Request for Proposals (RFP): Research on Election and Institutional Reforms in Legislatures and the Courts

Unite America Institute in partnership with USC Schwarzenegger Institute and USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab

Overview 

Primary election reform remains a central institutional question in American democracy. In many jurisdictions, primary elections are the decisive contest. Although existing scholarship has examined the electoral consequences of different primary systems, far less attention has been paid to legislative changes to primary election systems or legal attempts to block or enact primary election reform. 

Across the United States, public trust in democratic institutions has declined. Voters and public officials increasingly recognize structural challenges in the design and functioning of election systems. Yet institutional reform is inherently difficult. Legislative veto points, entrenched interests, administrative complexity, election administrative processes, and separation of powers create layered barriers to change. Understanding how institutional reforms emerge, how they are contested, and how they endure or fail is central to strengthening our academic and policy knowledge of democratic governance. 

This Request For Proposals seeks research focused on primary election reform or more broadly on understanding how election institutions evolve, resist change, and respond to legislative, judicial, and/or administrative pressures. In many jurisdictions, primary elections are the decisive contest. Although scholarship has examined consequences of primary systems, little attention is paid to legislative strategies, litigation dynamics, administrative implementation, and interbranch interactions that shape reform efforts. Moreover, we are also interested in learning about other institutional reforms and approaches outside of primary election system reform that could strengthen our scholarly understanding of what could more effectively improve election systems. Research is needed to evaluate how different mechanisms of change operate and under what conditions. 

Crucial questions persist regarding legislative coalition formation, political incentives and timing, and the ways courts shape — or constrain — the boundaries of permissible reform. Understanding these dynamics is essential to explaining why some reform efforts advance while others stall, are modified, or are struck down. This Request for Proposals from the Unite America Institute and USC requests research proposals on the dynamics that determine different electoral reform trajectories, including but not limited to the study of primary election reform. We seek research that analyzes how reform coalitions navigate legislative institutions; how legal strategies are structured, challenged, and defended; and how legislative and court dynamics influence reform outcomes. We also welcome innovative work examining executive implementation, administrative adaptation, institutional design, reform durability, backlash, and unintended consequences. Research studies that examine legislatures, legislators, courts, judges, lawyers, interest groups, administrators, and other key actors as the unit of analysis are encouraged. Research could be national in scope, or may focus on one or a few states and legislators or courts within those states. 

Specifically, we seek research that will examine (1) legislative behavior to explain why legislators support or oppose reform; (2) incentives for incumbent legislators elected in open, top-two, or top-four systems to retain or modify those systems; (3) the impact of court decisions on changing primary systems, candidate behavior, and legislative or administrative choices; (4) analysis of individual states where litigation and legislation have changed, or may change primary systems or other election institutions; (5) lessons from other institutional reform domains that may illuminate mechanisms of durable electoral change*; (6) the role of voters in initiating, sustaining, or reversing reform, especially in response to legal or legislative election institution changes; (7) examinations of unintended consequences, trade-offs, distributive effects, backlash, or destabilizing impacts of reform; or (8) other innovative and intellectually strong proposals on the topic of legislative and litigation strategies shaping primary elections, primary election reform, or other institutional and election reforms more broadly. 

We invite rigorous, investigator-initiated research from political science, public policy, public administration, law, economics, and related fields that advances understanding of the above topics. We value independent, objective research that fills critical gaps in the literature and informs the public. Further, we uphold the essential principle of academic freedom for scholars who work with us. To that end, we welcome proposals regardless of whether they are supportive, skeptical, or neutral about the impact of election reforms that Unite America supports. The goal of this initiative is to strengthen the empirical evidence base of knowledge via social scientific research. 

The USC Schwarzenegger Institute and USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab will manage the peer review process and USC will serve as the host institution for the finalist convening, providing the venue and facilitating dialogue among scholars, policymakers, philanthropic leaders, and practitioners. 

*Examples of research on domains could include but are not limited to redistricting, ranked-choice voting in general elections, campaign finance reform, election administration, and other democracy reform areas. 

