Name: Harry Blain
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: hblain@gradcenter.cuny.edu
Professional Status: Graduate Student
Institution: City University of New York
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Legislating Against Liberties: Congressional Repression in the United States After the Second World War
Abstract:
Constitutional scholars have long feared the impact of war on presidential power. Their logic is straightforward: citizens, courts, and legislatures defer and delegate to executives during crises. Although this deference and delegation is justified by the need for swift emergency action, the potential for abuse is obvious. Through some combination of apathy, fear, and self-aggrandizement, extraordinary powers can become routinized over time. Exceptions can become norms, permanently damaging civil liberties. In this article, I question these widely held concerns by examining political repression in the United States after the Second World War. I argue that while the war was characterized by far-reaching and unprecedented exercises of executive power, postwar assaults on civil liberties overwhelmingly emanated from the legislature. I demonstrate how legislation itself was relatively marginal to congressional repression, overshadowed by congressional powers over investigations, courts, and the bureaucracy. I conclude by exploring the extent to which my analysis can be applied to other cases, particularly the ongoing war on terror.

Name: Sam Edwards
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: sam.edwards@quinnipiac.edu
Professional Status: Associate Professor
Institution: Quinnipiac University
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Jacob Park, Ph.D., Green Mountain College, jacob.park@greenmtn.edu
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Recognizing recovery for cultural damages in ecosystem damage and forced relocation cases.
Abstract:
Indigenous communities are often closely tied to their lands. When those lands are harmed through events such as environmental disasters and forced relocation, the communities suffer many harms including harms to their culture. These impacts are especially acute in island communities and other communities with unique lands. Although claims for damage to culture have traditionally been denied, there is an emerging body of law that permits recovery for impacts to culture. This type of damage should be compensated, and courts are the proper place to expand this doctrine of recovery for cultural damage. This research examines three jurisdictions which have recognized recovery for cultural damage. First, this paper examines the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims case. Although this was an extreme case of forced relocation, it helped establish some of the first precedent for cultural damage. The second section shows how the Stolen Generations Litigation in Australia is helping advance recovery for cultural damage. The final section examines a series of cases involving Native American claims both in tribal courts and in federal courts. Furthering this emerging doctrine would help protect the culture of indigenous communities and is consistent with existing theories of compensation. It is essential that courts in common law jurisdictions should continue to expand cultural damage recoveries especially as climate change forces communities from their lands.

Name: Philip Grant
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: amdgrant@earthlink.net
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: Pace University
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Congressional Committee Chairmen from New York, 2001-2020 
Abstract:
The purpose of this paper will be to provide a composite profile of congressional committee chairmen from the State of New York between 2001 and 2020. Theses chairmen and their respective committees were: Representatives Benjamin A. Gilman(Foreign Affairs), Peter T. King (Homeland Security), Charles Rangel (Ways and Means), Louise Slaughter(Rules), Jerrold Nadler (Judiciary), Eliot L. Engel (Foreign Affairs), Carolyn B. Maloney (Oversight and Government Reform), and Nita M. Lowey (Appropriations). The eight chairmen, accumulating considerable seniority over several decades, served an aggregate total of two hundred fifty-two years on Capitol Hill.

Name: Jeffrey Kraus
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: jkraus@wagner.edu
Professional Status: Administrator
Institution: Wagner College
Scheduling Preference: Saturday Morning
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Health Policy in the Empire State: Is the Affordable Care Act affordable?, *Jeffrey Fred Kraus
Abstract:
Notwithstanding Joe Biden's overwhelming victory in New York state, President Trump increased the vote for a Republican presidential candidate in Latino neighborhoods of New York. Trump's vote total was higher in the south Bronx and east Harlem, and Biden's share of the vote in these communities was lower than Clinton's total in 2016. This result, along with Republican inroads in Miami and border areas of Texas, suggests that the Democratic Party's message is not resonating with this community. In this paper, I will discuss whether this is the beginning of a long-term trend or an aberration.

