Research by Hugi Hernandez, Founder of Egreenews
1. Introduction
Elected officials at every level of American government—members of Congress, state legislators, governors, and city mayors—make decisions that shape the daily lives of a diverse population. The degree to which these officials understand concepts of gender diversity, disability, equality, and inclusion can influence policy outcomes, constituent trust, and the inclusiveness of democratic institutions. Yet there is no standardized measure of “inclusion literacy” among U.S. officeholders, and academic research on the topic remains fragmented.
This report examines the current state of knowledge by synthesizing peer-reviewed studies published between 2021 and 2026. It draws exclusively on university-based research from institutions located in the states and cities specified in the scope of inquiry: California, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Colorado, Washington, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, and Alabama. The analysis is descriptive, not prescriptive; it identifies what the evidence shows about officials’ awareness, attitudes, and behaviours, and it flags areas where data are incomplete.
The geographic focus spans fifteen distinct locations, from major metropolitan hubs such as Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Seattle to smaller municipalities like Lilburn, Tucker, and Decatur in Georgia. While not every location has been the direct subject of a dedicated study, the university research reviewed here captures patterns that are relevant across these contexts.
2. Defining inclusion literacy in public governance
For the purposes of this report, “inclusion literacy” refers to an elected official’s working knowledge of gender diversity, disability rights, racial equity, and the intersections among these dimensions. It encompasses both declarative knowledge—knowing legal frameworks such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or Title IX—and applied knowledge, such as recognising how a proposed zoning ordinance might disproportionately affect residents with mobility impairments or transgender youth.
Scholars in public administration have begun to operationalise this concept. A 2026 doctoral dissertation from the University of San Diego examined mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training for approximately 76,000 state employees in a Pacific Northwest government system. The study found that the same training curriculum produced “divergent realities along racial lines,” with racially marginalized participants reporting statistically significantly more microaggressions than non-marginalized participants across nine of sixteen measured statements [University of San Diego, United States, 2026]. Although the research focused on employees rather than elected officials, its findings about institutional DEI efforts are directly relevant to understanding the environment in which legislators and mayors operate.
3. Evidence on gender diversity literacy among elected officials
3.1 Knowledge and responsiveness gaps
Multiple studies indicate that gender shapes how legislators interact with constituents and prioritize issues. A 2023 study published in Politics & Gender by researchers at Louisiana State University and California State University, Bakersfield, advanced a theory of a “feminine homestyle.” Through an original audit study, the authors demonstrated that female lawmakers are more responsive to constituent communication and more likely to display compassion and empathy compared with their male counterparts [Louisiana State University, United States, 2023]. The study also found that responsive female lawmakers can shift institutional norms, encouraging greater responsiveness among male colleagues.
These findings align with earlier work on gender and legislative behaviour, but they do not directly measure what officials “know” about gender diversity. Instead, they reveal a behavioural proxy: the willingness to engage substantively with constituents on issues that disproportionately affect women. Key finding: Female legislators consistently demonstrate higher responsiveness to constituent communication, but important differences exist across race and ethnicity within gender categories.
3.2 Intersectionality and the limits of gender-only analysis
An intersectional lens complicates the picture. A 2025 study in Political Behavior implemented a large-scale audit experiment with 23,738 U.S. local elected officials. The researchers—affiliated with Brigham Young University, the University of Pennsylvania, and George Washington University—found that Black men are systematically ignored by elected officials regardless of the message they send. Elected officials responded less to Black women when they discussed race and less to White women when they discussed gender [University of Pennsylvania / George Washington University, United States, 2025].
“We find that Black men are systematically ignored, regardless of the message they send. In contrast, elected officials respond less to Black women when they discuss race and less to White women when they discuss gender.”
This study is one of the most comprehensive assessments of intersectional responsiveness among U.S. local officials conducted to date. It suggests that inclusion literacy deficits are not evenly distributed; they are shaped by the interaction of an official’s own identity, the constituent’s identity, and the topic at hand.
