The University of Rochester is one of the nation's leading private research universities, renowned for its commitment to innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and academic excellence. Guided by its motto, "Meliora"—Ever Better—the University fosters groundbreaking research and transformative education across its schools and centers.

University of Rochester

New Row

Contact expert @[Full Name](fullname), @[Job Title](job_title) at @[Organization](organization) for media, speaking, professional opportunities and more.

@[Full Name](fullname) at @[Organization](organization) | Contact Form

Expert Inquiry

Open Sans

Best Paper in Comparative Politics, MPSA, Chicago, 2010

Kellogg/Notre Dame Award

Law and Courts Section, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 2001

Edward C. Corwin Award for Best Dissertation in the Field of Public Law, Honorable Mention

Law and Courts Section, American Political Science Association Meeting, 1998

Congressional Quarterly Press Award for Best Graduate Student Paper

Bright Line Watch : Co-Founder

Searching for a Bright Line: The First Year of the Trump Presidency

The Puzzle of Purges: Presidential Instability and Judicial Manipulation in Latin America

From Power Gaps to Instability Traps: Reflections on Institutional Instability in Latin America

Inducing independence: A strategic model of World Bank assistance and legal reform

Public Support and Judicial Crises in Latin America

Why does institutional instability pervade the developing world? Examining contemporary Latin America, Institutions on the Edge develops and tests a novel argument to explain why institutional crises emerge, spread, and repeat in some countries, but not in others. The book draws on formal bargaining theories developed in the conflict literature to offer the first unified micro-level account of inter-branch crises. In so doing, Helmke shows that concentrating power in the executive branch not only fuels presidential crises under divided government, but also triggers broader constitutional crises that cascade on to the legislature and the judiciary. Along the way, Helmke highlights the importance of public opinion and mass protests, and elucidates the conditions under which divided government matters for institutional instability.

Institutions on the Edge: The Origins and Consequences of Inter-Branch Crises in Latin America (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)

To what extent do courts in Latin America protect individual rights and limit governments? This volume answers these fundamental questions by bringing together today's leading scholars of judicial politics. Drawing on examples from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Bolivia, the authors demonstrate that there is widespread variation in the performance of Latin America's constitutional courts. In accounting for this variation, the contributors push forward ongoing debates about what motivates judges; whether institutions, partisan politics, and public support shape interbranch relations; and the importance of judicial attitudes and legal culture. The authors deploy a range of methods, including qualitative case studies, paired country comparisons, statistical analysis, and game theory.

Courts in Latin America

This study offers a theoretical framework for understanding how institutional instability affects judicial behavior under dictatorship and democracy. In stark contrast to conventional wisdom, the central findings of the book contradict some assumptions that only independent judges rule against the government of the day. Set in the context of Argentina, the study uses the tools of positive political theory to explore the conditions under which courts rule against the government. In addition to shedding light on the dynamics of court-executive relations in Argentina, the study provides general lessons about institutions, instability, and the rule of law. In the process, the study builds a set of connections among diverse bodies of scholarship, including US judicial politics, comparative institutional analysis, positive political theory, and Latin American politics.

Courts under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)

This volume analyzes the function of informal institutions in Latin America and how they support or weaken democratic governance. Drawing from a wide range of examples―including the Mexican dedazo, clientelism in Brazil, legislative "ghost coalitions" in Ecuador, and elite power-sharing in Chile―the contributors examine how informal rules shape the performance of state and democratic institutions, offering fresh and timely insights into contemporary problems of governability, "unrule of law," and the absence of effective representation, participation, and accountability in Latin America.The editors present this analysis within a fourfold conceptual framework: complementary institutions, which fill gaps in formal rules or enhance their efficacy; accommodative informal institutions, which blunt the effects of dysfunctional formal institutions; competing informal institutions, which directly subvert the formal rules; and substitutive informal institutions, which replace ineffective formal institutions.

Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America

Democratic Regimes

Latin American Politics

Comparative Law and Courts

Comparative Politics Field Seminar

Comparative Parties and Elections

Professor Helmke's research focuses on democratic political institutions, rule of law, and Latin American politics. Her most recent book, Institutions on the Edge: The Origins and Consequences of Institutional Instability in Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 2017), shows that concentrating power in the presidency triggers political crises across all three branches of government. Helmke has published three additional books, Courts in Latin America, co-edited with Julio Rios-Figueroa (Cambridge University Press, 2011), Courts Under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina (Cambridge University Press, 2005), and Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), co-edited with Steven Levitsky. Her articles have appeared in American Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, Comparative Politics, Desarollo Economico, Annual Review of Political Science, Electoral Studies, Perspectives on Politics, American Journal of Political Science, and Quarterly Journal of Political Science. Her research has been funded by the NSF, the SSRC, Democracy Fund, and the Hewlett Foundation. She is one of the co-founders of Bright Line Watch, a non-profit organization that brings together leading political scientists to monitor democratic practices in the United States from a comparative perspective. 

