Vertical Accountability
#22Key Findings
The United States performs relatively poorly (rank 22) in the category of vertical accountability.
Electoral administration is decentralized and fragmented, with broad federal criteria set by the constitution, but most electoral rules controlled by state governments. States have significant power over election administration, including defining voter eligibility and maintaining electoral rolls. Partisan gerrymandering is a major challenge to democratic principles.
The U.S. party system has become more nationalized and ideologically aligned in recent years. Both the Democratic and Republican parties now have clearer ideological identities, each accommodating “moderates” and “extremists” within their ranks. However, increased polarization has reduced cross-party cooperation, contributing to legislative gridlock.
The U.S. government generally promotes transparency, releasing significant amounts of public information. Many national security documents are classified, but courts have sometimes forced the government to declassify more than it had originally intended.
Electoral administration is decentralized and fragmented, with broad federal criteria set by the constitution, but most electoral rules controlled by state governments. States have significant power over election administration, including defining voter eligibility and maintaining electoral rolls. Partisan gerrymandering is a major challenge to democratic principles.
The U.S. party system has become more nationalized and ideologically aligned in recent years. Both the Democratic and Republican parties now have clearer ideological identities, each accommodating “moderates” and “extremists” within their ranks. However, increased polarization has reduced cross-party cooperation, contributing to legislative gridlock.
The U.S. government generally promotes transparency, releasing significant amounts of public information. Many national security documents are classified, but courts have sometimes forced the government to declassify more than it had originally intended.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is political competition among candidates and political parties free and fair?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to effective political competition.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to effective political competition.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to effective political competition.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to effective political competition.
The United States is characterized by a highly decentralized and fragmented system of electoral administration. The Constitution provides broad criteria for federal candidate eligibility, the general structure of the electoral process, and protections for certain categories of voters. Beyond this, however, further electoral criteria and election administration are left to the 50 state governments.
The U.S. Constitution has fairly basic criteria for eligibility to stand for federal office. Specifically, candidates for the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old, candidates for the Senate must be at least 30, and candidates for the presidency must be at least 35. Additionally, candidates for the presidency must be “natural born” citizens, which has been interpreted to mean that a person must be a U.S. citizen at birth. They must also have been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. The Constitution specifies that the number of senators per state must be equal (two), and federal statute regulates the size of the House of Representatives and broad features of the system of congressional representation (for example, mandating that each member of the House represents a single-member district).
In addition, the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals’ political participation, both in their ability to vote and in their ability to run for office. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is generally taken as a guarantee that a person cannot be barred from running for office based on arbitrary characteristics such as race. The Religious Test Clause prohibits the exclusion of candidates on the basis of religion or lack thereof. There are also protections against voting discrimination based on race (Fifteenth Amendment), sex (Nineteenth Amendment), failure to pay taxes (Twenty-Fourth Amendment), and age (Twenty-Sixth Amendment).
The formal constitutional criteria to stand for national office in the United States are quite broad and generous. There is no bar, for example, against a criminal or even a prisoner from standing for office. The Supreme Court has confirmed in multiple rulings that additional formal requirements, such as term limits, cannot be placed on candidates for federal office by state governments.
States, however, have greater leeway in restricting the voting franchise. For example, a small number of states impose a lifetime ban on people convicted of crimes from voting (Johnson 2019).
State governments are entrusted with carrying out elections. They also manage ballot access criteria. Since the 20th century, ballots have been printed by states, and parties and candidates have different levels of entitlement to appear on the ballot depending on the state. Some states are extremely inhospitable to minor party candidates. In Alabama, a party must secure a petition equivalent to 3% of the total number of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election to appear on the ballot. The deadline for submitting this petition is in March. Additionally, the party must win at least 20% of the vote in a statewide election every time to remain qualified on the ballot (https://www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/candidates/qualifications-public-office).
A key challenge to U.S. democracy is widespread gerrymandering, particularly in states where elected officials revise the boundaries of electoral and congressional districts, favoring partisan influence in the process. Redistricting occurs once a decade, and there is strong evidence that it has a deeply corrosive impact on U.S. democracy, including in Congress at the federal level (Kirschenbaum and Li, 2021).