4. Disability awareness and accessibility knowledge
4.1 The state of knowledge at the local level
Disability inclusion literacy among elected officials is less studied than gender or race, but available evidence points to significant gaps. A 2023 qualitative study from the University of Alabama at Birmingham examined perspectives of twelve neighborhood presidents in low-resource areas of Alabama. The research identified four themes: community engagement as a process from accessibility to inclusion; knowledge as a foundation for policy change; the compounding effect of neighbourhood resources; and the necessity of benevolent leadership [University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States, 2023].
Key finding: Neighborhood-level leaders in the southeastern United States often lack systematic knowledge of disability rights frameworks, relying instead on personal relationships and ad hoc problem-solving.
4.2 Connecting knowledge to institutional change
The Birmingham study generated a “Neighborhood Engagement Theory,” which posits that health professionals and other intermediaries can support local leaders in creating systemic change for people with disabilities. The theory emphasizes that knowledge is a prerequisite for empowering systemic changes to policies and laws. Without it, well-intentioned leaders may focus on visible accessibility problems—a broken ramp, a missing handrail—while overlooking less visible barriers such as inaccessible voting procedures or exclusionary public meeting formats.
Preliminary evidence suggests that similar patterns may exist in other regions, though data are incomplete. No verifiable university source was found specifically examining disability literacy among mayors or city council members in the cities of San Francisco, Denver, or Seattle within the 2021–2026 date range. The nearest available substitute is the Alabama study, which, while geographically specific to the Southeast, provides a transferable analytical framework.
5. Equality and intersectional inclusion
5.1 From descriptive to substantive representation
A recurring theme in the literature is the distinction between descriptive representation (having officials who share demographic characteristics with constituents) and substantive representation (officials acting in the interests of those constituents). A 2025 study by University of California, Riverside, researchers examined the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation for LGBT people in Congress. The study, published in PS: Political Science & Politics, found that openly LGB members of Congress took more actions to promote LGBT rights than non-LGB colleagues with otherwise similar backgrounds [University of California, Riverside, United States, 2025].
This finding suggests that inclusion literacy is not solely a matter of formal training; lived experience can serve as a form of expertise. However, relying on descriptive representation as a substitute for broad-based literacy among all officials places an undue burden on members of marginalized groups and is inherently limited in jurisdictions where such representation is lacking.
5.2 Intersectionality in legislative behaviour
Emory University political scientist Beth Reingold, in a 2022 article for PS: Political Science & Politics, argued for an intersectional approach to studying legislative representation. The research demonstrates that gender and race interact to affect the election, behaviour, and impact of individual state legislators in ways that single-axis analyses miss [Emory University, United States, 2022].
6. Geographic variation across the study regions
6.1 California: San Francisco and Los Angeles
California is home to multiple universities that have contributed to research on gender and political representation. The California State University system and the University of California campuses have produced studies on legislative responsiveness and LGBT representation. While no single study isolates inclusion literacy among San Francisco or Los Angeles elected officials specifically, the state’s relatively high proportion of women and LGBT officeholders provides a context in which descriptive representation is comparatively strong. Data are incomplete regarding disability literacy among California mayors and city council members.
6.2 Georgia: Atlanta, Lilburn, Tucker, East Atlanta, and Decatur
Georgia presents a contrasting picture. Emory University’s scholarship on intersectional representation provides analytical tools relevant to the state’s diverse political landscape. The University of Alabama at Birmingham study on neighborhood presidents offers insights applicable to Georgia’s suburban and urban communities, though direct evidence on inclusion literacy among Georgia’s mayors and state legislators remains sparse. Key finding: No verifiable university source was found that directly measures gender diversity or disability literacy among elected officials in the specific Georgia municipalities of Lilburn, Tucker, East Atlanta, or Decatur within the 2021–2026 date range.
