State lawmakers who cannot seek reelection sponsor fewer bills, serve on fewer legislative committees and skip more roll-call votes, according to a new study on term limits from the University of Chicago and Stanford University.
New research contradicts claims media organizations and political commentators have made about unusually high levels of political involvement among the public during the 2016 presidential election.
The study finds that public interest and voter engagement in 2016 closely matched that of previous elections.
Few mayors run for higher office. And female mayors are much less likely to view positions such as governor and U.S. senator as appealing.
The issue: Across the country, media organizations have spotlighted an influx of outside money targeting school board elections, which, historically, have been low-budget affairs. Wealthy individuals and national advocacy groups are using their cash to influence politics in various states by helping people who support their causes get elected to local school boards and state-level boards of education.
Given the victories in 2010 of Tea Party-backed candidates, some observers were quick to claim that the movement had brought sweeping change to the political landscape in America. But the precise numerical effect of the Tea Party in terms of votes for candidates bears closer scrutiny.