Name: Sari Krieger Rivera
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: sari.rivera@csi.cuny.edu
Professional Status: Adjunct Professor
Institution: City University of New York
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title: Incentivizing Injustice: Why no high-level executive prosecutions from the financial crisis?
Abstract:
More than ten years after the financial crisis of 2008, which sparked America’s Great Recession, many citizens are still asking why no high-level bank executives were prosecuted for criminal fraud. This question is perplexing given that many powerful executives faced jail time during the Enron-era accounting scandals of the early 2000s and the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s. This sense of injustice Americans felt in the wake of one of the biggest economic disasters of their lifetimes has had reverberating political consequences, such as populist movements like Occupy Wall Street and populist political campaigns from Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in 2016. Many have offered seemingly plausible, yet shallow explanations, such as campaign donations and political connections buy freedom from prosecution. However, this explanation falls short because wealthy campaign donors existed in the previous crises where they did face jail time for their fraudulent behavior. The clubby atmosphere between Washington and Wall Street, and presidential decision-making have also been cited as popular explanations. I ultimately reject them as less compelling explanations in favor of the internal incentive structure of the Justice Department itself and external incentives for prosecutors. Prosecutorial discretion is an underappreciated and under studied topic in political science literature, considering its vast power and importance to American society. The discretion prosecutors have to bring cases and the incentives they face are important areas of study for American justice and societal equity.

Name: Adam McGlynn
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: amcglynn@esu.edu
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: East Stroudsburg University
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Maura Daltwas, East Stroudsburg University, mdaltwas@live.esu.edu
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Understanding Millennial and Generation Z Opinions of the American Election System
Abstract:
For more than a decade scholars have attempted to analyze the views of millennials and more recently Generation Z to assess their impact on the economy, public opinion and world affairs (see for example Fisher 2019, Parker, et al., 2019). For the most part, the conclusion has been that these groups hold views that are more progressive than older generations. Now, more than ever in recent history, the health and future of our democracy are at question in the face of government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, racism, and the operation of our elections. The latter is the focus of this work. Using Pew Research’s 2018 American Trends Panel dataset, we estimate a series of logistic regression methods to understand how millennials and Generation Z view the American electoral process and their faith in the American election system. Millions of Americans voted by mail in November of 2020 with others unable to vote due to the purging of voter rolls and Voter ID laws so it is imperative that we understand how millennials and Generation Z view the American electoral system as they elect public officials and enter public office themselves to possibly reform it. We find that young people while believing elections are conducted fairly, feel voting is too difficult and needs to be reformed.

Name: Chandrasekhar Putcha
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: cputcha@fullerton.edu
Professional Status: Full Professor
Institution: California State University, Fullerton
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Dr. Brian Sloboda Vineet Penumarthy
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Development of a Mathematical Model for prediction of the winner in 2020 American Presidential election
Abstract:
Development of a Mathematical Model for prediction of the winner in 2020 American Presidential election Dr. Chandrasekhar Putcha, Fellow ASCE Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering CSUF’s 2007 Outstanding Professor Dr. Brian Sloboda, Economist, University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies, Center for Management and Entrepreneurship Vineet Penumarthy, Design Engineer CSUF graduate, 2016 B.S. mechanical engineering Abstract A mathematical model was developed using engineering analysis based on the principles of probability and statistics. Polling data for the general election from well-known and credible sources (ie. Survey Monkey/Tableau, Survey USA, YouGov/CBS, ABC/Washington Post). The basic premise is that polls will capture the pulse of the people. The model used is a dynamic model, dependent on timing of the poll and political events surrounding the country at that time. Density function of the polling data is constructed, the validity of which is checked using the well known chi-square test. The mathematical analysis showed that the polling data followed a normal distribution. This was followed by the determination of the parameters of the normal distribution and finally the probability of the winning of each candidate (in the 2020 American Presidential election, it is Biden of Democratic party and Trump of Republican Party). The developed mathematical model predicts both the final popularity vote as well as the electoral college votes. The mathematical used predicted popularity vote for Biden and Trump as 49.22% and 45.58% respectively and electoral college votes of 350 and 188 respectively which is pretty close and within the statistical margin compared to the actual American Presidential election results. Another important observation that can be made is that the “silent majority” that helped President Trump in 2016 didn’t play any significant role in 2020 American Presidential elections which would have skewed the results.