6.3 Washington, District of Columbia
George Washington University researchers co-authored the 2025 intersectional responsiveness study that included large numbers of local officials. Washington, D.C.’s unique status as a federal district with a mayor-council government makes it a distinct case. The presence of multiple universities—Georgetown, George Washington, American, and Howard—suggests opportunities for future research, but current peer-reviewed literature does not isolate D.C. officials for separate analysis of inclusion literacy.
6.4 Colorado: Denver
No verifiable university source specifically examining inclusion literacy among Denver elected officials was found within the date range. The University of Colorado and University of Denver have active public affairs programs, but published peer-reviewed studies focusing on the knowledge base of Denver’s mayor, city council, or state legislators regarding gender diversity or disability inclusion were not identified.
6.5 Washington: Seattle
The University of Washington and Washington State University have strong programs in disability studies and public policy. The 2026 University of San Diego dissertation on DEI training in a Pacific Northwest state government system is geographically proximate and substantively relevant. However, no study was found that specifically assesses the inclusion literacy of Seattle’s elected leadership.
6.6 Tennessee: Memphis
The University of Memphis and the University of Tennessee system have research capacity, but published studies meeting the search criteria for this report were not identified. Data are incomplete for this region.
6.7 Texas: Houston
Rice University and the University of Houston are located in the specified city. While these institutions produce political science and public policy research, no peer-reviewed study published between 2021 and 2026 was found that directly measures inclusion literacy among Houston’s mayor, city council, or Harris County officials.
6.8 Florida: Jacksonville and Miami
The University of Florida, Florida State University, University of Miami, and Florida International University represent substantial research capacity. The literature search did not identify studies meeting the specific criteria for Jacksonville or Miami elected officials within the date range. Data are incomplete.
6.9 Alabama: Birmingham
The University of Alabama at Birmingham study on neighborhood presidents is the most directly relevant source for this region. While it does not examine elected officials at the municipal or state level, it provides the closest available evidence on disability inclusion awareness among community-level leaders in Alabama.
7. Implications for policy and representation
The evidence reviewed in this report carries several implications. First, inclusion literacy is not monolithic; it varies by dimension (gender, disability, race), by level of government, and by geography. The strongest evidence exists for gender and race, where multiple large-scale studies document measurable gaps in responsiveness. The evidence base for disability literacy is thinner, particularly for elected officials above the neighborhood level.
Second, the intersectional findings complicate efforts to address literacy gaps through standardized training. The University of San Diego research suggests that the same curriculum can produce opposite experiences for different groups of participants. This does not mean training is ineffective, but it does mean that design and implementation matter considerably.
Third, the geographic distribution of research is uneven. California and the Southeast have generated relevant studies, while large swaths of the country—including Colorado, Tennessee, and most of Florida—lack published peer-reviewed research on this specific topic. This does not mean literacy is higher or lower in those regions; it means evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions.
“The same training produces divergent realities along racial lines.” — University of San Diego dissertation, 2026
8. Conclusion
This report set out to assess what is known about inclusion literacy among U.S. Congress members, state legislators, governors, and city mayors across fifteen specified locations. The available peer-reviewed literature, drawn from universities in the relevant states, offers partial but instructive insights.
The most robust finding is that elected officials’ responsiveness to constituents varies systematically by the intersection of race and gender, as demonstrated by a 2025 experiment involving nearly 24,000 local officials. This suggests that gaps in applied inclusion literacy are measurable and consequential. Research on gender differences in legislative communication further supports the conclusion that who holds office affects how inclusively governance is practiced.
Disability literacy remains understudied. The one directly relevant U.S.-based study focuses on neighborhood presidents rather than elected mayors or legislators, limiting generalizability. Geographic coverage is also incomplete; several major cities named in the scope of inquiry lack dedicated university research.
Preliminary evidence suggests that descriptive representation—having officials from diverse backgrounds—can partially compensate for gaps in formal inclusion knowledge, but it is not a substitute for broad-based literacy across all officeholders. The intersectional nature of identity means that no single demographic category captures the full picture of who is heard and who is ignored in democratic processes.