Finally, the last time a third party – not the Democrats or Republicans – appeared on the presidential ballot in Alabama was in 2000. In contrast, Louisiana has one of the easiest routes to ballot access. A party need only submit a filing fee of $1,125 to run for president in that state. Not surprisingly, Louisiana had 32 candidates on its 2016 presidential ballot.
Citations:
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Louisiana
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/voteinor.aspx
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=1
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/civics101.aspx
https://www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/candidates/qualifications-public-office
Richard Johnson and Lisa Miller. 2022. “The Conservative Policy Bias of US Senate Malapportionment.” PS: Political Science and Politics.
Richard Johnson. 2020. “Low-Resource Candidates and Fundraising Appeals.” In B Grofman, E Suchay, and A Treschel, eds., Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richard Johnson. 2019. “Racial Policy Under Trump.” In The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage, eds. M Oliva and M Shanahan. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Julia Kirschenbaum and Michael Li. 2021. “Gerrymandering Explained.” https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=1
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Louisiana
The U.S. Constitution has fairly basic criteria for eligibility to stand for federal office. Specifically, candidates for the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old, candidates for the Senate must be at least 30, and candidates for the presidency must be at least 35. Additionally, candidates for the presidency must be “natural born” citizens, which has been interpreted to mean that a person must be a U.S. citizen at birth. They must also have been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. The Constitution specifies that the number of senators per state must be equal (two), and federal statute regulates the size of the House of Representatives and broad features of the system of congressional representation (for example, mandating that each member of the House represents a single-member district).
In addition, the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals’ political participation, both in their ability to vote and in their ability to run for office. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is generally taken as a guarantee that a person cannot be barred from running for office based on arbitrary characteristics such as race. The Religious Test Clause prohibits the exclusion of candidates on the basis of religion or lack thereof. There are also protections against voting discrimination based on race (Fifteenth Amendment), sex (Nineteenth Amendment), failure to pay taxes (Twenty-Fourth Amendment), and age (Twenty-Sixth Amendment).
The formal constitutional criteria to stand for national office in the United States are quite broad and generous. There is no bar, for example, against a criminal or even a prisoner from standing for office. The Supreme Court has confirmed in multiple rulings that additional formal requirements, such as term limits, cannot be placed on candidates for federal office by state governments.
States, however, have greater leeway in restricting the voting franchise. For example, a small number of states impose a lifetime ban on people convicted of crimes from voting (Johnson 2019).
State governments are entrusted with carrying out elections. They also manage ballot access criteria. Since the 20th century, ballots have been printed by states, and parties and candidates have different levels of entitlement to appear on the ballot depending on the state. Some states are extremely inhospitable to minor party candidates. In Alabama, a party must secure a petition equivalent to 3% of the total number of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election to appear on the ballot. The deadline for submitting this petition is in March. Additionally, the party must win at least 20% of the vote in a statewide election every time to remain qualified on the ballot (https://www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/candidates/qualifications-public-office).
A key challenge to U.S. democracy is widespread gerrymandering, particularly in states where elected officials revise the boundaries of electoral and congressional districts, favoring partisan influence in the process. Redistricting occurs once a decade, and there is strong evidence that it has a deeply corrosive impact on U.S. democracy, including in Congress at the federal level (Kirschenbaum and Li, 2021).
Finally, the last time a third party – not the Democrats or Republicans – appeared on the presidential ballot in Alabama was in 2000. In contrast, Louisiana has one of the easiest routes to ballot access. A party need only submit a filing fee of $1,125 to run for president in that state. Not surprisingly, Louisiana had 32 candidates on its 2016 presidential ballot.
Citations:
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Louisiana
https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/voteinor.aspx
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=1
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/civics101.aspx
https://www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/candidates/qualifications-public-office
Richard Johnson and Lisa Miller. 2022. “The Conservative Policy Bias of US Senate Malapportionment.” PS: Political Science and Politics.
Richard Johnson. 2020. “Low-Resource Candidates and Fundraising Appeals.” In B Grofman, E Suchay, and A Treschel, eds., Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richard Johnson. 2019. “Racial Policy Under Trump.” In The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage, eds. M Oliva and M Shanahan. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Julia Kirschenbaum and Michael Li. 2021. “Gerrymandering Explained.” https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=1
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Louisiana
To what extent can all citizens, both in legal terms (de jure) and in practice (de facto), exercise their right to vote?