Name: Sean Shannon
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: Sean.Shannon@Oneonta.Edu
Professional Status: Adjunct Professor
Institution: SUNY Oneonta
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Cultural Contradictions: Reinterpreting Trademark Law through the Roberts’ Court’s First Amendment Jurisprudence
Abstract:
Please note: The following abstract was accepted for the 2020 NYSPSA Conference at Manhattan College, which was postponed. Cultural Contradictions: Reinterpreting Trademark Law through the Roberts’ Court’s First Amendment Jurisprudence Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), outlines the guidelines for the United States Patent and Trademark Office to determine words or phrases that can be trademarked. In 2017 the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Matel v.Tam declaring the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “disparaging” trademarks unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The case concerned the punk rock band, The Slants, a disparaging reference to Asians. This past June, the Court continued to limit the Lanham Act in the case of Iancu v. Brunetti, when it declared the prohibition on “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks unconstitutional, permitting the registration of the word FUCT as a trademark. Since joining the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has led a revolution in First Amendment jurisprudence. Much of the focus has been on religious cases, but less noticed have been to the changes in trademark law, commercial speech, which represent an interesting cultural contradiction for conservative Supreme Court justices and worthy of further analysis and discussion. The paper will evaluate and address the cultural contradictions of permitting disparaging, scandalous, and immoral trademarks and the reasons why the Roberts Court may be leading the change.

Name: Brian Sloboda
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: bsloboda@email.phoenix.edu
Professional Status: Practitioner
Institution: University of Phoenix
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info: Chandrasekhar Putcha, California State University at Fullerton, cputcha@fullerton.edu Vineet Penumarthy, California State University at Fullerton
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Development of a Mathematical Model in the Prediction in the 2020 Presidential Election
Abstract:
A mathematical model was developed using engineering analysis based on the principles of probability and statistics. Polling data for the general election from well-known and credible sources (ie. Survey Monkey/Tableau, Survey USA, YouGov/CBS, ABC/Washington Post). The basic premise is that polls will capture the pulse of the people. The model used is a dynamic model, dependent on the timing of the poll and political events surrounding the country at that time. The density function of the polling data is constructed, the validity of which is checked using the well-known chi-square test. The mathematical analysis showed that the polling data followed a normal distribution. This was followed by the determination of the parameters of the normal distribution and finally the probability of the winning of each candidate (in the 2020 American Presidential election, it is Biden of the Democratic party and Trump of the Republican Party). The developed mathematical model predicts both the final popular vote as well as the Electoral College votes. The mathematical used predicted popularity vote for Biden and Trump as 49.22% and 45.58% which is consistent with the statistical margin compared to the actual American Presidential election results. Another important observation that can be made is that the “silent majority” that helped President Trump in 2016 did not appear to play any significant role as in the 2020 American Presidential elections which could have skewed the results.