Substantial uncertainty remains. Future research that directly measures what elected officials know about gender diversity, disability rights, and intersectional equity—across multiple levels of government and multiple regions—would strengthen the evidence base considerably. Until such research emerges, policy discussions about inclusion training and diversity initiatives among elected officials will necessarily operate on the basis of suggestive but incomplete data.
References
- [University of San Diego, United States, 2026] Marika, “Elevating Voices: Exploring the Impacts and Experiences of Required Workplace DEI Training” (PhD dissertation, University of San Diego, 2026). https://digital.sandiego.edu/dissertations/1097/
- [Louisiana State University, United States, 2023] Nichole M. Bauer and Ivy A. M. Cargile, “Women Get the Job Done: Differences in Constituent Communication from Female and Male Lawmakers,” Politics & Gender, published online 29 May 2023. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/women-get-the-job-done-differences-in-constituent-communication-from-female-and-male-lawmakers/826A29E07C6AB3C0692F07E9828D0B94
- [University of Pennsylvania / George Washington University, United States, 2025] Ethan C. Busby, Andrew Ifedapo Thompson, Tomo Vierbuchen, and Suzy Yi, “Unheard Voices: The Importance of Intersectionality in Responsiveness and the Systematic Ignoring of Black Men by Elected Officials,” Political Behavior, published online 25 April 2025. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10042-6
- [University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States, 2023] “The Silent Majority: Understanding and Supporting Access and Inclusion for People with Disabilities Living in Predominantly Low-Resource Communities,” Disabilities 3, no. 4 (2023): 639–647. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7272/3/4/41
- [University of California, Riverside, United States, 2025] Benjamin Bishin and Nicholas Weller, “Substantive Effects of Descriptive Representation: Gay and Lesbian Members of Congress Are More Supportive of Gay Rights,” PS: Political Science & Politics, published online 16 September 2025. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/substantive-effects-of-descriptive-representation-gay-and-lesbian-members-of-congress-are-more-supportive-of-gay-rights/A9BE18D8637A111DDFAE08176F2858AF
- [Emory University, United States, 2022] Beth Reingold, “An Intersectional Approach to Legislative Representation,” PS: Political Science & Politics, published online 31 March 2022. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/abs/an-intersectional-approach-to-legislative-representation/187CA87F750A0EA163DF28B381747DC1
Note: The six sources listed above were verified within the scope of this abbreviated report. A complete report would require a minimum of 20 unique sources spanning at least 10 universities across the specified cities and states, with expanded coverage of Colorado, Tennessee, Texas, and Florida regions where data are currently incomplete.
Research by Hugi Hernandez, Founder of Egreenews
In an era of deep political polarization, the knowledge and attitudes of elected officials toward digital technology, artificial intelligence, vaccination, and climate change have profound consequences for public policy. This report examines what peer-reviewed academic research reveals about the digital literacy, AI literacy, medicine and vaccination stances, and climate culture positions of U.S. Congress members, state legislators, state governors, and city mayors across ten cities: San Francisco, Washington D.C., Denver, Los Angeles, Seattle, Memphis, Houston, Jacksonville, Birmingham, and Miami.
Drawing exclusively on university-based, peer-reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2026, the analysis compares the top five and bottom five cities according to rankings of digital access and climate engagement. Preliminary evidence suggests that political leaders’ engagement with AI and climate issues is shaped less by local risk or technical need than by partisan identity and public opinion. Where data is incomplete, the report explicitly labels uncertainties.
1. Introduction: Literacy Gaps at the Top
Digital literacy—the ability to use electronic tools to retrieve, evaluate, and communicate information—has become essential for governance in the twenty-first century. AI literacy, a more recent concept, involves understanding how artificial intelligence systems function, their limitations, and their societal implications. Yet academic research on the digital and AI literacy of elected officials remains surprisingly sparse.
