Search Results

This chapter motivates the book’s importance, talking specifically about the relevance of a multifaceted approach to the study of black state legislators in the 21st century. The descriptive representation framework used to study black representation is mentioned. The two-part organization of the book is explained, with the first portion considering the causes of black descriptive representation and the latter portion examining the consequences of black descriptive representation. Moreover, the underlying research questions motivating the book, namely whether black people alone explain the black presence in the state legislature and whether the positive consequences of black representation in the state legislature outweigh the negative ones, are discussed. Synopses of the various theoretical claims are provided. The chapter discusses relevant extant literature on minority representation, identity caucuses, policy representation, political involvement, public opinion, and state politics. The data and methods employed in the book are discussed, and the chapter ends with an overview of each book chapter.

A common expectation is that when blacks serve in elected office black policy interests will be better represented. This chapter examines how black seat share affects education and welfare policy in states, from 2001 to 2011. The expectation is that states with a greater black seat share will spend more money on education and will have more liberal welfare policy. It shows that while black seat share increases per-pupil public education spending, it is associated with less liberal welfare policy. In fact, the finding for welfare policy emerges in states with Democratic control of the legislature and provides evidence of backlash in response to an increased black seat share. Citizen ideology and region are two other key predictors of education and welfare policy in states.

Political scientists have employed various definitions of women's political interests: some are more women- or gender-specific than others; some are more feminist, liberal, or radical than others. To what extent do our definitions of women's interests affect who is or appears to be more or less willing to act for women? Does the relationship between women's descriptive and substantive representation depend on how we define women's interests? This chapter examines whether and how definitions of women's interests affect the conclusions that may be drawn about women of color in US state legislatures. Intersectionality theory and research caution against generalizing about women's representation across race and ethnicity and suggest that any single-axis conception of women's interests risks excluding or obscuring the representational advocacy provided by women of color, while privileging that provided by white women. To test this proposition, the agenda-setting behavior (bill introductions) of state legislators in six states, in 1997, is examined, across a variety of definitions of women's issues/interests. The study finds no systematic or consistent biases against legislative women of color but nevertheless concludes that the best approach may be to employ a variety of theoretically relevant concepts and measures of women's substantive representation.

State legislatures continue to vary in the number of female representatives. Past research noted a number of reasons connected to possible female candidates and the political and social characteristics of the states. This research is updated to 2011, when the percent of female legislators varied from a low of 9 percent in South Carolina to a high of 41 percent in Colorado. In addition, the chapter explores why the growth of female state legislators slowed after the early 1990s.

This chapter describes the start of Winter’s political career. Topics covered include his entry into law school in 1946; his election as Mississippi state legislator in the summer of 1947; his participation in the U.S. Senate campaign of John Stennis in the fall of 1947; Winter’s legislative actions in 1948; his reservations about the Dixiecrat campaign; and the efforts of Winter and his more moderate-minded colleagues to dampen the Dixiecrat racial obsessions that dominated legislative proceedings.

Chapter 5 explores the concept of intersectional policymaking further by examining closely the content of legislation sponsored by a small subset of Democratic state legislators serving majority-minority constituencies in California, New Jersey, and Texas in 1997 and 2005. What might intersectional policymaking look like and who practices it? The analysis uncovers a wide variety of intersectional proposals, spanning multiple policy arenas and addressing many different problems arising from multiple, intersecting forms of inequality and marginalization. Particularly notable are measures concerning the health and welfare of women of color, immigrants, and others often disproportionately located within low-income communities, as well as criminal justice measures taking on issues of over-policing and mass incarceration that disproportionately affect men and boys of color in similar low-income, urban communities. Most lawmakers in this subsample sponsor at least one intersectional bill, but women of color stand out as the most reliable practitioners of intersectional advocacy.

This chapter examines how many types of “dog,” including AKC (American Kennel Club) registered breeds, can be mistaken for wolves by people who have stereotypical ideas of what a wolf is, including some wolf biologists. It deconstructs the concept of “experts” who attempt to make such distinctions, including those who advise state and federal legislators. Moreover, the chapter explores relationships between humans and wolves—both domestic and nondomestic—as social companions by evaluating Raymond Pierotti's experiences as an expert witness distinguishing between dogs and wolves. This type of confused thinking has led to bad laws based upon emotional responses rather than attempts to govern effectively and write laws that improve the functioning of society.

This chapter focuses on the young lawyer and former state legislator from Illinois who made his first appearance in Washington as a new member of the Thirtieth Congress. Abraham Lincoln arrived in the capital city with his wife and two children on December 2, 1847, and four days later joined his colleagues in the House of Representatives to begin the new session. The Thirtieth Congress promised to be work-intensive, as Whigs and Democrats continued to battle over the progress of the war with Mexico. Unlike in the Twenty- Ninth Congress, Whigs had gained a majority in the House and would play an important role in the session. In the preceding months, the party had finally developed a policy that Whigs thought could bridge any division between North and South and neutralize the increasingly divisive Wilmot Proviso; they argued the United States should claim “no territory” from the war.

A healthy representative democracy requires that citizens be politically involved, and it is especially important to consider the political involvement of groups that are marginalized, such as African Americans. Building on the political empowerment hypothesis, the chapter argues that an increased black seat share and black representation ratio should be associated with increased black political involvement. Using 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study data, the chapter describes how in states with an increased black seat share in the legislature blacks are more likely to be highly interested in politics and are more likely to vote. In states with a higher black representation ratio, blacks are more inclined to persuade others to vote. Black representation in the US House does not increase black political involvement, despite being the focus of many scholarly works of political empowerment.