Legislative Influence and Policy Orientation in American State Legislatures

1974 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey M. Rosen
1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Darcy ◽  
Charles D. Hadley ◽  
Jason F. Kirksey

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 939-979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Garlick

Why are some states polarized and others not? This article argues that state legislators are provided with more information by lobbyists and the media about national policies, or state-level bills that are prominent in the national political discourse. Compared with state-specific issues, this additional information encourages legislators to vote along party lines to secure reelection or prepare for a run for higher office. It identifies national policies using lobbying registrations in state legislatures and Congress to show there is more party difference on roll-call votes on national policies in 25 states over 2011 to 2014. It also argues that the notoriety of national issues may encourage party leaders to put these bills on the agenda to build their party brand, or for individual legislators to raise their profiles. It finds that states with more national agendas have more polarized sessions.


2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. King

This study assesses the effects of changing electoral structure on the representation of women in American state legislatures. Specifically, how does converting from multimember districts (MMDs) to single-member districts (SMDs) affect the proportion of women serving in the state legislature? I use a quasi-experimental design, comparing election results from the four states that eliminated MMDs during the reapportionment following the 1990 census to those in eight states whose systems did not change during this period. The weight of the evidence suggests that abandoning MMDs for SMDs decreases the representation of women in state legislatures.


2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
GERALD GAMM ◽  
THAD KOUSSER

Do big cities exert more power than less populous ones in American state legislatures? In many political systems, greater representation leads to more policy gains, yet for most of the nation's history, urban advocates have argued that big cities face systematic discrimination in statehouses. Drawing on a new historical dataset spanning 120 years and 13 states, we find clear evidence that there is no strength in numbers for big-city delegations in state legislatures. District bills affecting large metropolises fail at much higher rates than bills affecting small cities, counties, and villages. Big cities lose so often because size leads to damaging divisions. We demonstrate that the cities with the largest delegations—which are more likely to be internally divided—are the most frustrated in the legislative process. Demographic differences also matter, with district bills for cities that have many foreign-born residents, compared with the state as a whole, failing at especially high rates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document