While most U.S. cities have a tree protection policy, the subsequent impact on the reduction of canopy loss is unclear. To rectify this, I utilize a theoretically grounded framework of influence comprised of clear identification of the problem/public support, adequate resources, and sound policy logic. This is then tested in a comparative case study of Charlotte, North Carolina, and San Antonio, Texas. While Charlotte benefits from public recognition of the problem and adequate resources, its regulations are weak, lacking a logical connection to aspirational outcomes. San Antonio's regulations are stronger, but combined with weaker problem identification and resources. Through quantitative and qualitative assessments, I find that San Antonio's strict regulations may have stabilized loss rates, while Charlotte's weaker rules have not. Results highlight the importance of policy logic over other commonly suggested determinants of natural resource protection.
This investigation begins to rectify the absence of scholarship on statutory protections of civil rights in northern states prior to the breakthrough federal laws of the mid-twentieth century. While there is some limited cataloging of the existence of such statutes, their subsequent import is overlooked. I tackle the question by examining state supreme court cases in which these statutes were used by plaintiffs to combat acts of private discrimination in northern states. Using West's Decennial Digest to find all relevant claims/decisions of the first half of the twentieth century, I uncover a modest universe of 56 cases. My aim is to assess whether statutory-based claims were more likely upheld than not, and whether plaintiffs armed with these statutes were more successful than those relying solely on federal or state constitutional provisions. I report positive and significant findings for both questions, showing that these statutes mattered in judicial fora. The statistical analysis is followed by a deeper consideration of the opinions to provide a richer picture of the deference shown to these statutes by state courts, and the reluctance for judges to grant relief for private discrimination in the absence of protective statutes.
An aspect of civil rights litigation receiving scant scholarly attention is the response of state supreme courts to racial discrimination claims in the early twentieth century. While scholarship on general social context suggests claims would find more support in non‐southern courts and in the later years of the period, this has not been systematically investigated. Furthermore, while the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court establishes variance patterns by discrimination type, they cannot necessarily be extrapolated to state outcomes. I show that since the predictive utility of frameworks "borrowed" from other studies is dubious in this context, these state cases demand their own unique investigation and understanding. The assessment of two key clusters of cases offered here suggests distinct patterns in southern jury discrimination and northern public accommodations decisions. In the former, claims were routinely denied, with U.S. Supreme Court precedent occasionally used to overturn a conviction. In the latter, plaintiffs relying on state civil rights statutes were mostly successful.Un aspecto del litigio por los derechos civiles que recibe escasa atención académica es la respuesta de la Suprema Corte estatal a los reclamos por discriminación racial a principios del siglo XX. Aunque los estudios del contexto social general sugieren que los reclamos encontrarían mayor apoyo en cortes no‐sureñas, en los años posteriores a dicho periodo, esto no ha sido sistemáticamente investigado. Además, aunque la literatura sobre la Suprema Corte de Justicia establece diferentes patrones por tipo de discriminación, estos no pueden ser necesariamente extrapolados al nivel de resultados estatales. Demuestro que dado que la utilidad predictiva de esquemas "prestados" de otros estudios es discutible en este contexto, estos casos estatales requieren su propia investigación e interpretación. La evaluación de dos grupos claves de casos propuestos aquí sugiere patrones distintivos en la discriminación de los jurados sureños y las decisiones de "public accommodations" norteñas. En el primero, los reclamos fueron rutinariamente rechazados, ocasionalmente invocando precedente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia para darle vuelta a la condena. En el segundo grupo, los demandantes que descansaron su caso en los estatutos estatales sobre los derechos civiles en su mayoría tuvieron éxito.
This study examines determinants of U.S. Senate roll call votes on Progressive Era immigration policies, expanding the scope of existing scholarship on support for restriction. We measure the impact of party, region, type of restriction, and year on individual roll call votes from 1898-1924, through a two-pronged approach. Our aggregate quantitative analysis shows restriction more likely supported in later sessions of Congress, by Democrats/Southerners, and for nation of origin quotas. Votes to ban immigration completely, or by nation/race, were significantly less likely than votes to limit the flow. No difference emerged among other types of bills, such as literacy tests or head taxes. We then utilize an alternate, qualitative approach, allowing the debate record to clarify the initial findings. This reveals a strategic element to Southern support, as well as broad consensus for bills that most efficiently allow continued entry of desirable immigrants while limiting undesirables.
