Do presidential campaign events influence how people vote? Do campaign events impact polling margins? If not, why would presidential candidates and their campaign teams hold hundreds of campaign events in the fall leading up to Election Day? Political science research about the effect of presidential campaign events on election phenomena is mixed. This study examines the relationship between campaign events and average polling margins, at the state level, and vote margins, at the county level, in the 2024 presidential election. This study finds: (1) support for Hypothesis 1 that in a close race, as reflected in the polls, candidates work harder via campaign events in competitive states with a relatively high number of electoral votes; (2) that with respect to Hypothesis 2, the results did not find clear support that within battleground states, candidates hold campaign events where average polling margins are close. Instead, the study finds that for a few states, specifically Michigan, Wisconsin, and perhaps Pennsylvania, there is a moderate to weak correlation that there are fewer campaign events when the margin is larger. However, when the individual battleground state regressions were performed, generally in most states, there was no statistically significant relationship between polling margins and the number of campaign events in the week before the poll or the week following the poll, with few exceptions. With respect to Hypothesis 3, the study did not find clear support that the number of campaign events in a given county had a positive affect on vote margin at the county level. Instead, the regression results may have been affected by selection bias or the tight one-week time frame applied to measure the data.

When the Supreme Court first met in 1790, the greatest issue before the young Court was retaining enough justices to maintain a quorum. Today, federal courts are larger, better-staffed, more well-funded, and decide more cases with higher political stakes than they have at almost any other point in American history. How did the federal judiciary transform from a backwater of American politics to occupying a position at center stage? This thesis explores the expansion of federal judicial power through studies of the institutional and administrative growth of the federal judiciary over American history, the criminal caseload of the federal courts, and the role of the federal judiciary in administrative law. Chapter One argues that westward expansion, the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the Taft Court drove the institutionalization and consolidation of federal judicial power, presenting updated data on the jurisdiction, caseload, size, and budget of the federal courts in a new light. Chapter Two turns to the role of the courts in criminal law, where periods of federalization have prompted federal courts to exercise greater power in criminal law, and surging criminal caseloads have, in turn, driven the growth of federal courts. Chapter Three, the empirical heart of this thesis, considers administrative law as central to the modern period of federal judicial power. As Congress has increasingly relied on administrative agencies to implement their policies, the Administrative Procedure Act has enabled broad judicial review of agency actions, allowing federal courts to shape policy with profound political ramifications. The time series analysis finds weak causal evidence to support the claim that congressional delegations to administrative agencies have driven judicial review of agency regulations, bringing the federal courts into new areas of American life, from the environment to the workplace, with important theoretical implications for understanding how the courts, Congress, and the executive branch interact.