Purpose, Scope, and Potential Research Topics 

We seek research that advances understanding of how electoral reforms are developed, negotiated, enacted, and contested within legislative, judicial, and administrative arenas. We are particularly interested in work that analyzes the interaction between lawmakers, political actors, litigants, and courts in shaping reform design and viability. This call is offered by the Unite America Institute in partnership with a convening being held at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute on May 28-29 2026. Winners of the RFP will be announced to coincide with the convening, and RFP finalists will have expenses paid to attend the convening at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute. 

The kinds of topics and questions of interest include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Legislative Strategy and Political Pathways 

  • What coalition-building strategies successfully advance primary reform legislation?
  • What incentivizes U.S. state legislators to support status quo primary elections, especially in states that do not have closed primaries? 
  • Do primaries affect legislative behavior, and how does the legislative and candidate experience in one primary system influence legislative support or opposition to changing primary election systems? 
  • Do institutional veto points, committee structures, rules, caucuses, and agenda-setting authority shape reform design? 
  • What explains variation in reform success across states or municipalities?
  • Do parties, interest groups, donors, and civic organizations influence legislative negotiations? 
  • Do legislators oppose reform while in office and support upon leaving?
  • Historically, did structural election reforms originate with legislative leadership, from grassroots advocacy, or from other sources? 
  • What administrative avenues exist for primary reform change or other election institution change in U.S. states? 
  • Outside of electoral reform laws, are there policies (e.g., privacy laws, taxpayer rights, election administration procedures) that impact electoral processes such as open primaries, top-four primaries, or top-two primaries? 

Litigation Strategy and Judicial Dynamics 

  • We seek analysis of the use of litigation in other election reform policy domains. What lessons can be learned from election reform efforts in domains other than primary election reform for influencing judges and policy? This may include examinations and comparison of state(s) where litigation has led to election reform or election institutional change. 
  • How have courts and judges responded to attempts to change primary systems, and what explains patterns of judicial decision-making? 
  • What empirical evidence has influenced judges to write opinions that change election systems, including primary election systems? What evidence has failed to influence judges’ decisions on reform? What are the constraints on judicial decisions, even with the presence of empirical evidence or legal arguments? 
  • What patterns emerge across state and federal litigation involving primary systems?
  • What legal arguments or other litigation strategies are most influential in explaining challenges to primary or other election reform? 
  • We seek analyses of federal or state case law to examine what criteria or factors have changed in favor or against various reform efforts (e.g., partisan gerrymandering, violations of privacy, partisan harms).
  • How does the anticipation of judicial review influence legislative drafting and reform sequencing?
  • What is the role of judicial selection – elections, appointment, and other methods – in judicial decision-making over election reform? 

We also recognize there are many institutional features and other factors that impact electoral reform. As a result, we may also consider proposals related to: 

Interbranch Dynamics and Implementation 

  • What administrative adaptations are required following reform enactment by courts or legislatures? 
  • How do courts and legislatures interact over time in shaping reform stability? 3

Durability, Backlash, and Institutional Stability 

  • Under what political conditions are reforms repealed or revised, especially by legislatures or courts? 
  • How do primary and election systems shape legislative representation or court decisions impacting marginalized groups? Are there differential impacts of primary or other election system changes on voters of color and other marginalized groups. 
  • How do political actors strategically adapt following reform adoption or repeal?
  • What institutional features increase reform stability over time? 

Eligibility, Funding, Timeline, and Deadline Details 

Eligible applicants include academic researchers in political science, public policy, public administration, law, economics, and related fields; interdisciplinary teams; research centers; and independent scholars. 

The Unite America Institute anticipates approximately $50,000 in total funding for this RFP. Awards are expected to include: 

  • Two grants of approximately $25,000 each; or 
  • An alternative distribution reflecting project scope and quality. 

For exceptional proposals with transformative potential, larger awards may be considered. Allowable expenses include reasonable research expenses, including policy-relevant dissemination of research. Overhead/indirect costs are limited to no more than 10%, and should be included in proposed budgets if applicable. 

