Search

In this paper, I begin to examine the nature of the relationship between state court decisions and the legal issue of environmental standing. Prior to the 1970s, standing rules stood as a barrier keeping many environmental groups out of the courts. The consequences were profound, and the federal courts' standing rules were a hurdle to the advancement of environmental policy. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Sierra Club v. Morton, environmental interest groups have achieved more success in standing disputes in federal courts, ushering in a new era of environmental litigation and policy advancement. Despite the extreme importance of standing as a hurdle to environmental litigation, these changes in standing policy have generated very little research to date. In this paper, I present a very initial look at how environmental interest groups have fared in standing disputes in California state courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the link between public opinion on environmentalism and animal rights. To understand the animal rights movement and its role in the policymaking process, it is important to determine the sources of public attitudes regarding it and how those attitudes are tied to public opinion about the environmental movement. There is a positive relationship between the attitudes of people about the animal rights movement and the environmental movement.

Our study examines media coverage of the legal challenge to a Texas sodomy law known as Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. We use content analysis of newspaper articles and broadcast media programs to explore how media coverage of the case and sodomy laws generally varied over time and by media outlet to determine if that coverage was biased. We assess bias by examining overall coverage and the tone of coverage. Our analysis suggests that media outlets varied in their coverage of the case and that some outlets tended to be more biased in their tone than others. The bias in tone was sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but most outlets were relatively neutral in their coverage of the case. We briefly investigate explanations for variations in media outlet coverage and explore the potential implications of media coverage in the case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1990’s, the Humane Society of the United States launched a campaign to get animal cruelty felony legislation passed in the states. By the end of 2001, 34 states had adopted felony provisions for animal cruelty. Given the fact that animal rights groups often have found it difficult to get favorable legislation passed, the adoption of felony provisions by 34 states provides an opportunity to explore the influence of the Humane Society, a major animal rights group, on the state adoption of animal protection measures. More specifically, I look at the Humane Society’s influence on state adoptions of animal cruelty felony provisions in the context of the integrated state policy innovation framework, which identifies both internal and external influences on state policy innovation and diffusion. My research shows that animal rights interest groups can have an influence on the innovation of policies in the states. As the number of members of the Humane Society increases in a state, the likelihood of that state adopting a felony provision also increases. This finding suggests that political activity by animal rights interest groups aimed at social change through legislation can be successful. My study also indicates that pro-animal interest groups are not the only groups that can influence state policy innovation; pro-hunting forces can negatively affect state adoption of animal cruelty felony provisions. This finding supports past research showing that the hunting lobby can be a powerful force in state and federal legislative politics. My research also shows that state adoption of animal cruelty felony provisions is contagious and that states emulate the innovation of this policy in nearby states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between public opinion and public policy is a central issue of research in democratic theory (Brace et al. 2002, 173; Page and Shapiro 1983, 175). Today it is well accepted that there is often a link between public opinion and public policy, although the exact nature of that linkage is not entirely clear (Burstein 2003). Traditionally, public opinion has been thought to shape public policy because it prompts elected officials to enact laws corresponding to the will of the public (Norrander 2000, 773). In reality, however, the ability of officials to enact policies that are consistent with the will of the people depends on the officials' capacity to properly perceive and understand public opinion on any given subject (Norrander 2000, 774), as well as the public's ability to clearly understand an issue and develop an opinion about it. In this paper, I examine public opinion surrounding two of the country's most visible contemporary social movements, animal rights and the environment. Because of the natural overlap of the movements, some people have suggested that they are components of the same movement. Although people intimately involved with the movements may fully appreciate the inherent contradictions between them, social scientists have failed to examine whether the general public also recognizes the dichotomy of the movements and distinguishes between them. The linkage between public opinion on the environmental and animal rights movements must be clarified and understood before we can have a clear idea of how public opinion on these issues influences the policymaking process. Using individual-level survey data, I employ multiple dependent variables to explore whether the general public perceives of the two movements differently. I hypothesize that because of the commonly perceived similarity between the animal rights movement and the environmental movement, people will very often view them as the same movement. Furthermore, I hypothesize that this connection leads to similar patterns of support on specific environmental issues versus animal rights issues. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some states, authorized by the EPA to regulate the discharge of water pollutants, impose additional regulations on factory farms. I examine determinants of states' adoptions of stringent regulations on pollution caused by modern agriculture. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Clean Water Act requires the EPA, or authorized states, to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations, by means of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. To become authorized to implement the NPDES program, a stateÂ’s NPDES requirements must be as stringent as or more stringent than the federal requirements. States may also impose additional non-NPDES requirements on animal feeding operations. Today, a majority of states administer the NPDES program in their states as well as impose state non-NPDES permit, license, or authorization programs on factory farms. Despite the fact that many states go above and beyond the federal NPDES requirements in their regulation of factory farms, no research has examined what factors influence a stateÂ’s adoption of its own non-NPDES regulations of these facilities. In this paper, I examine independent variables that I expect to be significant determinants of a stateÂ’s likelihood of adopting its own factory farm regulations. Because of the lack of empirical tests of explanations of state adoptions of non-NPDES regulations of animal feeding operations and the newness of this policy area, my research is an important beginning to the scholarly understanding of state actions to regulate pollution caused by modern agriculture. My results suggest that high levels of factory farm pollution influence state adoptions of related policy. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]