Zoe Nemerever, University of California, San Diego
Political violence surrounding federal land management policy provides a unique opportunity to advance understanding of both individuals’ decisions to engage in high-cost, unconventional political behavior and to explore the adverse consequences of federalist institutions.
Federal tensions over land and natural resources have been an integral part of politics in the western US. The federal government owns half of the land in the 11 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). Extensive federal land ownership limits the ability of states to determine how to manage their land for economic purposes, such as grazing and mining, in addition to recreational use and conservation.
Fig. 1 Map of federal land ownership in the western United States
As representatives of the federal government, employees of the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and BLM routinely deal with politically-motivated threats, harassment, and physical violence from people upset about restrictions on the use of federal land. In a new Political Behavior article, I ask, what is the role of subnational governments in escalating political protest to political violence in modern United States?
I assert that political violence against federal bureaucrats is more likely when state legislation validates the views of those with complaints against federal land ownership and when county sheriffs signal that they hold anti-federal ideologies. First, the passage of land transfer legislation by state legislatures validates anti-federal political beliefs and can be perceived by citizens as a subtle endorsement for defying or harassing federal employees. Second, constitutionalist sheriffs elevate levels of political violence against federal employees by increasing the salience of anti-federal sentiments and lowering the costs of political violence. Constitutionalist sheriffs interpret the U.S. Constitution such that the federal and state government authorities are subordinate to county governments.
To substantiate these theories, I analyzed reports of violence towards the Bureau of Land Management. The reports include the date and location of 500 physical assaults, verbal harassment, and violent threats between 1995 and 2015. Over two decades, 33% of western counties experienced civilian violence against Bureau of Land Management employees. I identified constitutionalist sheriffs from newspaper coverage and the websites of constitutionalist sheriff organizations. I also created an original dataset of land transfer legislation introduced in state legislatures.
In a multivariate analysis, I find that counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs are more likely to have civilian violence against federal employees, and counties predisposed to political violence have higher rates of violence in the year following the passage of land transfer legislation.
The rate of violence was over twice as high in counties with a constitutionalist sheriff. Even after accounting for other factors, counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs are 55% more likely to have political violence against federal employees. Additionally, the passage of land transfer legislation is associated with a 10% increase in the probability of political violence occurring in the following year.
An under-explored consequence of American federalism is one level of government encouraging civilian violence against another level of government. Incorporating federalism into the study of political violence illuminates how the actions of elected officials at state and county levels can promote violence against the federal government, a phenomenon previously unexamined by political scientists. Symbolic land transfer legislation and sheriff elections are often given short shrift by both media and academia, but these political activities have important consequences for the safety of public employees. Scholars should continue to examine other contexts of political violence to increase the discipline’s understanding of which subnational political institutions encourage violent political behavior, and how it can be avoided in the future.
Political Behavior 