She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago in 2000, and holds a B.A. (1993) and an M.A. (1994) in Political Science, both from the University of California at Berkeley. In the past, Helmke was a Visiting Fellow at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame, a Harvard Academy Scholar at the Weatherhead Center for International and Area Studies at Harvard University, and a Visiting Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She arrived at the University of Rochester in 2002, and served as the Chair of the Political Science Department from 2011 to 2016.

Bright Line Watch

Democratic Political Institutions

Rule of Law

Institutional crises in Latin America

University of Rochester Faculty Directory Page

Personal Website

Google Scholar Page

The Wilson Center Profile

Gretchen Helmke named Guggenheim Fellow for political science

We used to simply disagree. Now we don’t agree on facts

•	‘Fear-mongering’ or emergency? As Trump flexes executive power, here’s what to know about constitutional crises.

Trump supporters' threats to judge spur democracy concerns

Republican and Democratic voters agree on one thing: the need for generous COVID-19 bailouts

Alberto Fernández can reform the perverse Argentine justice (Alberto Fernández puede reformar la perversa justicia argentina)

Trump supporters and opponents are increasingly divided on whether constitutional principles are under threat

Watching for 'bright lines' during the Trump presidency

A Survey Finds That All Americans Favor Democratic Norms Over Politics-Except in the Case of Voting

Democracy’s resilience: Is America’s democracy threatened?

Political scientists monitor threats to US democratic institutions

Democracy and Facts in the Age of Trump

Could Trump set off a constitutional crisis? Here’s what we can learn from Latin America.

Drawing a Bright Line: Political Science Professor Gretchen Helmke monitors the state of U.S. democracy

Gretchen Helmke

Grant for Bright Line Watch

“Collaborative Research A Cross-National Study of Judicial Institutionalization and Influence

venezuela-why-regime-change-is-harder-than-removing-a-leader

Conflict scholar Hein Goemans and democracy expert Gretchen Helmke weigh in on why “decapitation” strategies often fail — and what they mean for global stability.

The Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor of Political Science

Professor of Political Science

  With global attention on Venezuela following the U.S. removal of Nicolás Maduro, one of the central questions is whether taking out a leader actually changes the political system that put him in power.

Two University of Rochester political scientists — Hein Goemans and Gretchen Helmke — study different sides of this issue, and can shed light on why authoritarian regimes often survive even when leaders fall and what the U.S. intervention means for Venezuela and the world order.

Goemans specializes in how wars begin and end, regime survival, and why so-called “decapitation strategies” — removing a leader without dismantling the broader power structure — so often fail to produce stable outcomes. His research draws on cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to authoritarian regimes in Latin America.

In a recent interview with WXXI Public Media, Goemans warned that removing Maduro does not resolve the underlying system of military and economic control that sustained his rule. Without changes to those institutions, he said, power is likely to remain concentrated among the same elite networks.

“The problem isn’t just the leader,” Goemans explained. “It’s the structure that rewards loyalty and punishes defection. If that remains intact, the politics don’t fundamentally change.”

Helmke, a leading scholar of democracy and authoritarianism in Latin America, emphasizes that legitimacy, not just force, determines whether democratic transitions take hold.

Her research helps explain why democratic breakthroughs so often stall after moments of dramatic change, and why outside interventions can unintentionally weaken domestic opposition movements by shifting power toward regime insiders.

“When the institutions and elites remain in place, uncertainty — not democratic transition — often becomes the dominant political reality,” she said.

For journalists covering the fast-moving situation, Goemans and Helmke are available to discuss why removing leaders rarely brings the political transformation policymakers expect and what history suggests comes next. They can address:

• Why regime-change operations so often backfire, even when dictators are deeply unpopular
• What sidelining democratic opposition means for legitimacy
• Whether U.S. claims that Maduro is illegitimate hold up under international and U.S. law
• How prosecuting a foreign leader in U.S. courts could reshape norms of sovereignty
• The risks the U.S. intervention poses to the rules-based international order and NATO
• How interventions affect international norms, including sovereignty and the rule of law, and why short-term tactical successes can create long-term strategic risks.
• Why treating global politics as a series of “one-off” power plays misunderstands how states actually enforce norms over time
• How competing factions inside the U.S. administration may be driving incoherent foreign policy

Geomans also brings rare insight into the internal dynamics of U.S. policymaking, having taught and observed Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides who is helping shape the administration’s worldview. (Goemans taught Miller at Duke University in 2003.)

Click on the profiles for Goemans and Helmke to connect with them.



Venezuela: Why Regime Change Is Harder Than Removing A Leader

Select Inquiry Type