{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02053915275994865, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012836970474967907, 'mean_word_length': 5.5, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legislative Expression: Sanctuary Policymaking in the U.S. States

While sanctuary policies have traditionally been passed by cities and counties rather than states, this situation has shifted in recent years with both California and Oregon embracing their identity as “sanctuary states,” while in Texas SB4 was signed into law, officially banning sanctuary legislation across the state. This chapter examines the factors that increase the likelihood that state legislators will introduce pro- or antisanctuary legislation. We find that racial threat activated by an increasing minority population, the ideology of the state and its voters, and the structure of state institutions all increase the likelihood of pro/anti-sanctuary legislation being introduced at the state level.