RFP Release Date: March 12, 2026 

Proposal Deadline: April 15, 2026, 11:00 PM Pacific 

Anticipated Finalist Notification: April 30, 2026-May 7, 2026. 

Finalist Convening and “Shark Tank” Pitch Presentations: May 28-29, 2026, Los Angeles, CA at USC Schwarzenegger Institute 

Project Completion Period: Fall 2026 through Fall 2027. 

Proposal Requirements 

Proposals must include the following: 

  • Research question and significance 
  • Conceptual or theoretical framework 
  • Research design and methodology 
  • Contribution to understanding legislative and/or litigation strategy
  • Description of policy impact: How will this proposal move the needle on understanding legislator support or opposition of primary reform or other reforms; how will this proposal move the needle on understanding how litigation shapes primary election reform or other reforms? 
  • Anticipated deliverable(s) such as academic article(s), monograph, scholarly and public dissemination of findings 
  • Timeline 
  • Budget and justification 
  • CV(s) of principal investigator(s). 

Except for the CV(s) of investigators, the entire proposal with the above bullet points should be 4-6 pages double-spaced, 1-inch margins, font must be 11 point or larger for all. Proposals should not exceed 6 pages with these dimensions. Using this submission form, submit one PDF of the 4-6 page proposal and separately submit CV(s) of investigators. Please send all inquiries and questions to [email protected]. 

Submission form: https://tinyurl.com/ReformRFP 

Review Process, Evaluation Criteria, and Grant Decisions 

This RFP will use a two-stage competitive review process. 

Stage One: Initial Proposal Review 

All proposals will be reviewed by academic researchers and/or external reviewers with relevant disciplinary and subject-matter expertise. Applications are evaluated on intellectual rigor, conceptual clarity, methodological strength, strategic relevance, feasibility and other factors detailed below. Pamela Clouser McCann (Ph.D., Associate Professor, USC); Richard Barton (Ph.D., Democracy Fellow, Unite America Institute); Christian Grose (Ph.D., Professor, USC); and Carlo Macomber (Senior Policy Manager, Unite America Institute) will oversee the review process. 

Following this review, three to five finalists will be selected. 

Stage Two: Finalist Convening and Research Presentations 

Finalists will be invited to participate in person in a structured research symposium hosted by the Institute to be held at USC on May 28-29, 2026. At this convening: 

  • Finalists are selected through a rigorous peer-reviewed process prior to the convening. 
  • Finalists will present their proposed projects before a panel of philanthropic leaders, policy practitioners, scholars, and social science field experts. This will be a “Shark Tank” style presentation where finalists present elevator-style pitches that emphasize policy impact and impact within academia and beyond to a panel including at least one academic, lawyer, and philanthropist. Finalists will be provided more detail about this when selected, and will have travel expenses paid to appear for this panel. Other conference attendees of academics, policy makers, nonprofit advocates, and philanthropists will also attend the Finalist pitches as audience members. 
  • Finalists at the convening will also receive communications training focused on effectively translating academic research for policy and philanthropic audiences. 

Final funding decisions will be made at the convening on May 28-29 following the finalist “Shark Tank”/pitch session presentations of research, or within days after. The finalist presentations will focus on presentations with policy impact and with broader impact (TED-talk style pitches for how the research will make broader impacts will be the focus at the Finalist stage). At least two awards will be granted. All finalists will participate in the symposium regardless of funding outcome, and only some finalists will receive funding from this RFP. 

Evaluation Criteria 

  • Intellectual rigor, methodological soundness, new ideas, and creativity
  • Clear linkage to legislative or litigation strategy in primary election reform or election or institutional reforms more broadly 
  • Alignment with academic research conference goals 
  • Contribution to political science, social science, public policy, economics, or public administration scholarship 
  • Practical relevance to policymakers 
  • Practical relevance to litigators 
  • Practical relevance to practitioners 
  • Feasibility within timeline and budget 
  • Clarity of conceptual framework and research design 
  • Broader impact on society 
  • Broader impact on policy change 
  • Broader impact on basic research in this field 
  • Educational impacts
  • Likelihood of research yielding future peer-reviewed academic research