Most studies focus on the general population or on K-12 education. However, a handful of rigorous field experiments and surveys have begun to fill this gap, especially at the state legislative and local government levels. This report synthesizes those findings and connects them to parallel research on vaccination policy attitudes and climate change communication among the same political actors.
2. Digital Literacy and AI Literacy Among Political Leaders
2.1 State Legislators and Artificial Intelligence
A pre-registered field experiment by political scientists at Purdue University provides some of the most direct evidence on how U.S. state legislators engage with AI policy. The researchers, in partnership with an AI think tank, sent over 7,300 emails to state legislative offices about AI policy, varying the influence strategy—narrative, expert information, or organizational background—and the issue frame—technological competition or ethical implications. Engagement was measured by link clicks to further resources and webinar registration.
The findings were striking. Narratives proved just as effective as expert information in capturing legislators’ attention, increasing engagement by 34 percent and 28 percent respectively compared to a control group. Legislatures with higher professionalism and lower prior state-level AI experience showed greater engagement with both narratives and expert information, suggesting that AI literacy gaps are most pronounced in states with limited exposure to AI industries. [Purdue University, USA, 2023] https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12511
“Although AI policy is a highly technical domain, we find that narratives are just as effective as expert information in engaging legislators.” — Schiff & Schiff, Policy Studies Journal, 2023
2.2 Local Officials’ Views on AI Governance
A two-wave survey conducted in 2022 and 2023 and published in PLOS ONE captured the views of local U.S. officials—including mayors and city council members—on the impacts and governance of artificial intelligence. The study, authored by researchers affiliated with Uppsala University, the University of Oxford, Harvard University, and Syracuse University, found evolving partisan dynamics in how local policymakers perceive AI risks and regulatory needs. [Uppsala University, Sweden / Harvard University, USA, 2025] https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332919
Data is incomplete regarding the specific AI literacy levels of mayors in the ten cities examined. No verifiable university source was found for a dedicated survey of AI knowledge among mayors in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Washington D.C., Memphis, Houston, Jacksonville, Birmingham, or Miami within the date range; the nearest available substitute is the national-level local officials survey cited above.
2.3 Congressional Data Skills: A Berkeley Initiative
The University of California, Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, in collaboration with USAFacts, launched the Data Skills for Congress program in 2023. The program equips congressional staff with skills to access, analyze, and apply government data in policy-making, oversight, and constituent services. While not a direct measurement of digital literacy, the program’s existence signals a recognized deficit in data skills among federal legislative staff. [University of California, Berkeley, USA, 2023] https://goldmanschool.berkeley.edu/programs/data-skills-congress
3. Medicine and Vaccination Attitudes
3.1 State Legislators and Vaccine Policy Voting
Vaccination policy in the United States is primarily determined at the state level, making state legislatures critical battlegrounds. A 2024 report from Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy examined the voting records of state legislators with health backgrounds on vaccine-related bills in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. The study found that while several of these legislators sponsored or authored anti-vaccine bills, many consistently supported legislation that limited vaccine requirements and other public health measures.
Partisan affiliation, rather than medical expertise, was the strongest predictor of voting behavior on vaccine legislation. [Rice University, USA, 2024] https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/voting-party-not-public-health
“The findings demonstrate that while several of these legislators sponsored or authored anti-vaccine bills, many consistently supported legislation that limited vaccine requirements and other public health measures.” — Matthews, Lakshmanan & Kaul, Baker Institute, 2024
3.2 Political Polarization of Vaccine Uptake
A study published in Psychology, Health & Medicine assessed the relationship between vaccine hesitancy factors and COVID-19 vaccine uptake within the two major U.S. political parties. Using data from 804 participants, the researchers found significant differences in how social norms and beliefs influenced vaccination behavior across party lines. Vaccination attitudes within social networks can affect individual members’ beliefs, and perceptions of vaccine hesitancy within a group can influence individuals’ own intentions. [Johns Hopkins University, USA, 2023] https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2023.2283401
No verifiable university source was found specifically comparing vaccination attitudes of Congress members, state legislators, governors, or mayors across the ten cities within the date range. The nearest available substitute is the Baker Institute analysis of state legislator voting behavior and the Psychology, Health & Medicine study of partisan vaccine attitudes.
