Walls, Weed, and Coal: How Threats to Local Industry Shape Economic Voting

Do threats to local economic industry influence voting behavior? While research has shown that voters backlash against candidates whose policies negatively affect their socio-economic status, relatively little research explores if voters can anticipate whether candidates/direct legislation threaten their local economies. We argue that individuals who are economically embedded within industries that serve as the basis of the local economy are especially sensitive to candidates/direct legislation that may harm those industries. We test our argument in three distinct scenarios. First, Texas’s Congressional District 28 is between 75–80% Hispanic stretching from San Antonio to Laredo and along the U.S. Mexico border. Between 2008—2018 Texas’ U.S. Representative Henry Cuellar faced very little opposition in the Democratic Primary and Republicans did not seriously challenge him in general elections. However, Cuellar, who is arguably the strongest Democratic supporter of privatized immigrant detention and receives large donations from prison companies, narrowly defeated Jessica Cisneros, an immigration attorney, in the 2020 primary, and then again in the 2022 primary. Voters living in areas with large shares of protective services workers, in areas that house border patrol headquarters and ICE facilities, and in areas with large shares of oil and gas workers disproportionately backed Cuellar over Cisneros in line with their economic interests. Second, halfway across the country in 2016, Californians voted on a ballot measure to legalize marijuana. The “legacy grow” high-density outdoor marijuana cultivation areas inside of the Emerald Triangle (Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity Counties) voted down the ballot measure despite otherwise voting strongly Democratic. Third, as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates shifted against coal for environmental reasons, between 2000 and 2012 West Virginia voters in the highest density coal counties disproportionately shifted towards Republican candidates. These findings are consistent with our over-arching argument: When faced with keeping or potentially removing industries that serve as economic bedrocks, voters disproportionately favor the former to ensure their continued known economic station.