10
9
9
There are no significant barriers, by law or in practice, that hinder citizens or specific groups in society from exercising their right to vote.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to voting.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to voting.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles that substantially hinder voting.
The United States does not have a definitive standard for voting eligibility. The U.S. Constitution contains certain protections against discrimination that, by process of elimination, define the parameters of the eligible voting electorate.
According to the federal Constitution, a person may not be deprived of voting on the basis of race, sex, failure to pay taxes, or age (unless under 18). Federal law also prohibits non-citizens from voting.
States are allowed to enact further restrictions on voting as long as they do not violate any of the aforementioned principles. Consequently, most states deprive individuals of the vote if they are currently or have previously been incarcerated. Additionally, all states prohibit individuals who are not U.S. citizens from voting for state offices.
States are responsible for election administration, including maintaining the electoral rolls of eligible voters. In 1993, the federal government made this a legal requirement for state governments. Over time, if voter rolls are not properly maintained, they can become inaccurate with an increasing number of ineligible voters. States have different rules about how these rolls are maintained. Often, states lack sufficient resources to conduct a detailed analysis of the voter rolls (Johnson 2019).
States have wide discretion in administering election day, including setting polling station locations and rules about campaigning near these stations. However, there are certain federal limitations on states’ power to manage elections. For instance, polling station locations cannot be determined in a way that disproportionately excludes voters based on race or disability. The former is governed by the Voting Rights Act and the latter by the Americans with Disabilities Act. In both cases, voters must pursue legal action against a local or state government seen to discriminate against them, which is costly and time-consuming.
Before 2013, the federal government had the power under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 to “pre-clear” changes to election administration made by jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination. However, the Supreme Court rendered this part of the legislation inoperable in its decision in Shelby County v. Holder (King & Smith 2016).
Citations:
Desmond King and Rogers Smith. 2016. “The Last Stand? Shelby County v. Holder, White Political Power, and America’s Racial Policy Alliances.” Du Bois Review.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/purges-growing-threat-right-vote
Johnson, Richard. 2019. “Racial Policy Under Trump.” In The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage, eds. M. Oliva and M. Shanahan. Palgrave Macmillan.
According to the federal Constitution, a person may not be deprived of voting on the basis of race, sex, failure to pay taxes, or age (unless under 18). Federal law also prohibits non-citizens from voting.
States are allowed to enact further restrictions on voting as long as they do not violate any of the aforementioned principles. Consequently, most states deprive individuals of the vote if they are currently or have previously been incarcerated. Additionally, all states prohibit individuals who are not U.S. citizens from voting for state offices.
States are responsible for election administration, including maintaining the electoral rolls of eligible voters. In 1993, the federal government made this a legal requirement for state governments. Over time, if voter rolls are not properly maintained, they can become inaccurate with an increasing number of ineligible voters. States have different rules about how these rolls are maintained. Often, states lack sufficient resources to conduct a detailed analysis of the voter rolls (Johnson 2019).
States have wide discretion in administering election day, including setting polling station locations and rules about campaigning near these stations. However, there are certain federal limitations on states’ power to manage elections. For instance, polling station locations cannot be determined in a way that disproportionately excludes voters based on race or disability. The former is governed by the Voting Rights Act and the latter by the Americans with Disabilities Act. In both cases, voters must pursue legal action against a local or state government seen to discriminate against them, which is costly and time-consuming.
Before 2013, the federal government had the power under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 to “pre-clear” changes to election administration made by jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination. However, the Supreme Court rendered this part of the legislation inoperable in its decision in Shelby County v. Holder (King & Smith 2016).
Citations:
Desmond King and Rogers Smith. 2016. “The Last Stand? Shelby County v. Holder, White Political Power, and America’s Racial Policy Alliances.” Du Bois Review.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/purges-growing-threat-right-vote
Johnson, Richard. 2019. “Racial Policy Under Trump.” In The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage, eds. M. Oliva and M. Shanahan. Palgrave Macmillan.
Graph View
To what extent do parties articulate and aggregate all societal interests?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to achieving effective societal integration.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose no significant barriers to achieving effective societal integration.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose some significant barriers to achieving effective societal integration.