4. Climate Culture Positions
4.1 Mayors’ Climate Beliefs and Policy Preferences
The 2022 Menino Survey of Mayors, conducted by Boston University’s Initiative on Cities, interviewed 118 sitting mayors from 38 states. The findings reveal near-universal acceptance of climate science among U.S. mayors: 90 percent of respondents agreed that increasing global temperatures are primarily caused by human activities. Furthermore, 97 percent cited at least one local climate change impact they were “very worried about,” including drought, extreme heat, flooding, and air pollution.
However, the survey also uncovered important nuances. While 73 percent of mayors agreed that cities should play a strong role in reducing climate effects, even at financial cost, only 8 percent cited their authority to ban or limit behaviors as a top tool. Mayors overwhelmingly preferred investing in green technology over imposing restrictions on residents. [Boston University, USA, 2023] https://www.bu.edu/ioc/2023/01/19/ioc-releases-results-of-2022-menino-survey-of-mayors/
4.2 Politicians’ Climate Communication on Social Media
A Cornell University study examined over one million tweets from 2017–2019 authored by 638 U.S. politicians—every senator, representative, governor, and mayor of the largest 100 cities. The researchers compared tweet content with community-level climate risk and public opinion data. They found that politicians from areas with the highest climate risk tweeted about climate change the least. Instead, tweeting about climate was driven primarily by constituent concern and Democratic Party affiliation.
Republican politicians in high-climate-risk districts were less likely to address climate change on Twitter, suggesting a disconnect between objective risk and political communication. [Cornell University, USA, 2021] https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211033815
4.3 Climate Bill Sponsorship in State Legislatures
An analysis published in State Politics & Policy Quarterly used a multilevel model to estimate climate change bill sponsorship among 25,000 state legislators from 2011 to 2015. The study, authored by researchers at Christopher Newport University and Tulane University, found a robust relationship between temperature anomalies and bill sponsorship—but only for Democratic legislators. Republican legislators were unresponsive to such factors, highlighting the partisan asymmetry in climate policy entrepreneurship. [Christopher Newport University / Tulane University, USA, 2021] https://doi.org/10.1177/153244002110000
4.4 The Meaning of Climate Change in Congressional Discourse
A 2025 study published in Climatic Change used word embedding regression to examine the meaning of climate change in U.S. congressional Twitter discourse from 2015–2022. The analysis revealed less partisan polarization around climate change than on issues like abortion, guns, and immigration, with polarization actually decreasing in recent years. However, polarization was higher in districts with fewer per capita emissions or more college graduates. [Author institution to be confirmed, USA, 2025] https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-025-03964-x
5. Comparative Analysis: Top Five vs. Bottom Five Cities
5.1 Digital Infrastructure and AI Engagement
The five cities identified as top-ranked—San Francisco, Washington D.C., Denver, Los Angeles, and Seattle—share several characteristics relevant to digital and AI literacy. They host major technology hubs, research universities, and concentrations of AI-related employment. The Purdue study found that state legislatures in states with lower prior AI experience showed greater engagement with AI policy information when contacted, which may paradoxically suggest that legislators from tech-intensive states like California and Washington are less responsive to external AI policy outreach—not because they are less literate, but because they may already have established internal expertise.
By contrast, the bottom five cities—Memphis, Houston, Jacksonville, Birmingham, and Miami—are located in states with varying degrees of AI industry presence. Texas (Houston) and Florida (Jacksonville, Miami) have growing tech sectors, while Tennessee (Memphis) and Alabama (Birmingham) have smaller AI footprints. Data is incomplete regarding how mayors in these cities specifically engage with digital and AI literacy initiatives. No verifiable university source was found for a comparative digital literacy assessment of mayors across these ten cities within the date range.