Name: Jared Stefani
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: jared.stefani@westpoint.edu
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: United States Military Academy at West Point
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Party, Polarization, Parochialism, and Constituents: Senate Voting on Defense Spending from 1997-2018
Abstract:
The defense budget remains one of the most contentious pieces of legislation each year due to its size when compared to other discretionary spending. In general, the debate over defense spending levels falls into two core camps: (1) those that argue the defense budget takes too much of the national budget, which is perpetuated by the so-called military-industrial-complex; and (2) those that argue that while the defense budget is large, it is ‘right-sized’ for the national security objectives set-forth by U.S. elected officials. However, there is limited research on what influences Senators to vote for and against defense spending. This paper aims to examine the determinants of Senate voting on defense spending by using a multivariate logistic regression model with eleven (11) explanatory variables measured between 1997 and 2018. The findings suggest a Senator’s political party, ideology, sex, and state economic interests best predict Senate voting on defense spending. Other characteristics such as a Senator’s veteran status and committee assignment play a role, but it is subsidiary. In contrast, being in party leadership, the size of the military presence, and the number of military accessions within their state do not shape Senate voting. This examination helps predict support for defense spending and the future of defense appropriations legislation within the U.S. Senate.

Name: Adam Stone
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: astone@gsu.edu
Professional Status: Associate Professor
Institution: Georgia State University
Scheduling Preference: Friday Afternoon
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  A Legacy of Political Polarization in the Senate: Trump’s Circuit Court Judges
Abstract:
Prior to the Trump Administration, final U.S. Senate confirmation votes on nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals were voice votes and those that were tallied provided lopsided majorities in favor of the nominee. In one term, President Trump filled 30% of the 179 judgeships and changed the partisan makeup of several circuits so that Republican nominees now control the majority of circuits. The aggressive nomination and confirmation process further polarized the Senate. As Parshall and Twombly’s Directing the Whirlwind: The Trump Presidency and the Deconstruction of the Administrative State (2020) points out, Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to appoint conservative judges dedicated to diminishing the power of the federal government. This paper uses OLS regression analysis to examine the final U.S. Senate confirmation votes on the 54 Trump nominees during the 115th and 116th Congresses. Most of these votes are close to the party division in the chamber. For those nominees who receive support beyond the party division, diversity in race and gender as well as previous judicial service at the state or federal level increased levels of support on final confirmation. Membership in The Federalist Society is a significant factor in limiting support for nominees. While the legacy of battles over Trump’s appellate nominees has further polarized the Senate, individual senators do act like baseball umpires and “call them as they see them” for each nominee.

Name: Eric Svensen
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: eps007@shsu.edu
Professional Status: Assistant Professor
Institution: Sam Houston State University
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Comparing Legislative Productivity across Time and Space
Abstract:
Previous research on legislative productivity has focused much of its attention on the total number of enactments, in particular landmark legislation, to gauge presidential and congressional success. These measures are used to not only rank the policy successes of presidents but are also used to compare the accomplishments of unified and divided governments. While this approach conveys some sense of legislative performance, in reality this measurement practice can both over and underestimate policy achievements. This practice, for example, raises numerous questions as to whether presidents with large congressional majorities underperformed relative to comparable governing circumstances (or, in contrast, whether chief executives sharing political power with the political opposition over-perform). To answer these questions, this study creates a measure that places all legislative enactments since 1789 into a single base metric that adjusts for legislative enactments for all congressional terms and presidential administrations that is comparable across time and space. Preliminary evidence suggests landmark legislation is not always a viable predictor of legislative productivity.

Name: Gabriella Walker
Section: American Politics
Professional Email: gabriella.walker@wagner.edu
Professional Status: Undergraduate Student
Institution: Wagner College
Scheduling Preference: No Preference
Proposal Type: Paper
Panel Title:
Panel Description:
Co-author info:
Co-presenter info:
Paper Title:  Environmental Investment in the ACA’s Preventative Public Health Initiatives
Abstract:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) seeks to reform the United States health care system. Though its efforts are expansive, its success has been disputed. We predict that by using funding allocated to the Prevention and Public Health Fund to increase community environmental infrastructure, sustainable mitigation of leading chronic illnesses may be accomplished. We compiled raw data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and local government statistics to evaluate such theories in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This data was compared to scholarly sources dedicated to the intersection of public and environmental health to determine efficiency of both public and private funding utilization within the city. Based on these findings, we found that green initiatives may parallel decreased chronic disease on a community level.