<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><metadata xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns="http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/"><dcterms:title>Replication Data for: City-State Ideological Incongruence and Municipal Preemption</dcterms:title><dcterms:identifier>https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KU4OCK</dcterms:identifier><dcterms:creator>Barber, Michael</dcterms:creator><dcterms:creator>Dynes, Adam M.</dcterms:creator><dcterms:publisher>Harvard Dataverse</dcterms:publisher><dcterms:issued>2021-05-29</dcterms:issued><dcterms:modified>2023-04-26T14:12:49Z</dcterms:modified><dcterms:description>A growing concern among municipal officials across the U.S. is that their policymaking capacity is under attack by state legislatures who are increasingly likely to preempt those municipalities. However, determining the extent to which municipalities are preempted is challenging. We overcome this by surveying a large sample of municipal officials from across the U.S. We find that officials from municipalities that are more ideologically distant from their state overall are more likely to report being preempted by their state government. Moreover, this pattern is driven by more liberal municipalities in both Republican and Democratic states reporting higher rates of preemption. Additionally, municipalities under unified state governments are more likely to report preemption, especially those under unified Republican control. These findings have important implications for the quality of representation in our federalist system and indicate that preemption is not just an issue between Republican states and liberal urban cities.</dcterms:description><dcterms:subject>Social Sciences</dcterms:subject><dcterms:subject>Preemption</dcterms:subject><dcterms:subject>Representation</dcterms:subject><dcterms:subject>Intergovernmental politics</dcterms:subject><dcterms:subject>State politics</dcterms:subject><dcterms:subject>Local politics</dcterms:subject><dcterms:subject>Elite survey</dcterms:subject><dcterms:isReferencedBy>Barber, Michael, and Adam Dynes. 2021. “City-State Ideological Incongruence and Municipal Preemption.” &lt;i>American Journal of Political Science&lt;/i> 67 (1): 119-36., doi, 10.1111/ajps.12655, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12655</dcterms:isReferencedBy><dcterms:date>2021-05-29</dcterms:date><dcterms:contributor>Dynes, Adam M.</dcterms:contributor><dcterms:dateSubmitted>2021-04-16</dcterms:dateSubmitted><dcterms:source>Butler, Daniel M., and Adam M. Dynes. 2016. “2016 AMOS.” American Municipal Officials Survey. http://www.municipalsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMOS2016_details-of-sample.pdf. 
&lt;br>&lt;/br>
Data Trust. 2017. “National Voter File.” Accessed July, 2017. https://thedatatrust.com; (202) 733-5235.
&lt;br>&lt;/br>
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Christopher Warshaw. 2013. "Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities." Journal of Politics 75 (2): 330-342. https://americanideologyproject.com/
&lt;br>&lt;/br>
US Census Bureau. 2016. “2016 Data Release.” American Community Survey. Accessed May 7, 2020. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases.2016.html
&lt;br>&lt;/br>
US Census Bureau. 2016. “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions: April 2, 2020 to July 1, 2015.” Accessed September, 2016. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.htm</dcterms:source><dcterms:spatial>United States</dcterms:spatial><dcterms:rights>This dataset is made available with limited information on how it can be used. You may wish to communicate with the Contact(s) specified before use.</dcterms:rights></metadata>