This paper asks how voters form policy preferences in nonpartisan contexts by studying residential zoning reform. The author reports fieldwork on a Menlo Park, California zoning initiative and argues that local campaign messages combined ideological information with nonpartisan group cues. The paper then assesses generalizability by documenting similar information in other California zoning campaigns and conducting a survey experiment with Democratic homeowners to test how that information affects opinion.
Fieldwork in a local ballot campaign Survey experiment with homeowners Evidence across California
Data and methods
The study draws on qualitative fieldwork during a residential zoning initiative in Menlo Park, California, documentation of campaign messages from other California zoning campaigns, and a survey experiment administered to a sample of Democratic homeowners. The abstract identifies these three components but does not provide further procedural details in the summary.
Main findings
The author reports that the Menlo Park campaign shaped residents’ opinions by providing both ideological information and nonpartisan group cues, and that both kinds of information are common in residential zoning campaigns across California. A survey experiment with Democratic homeowners is reported to show that this information affects similarly cross-pressured voters. The abstract frames these as findings about generalizability rather than causal claims beyond the described designs.
- Local campaign messaging combined ideological content and nonpartisan group cues in the Menlo Park case.
- Similar information appeared in other California zoning campaigns, and a survey experiment with Democratic homeowners showed measurable effects on that sample.
