways, this case fits that description and the Court ruled accordingly.

As a European originally from the city of Bergamo, Italy I find the situation here astonishing. Moreover, the lack of visibility on how in other countries this pandemic was handled, I wonder and would like to ask you what do you think would be the situation of the US citizens if they could have access to that news to better assess their view and behavior in this pandemic and how to evaluate their political view going into the upcoming election?

Whatever issues we have, access to news isn’t one of them.�� We have more information available at our fingertips than ever before.�� Indeed, cruising through news sites in March and April made this readily apparent: conservative, mainstream, and liberal news were reporting on the situation in Italy, France, Great Britain, and Germany.����

In my mind, the issue comes down to how we perceive that information and whether we use it to reinforce our political priors (in other words, the opinions we held before some event took place) or use it to amend our opinions.�� For instance, if one looked at the news coming from Beramo, Italy in March and April and thought, “Wow, we’re handling this so much better here than they are there”, but looks at the information now and thinks, “We’re still doing a better job of handling things here because our overall death rate is lower, my state of residence isn’t seeing the same issues, etc.”, then there’s a bit of a disconnect between reality and politics.�� By the same token, it’s often easy to compare ourselves to nations with dissimilar politics in order to make a political point.����

The people whose analyses I find most refreshing are those who can admit when they might be, or are, wrong.�� For my upper level courses, I often make my students write about two policies of the sitting president that they agree with and two that they disagree with.�� The purpose is for them to see that even if you love a president, you’re not going to support everything they do; if you hate a president, not everything they do is worthless or a disaster.�� Students often comment that while the assignment is difficult, they are able to uncover interesting findings while doing their research.

Do you anticipate officials using COVID to further political ideals or goals? For example, thinking of ICE’s decision regarding international students in relation to in-person vs. online instruction and its impact on visas.

Yes, absolutely.�� ICE is one example of this, as are the decisions of other executives (governors, mayors) as to who reopens and when.�� We are also seeing this with Congressional proposals related to COVID, with House Democrats’ latest $3 trillion relief package.��

How much evidence on COVID and political deals do you know of that is withheld from public access?

Given my general lack of inside sources, if I know about something, it’s definitely not being withheld from the public.�� So I really don’t know how much is being withheld.����

That said, there’s no doubt that there is a lot missing from what we currently know about how decisions are being made.�� Some of this is due to the recency of COVID and that freedom of information requests either haven’t been made or followed through on.�� Some of this is also due to questions of validity of the information not being shared.�� For instance, if public health officials aren’t confident in the accuracy or reliability of certain data, then releasing it can cause more problems than not releasing it (at this moment).�� This is one reason why we see such variation from one state to the next in terms of data and information presented to the public.�� COVID hit us so quickly that states didn’t have time to think about how to collect as much data as possible in the same way.�� Some states are now changing the way they collect data (i.e., confirmed cases vs. presumed cases) and how it’s being reported, which then affects what the public sees.����

The bottom line is that it will be years before we know the full extent of COVID, in terms of its impact on deaths, the long-term health of an individual, and our economy.

How does the recent Supreme Court decision on electoral voters affect campaign strategies?

Since the decision was in keeping with the status quo, it won’t change campaign strategies much at all.�� The Court essentially ruled that states continue to control how they run elections, meaning they can ban faithless electors.�� It also means that they can continue to push for a popular vote approach by which states award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.�� While many states have done this, they don’t represent enough electoral votes to elect a president; these laws will only take effect when their cumulative support reaches 270 electoral votes.�� If that happens, we’ll see a huge shift in campaign strategy.

What do you think would be the worst part of universal US healthcare? For example, say if Medicaid and Medicare were to include everyone regardless of signup.

I’ll dodge this question slightly since I don’t want to divulge too many of my personal opinions on issues.�� But I will say that I find the debate surrounding health care to be similar to other major reforms of the past.�� By this, I mean that you have divided camps within a political party.�� On one side is a group of people that says we should have incremental change on health care (I think it’s accurate to say Biden fits this description); on the other side you see people advocate an complete upending of the system (think Bernie here).�� Add to this that health care represents around 17% of the US economy and you can understand why these divergent views exist.�� (Aside: there are also quite a few plans being floated in conservative circles, but the lack of agreement about specifics has led to in-party fighting, such as what occurred in 2017 when Sen. McCain famously provided the deciding vote against repealing Obamacare.)�� When large, structural changes are made quickly, you run the risk of increasing uncertainty among voters, which in turn can lead to them voting against you.�� In one study published after the 2010 midterm elections, Democratic incumbents who voted for Obamacare were penalized about 3% on Election Day.�� That’s the largest penalty for any one vote I’ve ever seen.

How could this current national health crisis (COVID) impact our next presidential election? Could it end up as 1932, 1980, or 2000 elections or something completely different?��

This is a fascinating question because it deals with a topic in political science that many people find intriguing.�� It’s called realignment.�� Basically, realignment deals with our changing electoral coalitions.�� We constantly see groups that used to support one major party switch to supporting the other major party.�� Now, sometimes these changes occur rapidly - in one election cycle (referred to as a critical realignment) - and sometimes these changes occur slowly over time (referred to as secular realignment).