2
1
1
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose various significant barriers to achieving effective societal integration.
The United States party system has undergone substantial internal transformation in recent decades, even though on the surface it appears much the same as it has since the mid-19th century. Since the 1850s, U.S. politics has been dominated by two main parties: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These parties have historically been large, varied coalitions. For example, in the early 20th century, the Democratic Party was a coalition of urban Catholic immigrants in the North and anti-immigrant rural Protestants in the South (Abramowitz 2018). Federalism and the decentralization of American politics allowed the parties to maintain electoral coalitions that contained voters with quite divergent perspectives.
From the 1930s, American politics began to “nationalize” as the federal government became more involved in policy areas that had once been largely left to the states (Hopkins 2018). This was especially true of social policy, which had largely been a state competence until the massive expansion of federal welfare provision in the 1930s and again in the 1960s. For the first time, the Democratic Party came to be seen at the national level as the party of the “left” and the Republican Party as the party of the “right” (Levendusky 2009).
However, voters were still able to distinguish between the national party and their state parties. Political scientist Nelson Polsby famously said that the United States is not a country of two parties but of 102 parties. Each state’s Democratic and Republican parties had their own set of policy priorities, which, in turn, differed from the national parties’ agendas.
Party loyalty was guided by a variety of factors, including clientelism and patronage. Often, voters supported a particular party because the local party was seen as aligned with the interests of a specific local group. These alignments were frequently based on historic reasons and only loosely connected to policy programs (Polsby 1983).
Today, this is no longer the case. The American party system has nationalized. The policy priorities of Democrats in Massachusetts and Mississippi are more similar to each other than ever before. In turn, the parties’ ideological character has finally crystallized in the eyes of the electorate at all levels.
In this respect, American political parties “look” more like conventional political parties in the rest of the developed democratic world. They are ideologically coherent, programmatic parties. Voters support these parties, for the most part, on the basis of policy alignment rather than on non-policy reasons like religion, local history or geography.
By their very nature, U.S. political parties need to be “big tent” or “broad church” parties. They must still accommodate a wide set of interests, but these interests are now more closely sorted according to ideology than they ever have been. Nonetheless, there is space for “moderates” and “extremists” of the left and right within both parties’ coalitions.
Citations:
Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Daniel Hopkins. 2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Politics Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthew Levendusky. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nelson Polsby. 1983. Consequences of Party Reform. Oxford: University Press.
From the 1930s, American politics began to “nationalize” as the federal government became more involved in policy areas that had once been largely left to the states (Hopkins 2018). This was especially true of social policy, which had largely been a state competence until the massive expansion of federal welfare provision in the 1930s and again in the 1960s. For the first time, the Democratic Party came to be seen at the national level as the party of the “left” and the Republican Party as the party of the “right” (Levendusky 2009).
However, voters were still able to distinguish between the national party and their state parties. Political scientist Nelson Polsby famously said that the United States is not a country of two parties but of 102 parties. Each state’s Democratic and Republican parties had their own set of policy priorities, which, in turn, differed from the national parties’ agendas.
Party loyalty was guided by a variety of factors, including clientelism and patronage. Often, voters supported a particular party because the local party was seen as aligned with the interests of a specific local group. These alignments were frequently based on historic reasons and only loosely connected to policy programs (Polsby 1983).
Today, this is no longer the case. The American party system has nationalized. The policy priorities of Democrats in Massachusetts and Mississippi are more similar to each other than ever before. In turn, the parties’ ideological character has finally crystallized in the eyes of the electorate at all levels.
In this respect, American political parties “look” more like conventional political parties in the rest of the developed democratic world. They are ideologically coherent, programmatic parties. Voters support these parties, for the most part, on the basis of policy alignment rather than on non-policy reasons like religion, local history or geography.
By their very nature, U.S. political parties need to be “big tent” or “broad church” parties. They must still accommodate a wide set of interests, but these interests are now more closely sorted according to ideology than they ever have been. Nonetheless, there is space for “moderates” and “extremists” of the left and right within both parties’ coalitions.
Citations:
Alan Abramowitz. 2018. The Great Alignment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Daniel Hopkins. 2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Politics Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthew Levendusky. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nelson Polsby. 1983. Consequences of Party Reform. Oxford: University Press.