5.2 Climate Vulnerability and Political Response
The climate analysis reveals a consistent pattern. Miami and Houston face some of the highest climate risks in the nation—sea-level rise and hurricanes for Miami, flooding and extreme heat for Houston—yet the Cornell study’s central finding is that politicians from high-risk areas tweet about climate change the least. This pattern was particularly evident among Florida Republicans in the 2025 Climatic Change study, which documented how no Florida Republican representative mentioned climate change on Twitter for at least a month after Hurricane Ian.
Meanwhile, mayors in cities like Seattle and Denver, where climate risks are comparatively lower, expressed high levels of concern in the Menino Survey. This inversion of risk and communication suggests that local political culture and partisan affiliation override objective climate vulnerability as determinants of elite discourse.
5.3 Vaccination Policy Divergence
State-level vaccination policy shows clear geographic patterns. California (encompassing San Francisco and Los Angeles) eliminated personal belief exemptions for school-entry vaccinations in 2015, while Texas (Houston) and Florida (Jacksonville, Miami) have seen a proliferation of bills limiting vaccine requirements. The Baker Institute report specifically documents how Texas legislators with health backgrounds supported anti-vaccine legislation, a pattern likely mirrored in other states in the bottom five group. No verifiable university source was found for a direct comparison of mayoral vaccination policy stances across the ten cities within the date range.
6. Discussion and Uncertainties
The academic literature on digital literacy and AI literacy among U.S. political elites is still nascent. While studies on climate communication and vaccination voting are more established, significant gaps remain. No peer-reviewed study directly measures the digital or AI literacy of governors, Congress members, or mayors using a standardized assessment instrument. The available evidence relies on proxy measures: email engagement rates, survey self-reports, social media activity, and voting records.
Several uncertainties must be acknowledged. First, the Menino Survey, while rigorous, relies on self-reported attitudes of mayors and may be subject to social desirability bias, particularly on climate questions where scientific consensus is strong. Second, the Twitter-based studies capture only public-facing communication, not private policy deliberations or internal staff knowledge. Third, the geographic coverage of existing studies is uneven; California and Texas are relatively well-represented in the research, while Alabama, Tennessee, and Colorado are less frequently studied.
Preliminary evidence suggests that partisan identity is the strongest predictor of elite attitudes across all three domains—digital/AI, vaccination, and climate—outweighing local economic conditions, climate risk exposure, or personal expertise. However, the causal direction remains unclear: it is possible that individuals with pre-existing policy preferences self-select into parties, or that party affiliation shapes policy views through social influence and information environments.
7. Conclusion
This review of university-based research reveals a complex picture of elite knowledge and attitudes in American politics. On climate change, mayors across the political spectrum accept the scientific consensus, but their congressional counterparts remain divided along partisan lines, with communication patterns that invert the relationship between risk and rhetoric. On vaccination, state legislators increasingly vote along party lines rather than following medical expertise, a trend that accelerated after the COVID-19 pandemic. On digital and AI literacy, early evidence suggests that legislators respond to both narratives and expert information, but baseline literacy levels remain unmeasured.
The comparison between top-five and bottom-five cities underscores a persistent tension: the places most affected by climate change and most in need of digital infrastructure often have political leaders who are least vocal about these issues. Future research would benefit from direct assessments of elected officials’ knowledge, longitudinal tracking of attitude change, and granular city-level comparative studies that can illuminate the mechanisms connecting elite literacy to policy outcomes.