There are a couple of aspects to the realignment literature that intrigue me.�� First, there’s quite a bit of disagreement as to how many elections are classified as critical realignments.�� Scholars generally agree on 1828, 1860, and 1896 (note the term “generally”).�� There’s some debate as to whether or not 1932 fits that category or if the realignment started in the 1920s and then manifested itself in 1932.�� But what’s also interesting is that scholars think that every 30-40 years we might see these types of elections (they call this “periodicity”).�� Yet, people are unsure as to which election might be deemed critical after 1932.�� Is it 1980?�� 1992?�� 2000?�� None of the above?����

With the uncertainty surrounding critical realignments, scholars instead focus more on secular realignments.�� For instance, the South was solidly Democratic...until it wasn’t.�� There was no one singular moment that led to the South becoming Republican, but a series of events, including the split of the Democratic Party in 1948, the presidency of LBJ and civil rights, Nixon’s southern strategy, the accelerated use of air conditioning (which brought northern conservatives into the suburban South), and more.�� Looking at realignment through a regional lens makes a lot of sense: at any one moment, different regions are trending in different directions and at different paces.�� The “New South” (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia) are trending toward the Democrats, as is the West.�� Meanwhile, the Midwest is trending toward Republicans.����

What intrigues me about 2020, as you’ve asked, is the effect of COVID on our elections. Rather than being a critically realigning election, I’m curious as to whether or not it speeds up some of our secular realignment.�� Does this election put Georgia, Arizona, and Texas in play for Democrats?�� Or is it more like 2008, when Indiana voted for Obama then returned to its solidly Republican status in 2012 and 2016?�� Does Trump recover from his current polling issues and sweep the Midwest, including Minnesota (which was the only state Reagan didn’t win in 1984)?�� Based on polling, COVID is a dominant issue for 2020; it’s completely overshadowed impeachment.����

But once the disease subsides, does it have any lasting effects on the electorate?�� This is where I’m somewhat skeptical.�� I’ve not seen any research suggesting that the 1918 flu pandemic fundamentally altered our politics at the national level.�� Or is Trump the bigger impetus for change within the electorate?�� Secular realignment tells me that many of the changes we are seeing have been going on for around 20 years (see West Virginia in 2000 as a foreshadowing of the nascent GOP coalition).�� The bottom line is that whoever loses the 2020 presidential election is going to figure out how to increase their coalition, which will mean that 2024 will be similar, but not identical, to the 2020 context.

Are there minimum/mandatory requirements in the Constitution for citizen’s accessibility to voting or is that strictly the state issues?��

The Constitution does speak a little to voting requirements in that the 15th Amendment gave African Americans the right to vote, the 19th Amendment allowed women to vote, the 24th Amendment banned poll taxes, and the 26th Amendment allowed 18 year-olds to vote.�� Beyond that, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the purview of administering elections.����

Now, there are federal laws that set up some components of our elections (such as federal elections occurring on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, as well as the Voting Rights Act), but states and localities are granted significant leeway on other matters, such as voting technology, voter ID laws, citizenship requirements for state/local elections, tiebreakers, geographic spacing of polling precincts, and more.

Why don’t you consider international news, no parties?

I do consider international news, political systems, and more.�� However, I’m far from an expert on those issues and tend to defer to those in the room who are more knowledgeable on such matters.�� If no one in the room is an expert, I generally refrain from trying to sound like I know what I’m talking about when, in fact, I don’t.����

��

Dr. Colin Swearingen graduated from Grove City College with a B.A. in Political Science in 2005.��In 2010, he received his M.A. and later his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Oklahoma. He is currently an Associate Professor of Political Science at ����logo�������. ��

After completing his doctorate degree, Dr. Swearingen worked in Oklahoma City in the House of Representatives from 2010 to 2012 as a Research Analyst and a Geographic Information System, or GIS, Coordinator for Redistricting. In this position, he built a large database that helped him draw 101 State House districts; five congressional districts; and numerous county commissioner districts, school board districts, and career technology districts. He also worked closely with the Redistricting Committee Chairman and Subcommittee Chairmen to draw regional House District plans. Also in Oklahoma City, Dr. Swearingen staffed several legislative committees and fielded research questions on topics relating to redistricting, wildlife, veterans affairs, international relations, and tourism. ��

Using the experience he acquired in Oklahoma’s state capitol, Dr. Swearingen takes his expertise to the classroom when teaching courses such as Political Analysis, Political Science Research Methods, American Presidency, and Healthcare Access in Latin America, among others. Within the classroom, his other areas of expertise include American politics, elections, voting behavior, Congress, public administration, public management, budgeting, and geographic information systems. In 2020, Dr. Swearingen was named the recipient of the prestigious Lucrezia��Culicchia��Award for Teaching Excellence in the College of Arts and Sciences. Outside of the classroom, Dr. Swearingen helps run the Honduras Immersion Program. While in Honduras with this program, he crash landed a drone.