To what extent do political parties retain their ability to enable cross-party cooperation in policymaking and implementation?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose no significant barriers to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose some significant barriers to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
2
1
1
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose various significant barriers to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
Bipartisanship, or cross-party cooperation, was once a hallmark of the U.S. political system. Until the party realignment in the South in the late 1960s, cross-party cooperation was more the norm than the exception in Congress. National unity scores were quite low at that time – lower than 60%.
When the parties were ideologically heterogeneous, bipartisan cooperation between elected officials on a range of significant policies was common. However, since the party realignment in the South, the U.S. parties have become nationalized – they have adopted ideologically coherent and nationally consistent policy platforms. Consequently, they are much less likely to engage in bipartisan cooperation in a context of increasing partisan polarization, a major source of gridlock. Party unity scores in Congress have grown to over 90%.
This trend aligns the United States more closely with oppositional parliamentary systems, such as in Westminster parliaments, where parties tend to take on “government” and “opposition” functions (Pierson and Schickler 2020). This parliamentarization in the presidential system is one reason for legislative gridlock in Congress.
Citations:
Ari Berman. 2015. Give Us the Ballot. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler. 2020. “Madison’s Constitution Under Stress.” Annual Review of Political Science.
Richard Johnson. 2019. “Racial Policy Under Trump.” In The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage, eds. M. Oliva and M. Shanahan. Palgrave.
Richard Johnson. 2020. The End of the Second Reconstruction. Cambridge: Polity.
When the parties were ideologically heterogeneous, bipartisan cooperation between elected officials on a range of significant policies was common. However, since the party realignment in the South, the U.S. parties have become nationalized – they have adopted ideologically coherent and nationally consistent policy platforms. Consequently, they are much less likely to engage in bipartisan cooperation in a context of increasing partisan polarization, a major source of gridlock. Party unity scores in Congress have grown to over 90%.
This trend aligns the United States more closely with oppositional parliamentary systems, such as in Westminster parliaments, where parties tend to take on “government” and “opposition” functions (Pierson and Schickler 2020). This parliamentarization in the presidential system is one reason for legislative gridlock in Congress.
Citations:
Ari Berman. 2015. Give Us the Ballot. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler. 2020. “Madison’s Constitution Under Stress.” Annual Review of Political Science.
Richard Johnson. 2019. “Racial Policy Under Trump.” In The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage, eds. M. Oliva and M. Shanahan. Palgrave.
Richard Johnson. 2020. The End of the Second Reconstruction. Cambridge: Polity.
Graph View
To what extent can citizens and residents access official information?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, for citizens seeking to access official information.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles for citizens seeking to access official information.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles for citizens seeking to access official information.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose many/various significant obstacles for citizens seeking to access official information.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was first enacted in 1966 after many years of campaigning by public disclosure advocates. The FOIA has become one of the most important tools for the ascertainment of public information in the United States and sets a high standard. The federal and state governments generally maintain transparency and release a significant volume of information into the public domain (Hopkins 2018).
Requesting information through the Freedom of Information Act is relatively straightforward, though experiences can vary depending on the agency and the volume of the request. Legally, agencies are required to respond within 20 days, but unequal resources can cause delays. This has occasionally led citizens to take agencies to court for their slow response times.
One area of controversy is the declassification of documents. Many public documents are not fully released for reasons of national security. In these instances, citizens may seek redress through the court system, and there have been high-profile cases where the courts have forced the government to declassify more than it had originally intended.
Citations:
WW Hopkins. 2018. The Freedom of Information Act at 50. New York: Routledge.
Requesting information through the Freedom of Information Act is relatively straightforward, though experiences can vary depending on the agency and the volume of the request. Legally, agencies are required to respond within 20 days, but unequal resources can cause delays. This has occasionally led citizens to take agencies to court for their slow response times.
One area of controversy is the declassification of documents. Many public documents are not fully released for reasons of national security. In these instances, citizens may seek redress through the court system, and there have been high-profile cases where the courts have forced the government to declassify more than it had originally intended.
Citations:
WW Hopkins. 2018. The Freedom of Information Act at 50. New York: Routledge.