Signing Statements, Gridlock, and Presidential Strategy

Abstract

Why do presidents use signing statements? Past research has approached presidential strategy in using such statements from both policy-oriented and institutionally oriented perspectives. However, scholars have not adequately addressed the consequences of congressional ideology and gridlock on the use of presidential signing statements. This article considers congressional composition and offers two different perspectives on presidential strategy: a separation of powers perspective (i.e., presidents use signing statements to protect their office from congressional encroachment) and a political perspective (i.e., presidents use signing statements to counteract the actions of an adversarial Congress). I find that political factors are more important: under conditions of unified government, gridlock predicts fewer substantive signing statements than under conditions of divided government. The results suggest a theory of unilateral power, which posits that presidents are strategic and will change their use of particular policy-shaping tools depending on various political circumstances.