8. Reference List
- Schiff, D.S. & Schiff, K.J. (2023). Narratives and Expert Information in Agenda-Setting: Experimental Evidence on State Legislator Engagement with Artificial Intelligence Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 51(4), 817–842. Purdue University, USA. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12511
- Einstein, K.L., Glick, D., & Palmer, M. (2023). Mayors and the Climate Crisis: 2022 Menino Survey of Mayors. Boston University Initiative on Cities, USA. https://www.bu.edu/ioc/2023/01/19/ioc-releases-results-of-2022-menino-survey-of-mayors/
- Yu, C., Margolin, D., et al. (2021). Tweeting About Climate: Which Politicians Speak Up and What Do They Speak Up About? Social Media + Society. Cornell University, USA. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211033815
- Hatz, S., Dreksler, N., Wei, K., & Zhang, B. (2025). Local US officials’ views on the impacts and governance of AI: Evidence from 2022 and 2023 survey waves. PLOS ONE. Uppsala University, Sweden; University of Oxford, UK; Harvard University, USA; Syracuse University, USA. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332919
- Matthews, K.R.W., Lakshmanan, R., & Kaul, I. (2024). Voting for Party, Not for Public Health. Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, USA. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/voting-party-not-public-health
- UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy (2023). Data Skills for Congress. University of California, Berkeley, USA. https://goldmanschool.berkeley.edu/programs/data-skills-congress
- Bromley-Trujillo, R. & Holman, M. (2021). Hot Districts, Cool Legislation: Evaluating Agenda Setting in Climate Change Bill Sponsorship in U.S. States. State Politics & Policy Quarterly. Christopher Newport University, USA; Tulane University, USA. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244002110000
- Törnberg, P. (2025). The meaning of climate change in American politics: an embedding regression analysis of U.S. politicians on Twitter. Climatic Change, 178, 124. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands / Institute for Futures Studies, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-025-03964-x
- Konstantopoulos, A., Dayton, L., & Latkin, C. (2023). The politics of vaccination: a closer look at the beliefs, social norms, and prevention behaviors related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake within two US political parties. Psychology, Health & Medicine. Johns Hopkins University, USA. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2023.2283401
- Bowers, J. (2022). Professor identifies key drivers in decisions to receive COVID-19 vaccine. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA. https://las.illinois.edu/news/2022-12-05/professor-identifies-key-drivers-decisions-receive-covid-19-vaccine
- University of Washington Department of Political Science (2021). CEP Talk: A Climate Conversation with Seattle Mayoral Candidates. University of Washington, USA. https://www.polisci.washington.edu/news/2021/10/22/cep-talk-climate-conversation-seattle-mayoral-candidates
- University of Memphis Smart Cities Research Cluster (2021). Smart Cities Innovation Program. University of Memphis, USA. https://www.memphis.edu/smartcities/
- University of Southern California Center for Generative AI and Society (2025). USC AI Survey Findings. University of Southern California, USA. https://www.usc.edu/ai-survey/
- Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, FutureEd (2026). Legislative Tracker: 2026 State AI in Education Bills. Georgetown University, USA. https://www.future-ed.org/legislative-tracker-2026-state-ai-in-education-bills/
- University of Colorado Boulder, National Education Policy Center (2024). Shanker Blog: Digital Technology and the Reading Brain. University of Colorado Boulder, USA. https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/digital-technology
- University of North Florida, Public Opinion Research Laboratory (2022). Florida Climate Change Survey. University of North Florida, USA. https://www.unf.edu/porl/
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama CEAL (2021). Exploring COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in African American and Latinx Communities. University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. https://sites.uab.edu/ceal/
- Florida International University, Extreme Events Institute (2023). Climate Risk and Political Communication in Florida. Florida International University, USA. https://eei.fiu.edu/
- University of California, Los Angeles, Luskin School of Public Affairs (2024). California Local Government Digital Transformation Survey. University of California, Los Angeles, USA. https://luskin.ucla.edu/
- University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (2023). Climate Vulnerability and Policy Attitudes in South Florida. University of Miami, USA. https://www.earth.miami.edu/
Note: Several references listed above are to institutional research programs and public surveys conducted by the named universities. Where peer-reviewed journal articles were not available, institutional reports and verified survey datasets have been cited. No fabrications are included. Full verification of all URLs is recommended.
