Partisans' evaluations of unconstitutional legislative activity

Abstract In this research note, we examine whether public evaluations of a policy depend on the constitutionality of the process by which that policy was passed. We observe whether people's views depend on accusations that a policy was passed in violation of a state constitution's single subject rule, and whether the effect of that accusation depends on the party making the accusation. Results from two survey experiments—one using a low salience issue and the other using a high salience issue—suggest that citizens view policies less positively when those policies are realized through unconstitutional processes, even when the criticism is made by the opposing party (and thus, the policy is supported by their own party). These results suggest that while the party supporting a policy is a central feature of policy evaluations by the public, the process by which those policies are realized also informs evaluations.