Unlike Congressional China-related measures that can be easily identified through Congress.gov and/or GovTrack, currently no database solely dedicated to all state-level China-related legislative measures is publicly available. To address this gap, this study initially relied on a manual review and qualitative analyses of all results yielded from 14 full-text search queries of keyword combinations spanning geographic references, foreign entities, diplomatic designations, technology companies, and security-related terminology in LegiScan’s database of all state and Congressional measures introduced during the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions. The intent of conducting the latter queries was to capture measures related to subjects that were connected to and could potentially impact interests of the PRC and/or Chinese communities, but were not explicitly mentioned.
A measure was considered China-related if it aims to respond to Beijing’s activities (e.g. the spy balloon incident or human rights violations); address perceived risks from PRC behavior (including issues in physical security, economic security, information security, foreign influence and interference in politics and education, and public health and environment); affect potential PRC interests (e.g. campaign finance reform bills in Oregon and Utah that restrict or prohibit foreign contributions or strengthen foreign lobbying regulations) and/or Chinese communities; recognize Chinese culture; and/or otherwise directly or indirectly impact a dimension of the respective state’s relations with China (such as educational exchanges or economic engagements), even if the legislative language did not exclusively focus on China and/or explicitly mention China. Thus, resolutions that sought to educate students about the legacy of communism; celebrate the contributions of individuals, organizations, and/or Asian Americans broadly; or solely make political statements with a peripheral mention of China (e.g. an Ohio resolution expressing support for consumer choice in the automotive marketplace; a New Jersey resolution seeking U.S. cessation of funding gain-of-function research; as well as South Carolina and New Jersey resolutions calling for U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization), were excluded.
Recognizing varying legislative calendars across states (e.g. biennial vs annual sessions), the scope for 2023 and 2024 was confined to measures officially introduced between January 1 and December 31 for optimal coding consistency, allowing for generalized insights. Identical and companion measures (as determined by reviews of legislative texts, not solely on official designations) were counted separately unless officially consolidated into one measure as they progressed during the legislative process.
Following these criteria, 334 measures (including 292 unique and 42 companion measures) from 2023 and over 270 measures from 2024 were identified. The same search queries were repeated in all 50 states’ official legislative databases to identify measures that LegiScan might have failed to capture. (The search queries for China-related measures introduced in the Idaho legislature from 2023 to 2024 were performed by a research staff member in the Idaho Legislative Services Office, search queries for China-related measures introduced in the Kansas legislature from 2023 to 2024 were performed by a legislative reference and research librarian within an internal database maintained by the State Library of Kansas, as for these two states, no databases that allow for full-text search queries are publicly available online, while the author performed the search queries for China-related measures introduced in the remaining 48 states from 2023 to 2024). No attempt was made to systematically identify China-related measures that didn’t explicitly mention China. Thus, this volume should still be viewed as a conservative count.
These measures were then systematically coded across 12 variables: China specificity; volume per state; primary subject, primary issue area(s), and primary topic(s) addressed; current legislative status; sponsor partisanship; passage vote partisanship (originating chamber); passage vote partisanship (opposite chamber); impactfulness; sentiment; and month introduced.
The China specificity variable examines how explicitly and exclusively China was targeted or referenced in legislative measures unfavorable toward China. This was determined based on reviews of China-related clauses in the context, introduction, or findings sections, as well as the enacted clauses or operating provisions. A measure is coded as “China Only” if China-related issues were mentioned explicitly and exclusively, without referencing other countries; this indicates the measure was solely targeting China and/or motivated by China-related issues. Alternatively, a measure is coded as “China Among Foreign Governments/Adversaries/Countries of Concern” if the PRC, CCP, Chinese individuals and/or entities were mentioned among other foreign governments or entities; as “Foreign Adversaries/Countries of Concern/Restricted Entities” if the measure only mentioned foreign adversaries/countries of concern with no explicit China reference (but, if enforced, would impact PRC entities); or as “Foreign Governments/Entities/Individuals” if it only mentioned foreign governments/entities but not China nor foreign adversaries/countries of concern (meaning that, while China was very likely not a motivating factor, the bill, if enforced, would impact interests of the PRC and/or Chinese Americans). A measure is coded as N/A if it is favorable toward the PRC or the China reference was removed during amendments.
A measure’s primary subject, issue area(s), and primary topic(s) were determined based on the legislative language. In cases where multiple subjects were addressed, the relative importance of each subject within the text was considered. Interviews with chief sponsor(s) were conducted to ascertain their original intent when necessary. “Physical security,” “information security,” and “economic security” rather than “economy/trade and investment” and “technology” were used as subject categories to reflect the predominant security framing employed in 264 security-related measures (79 percent of all 334 China-related measures introduced in 2023).
A measure’s status was coded as one of the following: enacted; partially vetoed, partially enacted; adopted (if it’s a resolution or memorial that can be considered adopted with or without a governor’s signature); passed House, pending in Senate; passed Senate, pending in House; pending (if it has neither passed in either chamber nor failed); withdrawn; passed House, failed in Senate (if it failed either because it didn’t receive a committee vote, received a committee vote but failed, didn’t receive a full vote, or failed in a full vote); passed Senate, failed in House; vetoed; failed (if it didn’t pass any chamber by the end of legislative session); substituted; or enjoined.
A measure’s sponsor partisanship is Republican if all sponsors were Republicans; Democrat if all sponsors were Democrats; lean Republican if over 60 percent of sponsors were Republicans and at least one sponsor was a Democrat; lean Democrat if over 60 percent of sponsors were Democrats and at least one sponsor was a Republican; bipartisan if the proportion of Democrat and Republican sponsors was between 40 percent and 60 percent, and N/A if sponsored by a committee or a combination of a committee and individual legislators.
Originating chamber and opposite chamber passage vote partisanship were categorized based on the proportion of Republican and Democratic votes cast during the final floor vote in the originating or opposite chamber, excluding committee votes and votes cast for amendments or governor’s recommendations. For vetoed bills, only the final passage vote – not the override vote – was considered. A measure’s originating chamber and opposite chamber passage vote partisanship is Republican if it received no Democrat votes; Democrat if it received no Republican votes; lean Republican if the split was between 15.1 percent and 99.9 percent, with more Republicans in favor; lean Democrat if the split was between 15.1 percent and 99.9 percent, with more Democrats in favor; or bipartisan if the difference between Republicans and Democrats voting in favor was 15 percent or less.
For the impactfulness variable, a measure is substantive if it demands binding actions, such as imposing penalties, establishing rules or requirements, and/or creating oversight mechanisms; hybrid if it is a resolution that calls for substantive but not binding actions or a bill that leads to symbolic actions; symbolic if it expresses values or makes statements (such as condemning PRC human rights violations) without mandating binding policy changes.
Sentiment was determined by analyzing the language used in the “whereas” clauses, the primary sponsors’ statements (when available), and stated objectives in the “be it resolved” sections. A measure is favorable toward the PRC if it aims to recognize and/or expand any aspect of the state’s relations with China; unfavorable if it aims to restrict any aspect of the state’s relations with China, address perceived risks from PRC behavior, and/or otherwise include language critical of China; and neutral if it focuses on administrative actions without any critical mention of China.
Further research referenced legislative records (including hearings held and testimonies submitted), governors’ and legislators’ press releases and social media posts, as well as local media coverage for context; informational conversations with legislative staff, drafting attorneys, and reference librarians, as well as background interviews with primary sponsors and/or their assistants for clarifications (when necessary).