Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8mwbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-09T10:07:42.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Personal to Partisan: Abortion, Party, and Religion Among California State Legislators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2020

David Karol  and
Chloe N. Thurston Open the ORCID record for Chloe N. Thurston [Opens in a new window]
David Karol*
Affiliation:
Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland
Chloe N. Thurston*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Northwestern University
*
E-mail: dkarol@umd.edu
E-mail: thurston@northwestern.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The parties’ polarization on abortion is a signal development. Yet while the issue has been much discussed, scholars have said less about how it reveals the unstable relationship between legislators’ personal backgrounds and their issue positions. We argue that the importance of personal characteristics may wane as links between parties and interest groups develop. We focus on the case of abortion in the California State Assembly—one of the first legislative bodies to wrestle with the issue in modern times. Drawing from newly collected evidence on legislator and district religion and Assembly voting, we show that divisions on abortion were chiefly religious in the 1960s—with Catholics in both parties opposing reform—but later became highly partisan. This shift was distinct from overall polarization and was not a result of district-level factors or “sorting” of legislators by religion into parties. Instead, growing ties between new movements and parties—feminists for Democrats and the Christian Right for the Republicans—made party affiliation supplant religion as the leading cue for legislators on abortion, impelling many incumbents to revise their positions. Archival and secondary evidence further show that activists sent new cues to legislators about the importance of their positions on these issues. Showing how personal characteristics became outweighed by partisan considerations contributes to understanding of party position change and polarization, as well as processes of representation and abortion politics.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in American Political Development , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2020 , pp. 91 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. See, for example, Karol, David, Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John, “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 3 (2012): 571–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hacker, Jacob S. and Pierson, Paul, “After the ‘Master Theory’: Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis,” Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 3 (2014): 643–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krimmel, Katherine, “The Efficiencies and Pathologies of Special Interest Partisanship,” Studies in American Political Development 31 (2017): 149–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlozman, Daniel, When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Baylor, Christopher, First to the Party: The Group Origins of Political Transformation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

2. Mansbridge, Jane, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61, no. 3 (1999): 628–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Caughey, Devin and Warshaw, Christopher, “Policy Preferences and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American States, 1936–2014,” American Political Science Review 112, no. 2 (2018): 249–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Caughey, Devin, Xu, Yiqing, and Warshaw, Christopher, “Incremental Democracy: The Policy Effects of Partisan Control of State Government,” Journal of Politics 79, no. 4 (2017): 1342–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grumbach, Jacob, “From Backwaters to Major Policymakers: Policy Polarization in the States, 1970–2014,” Perspectives on Politics 16, no. 2 (2018): 416–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. See, for example, Chen, Anthony S., Mickey, Robert W., and Van Houweling, Robert P., “Explaining the Contemporary Alignment of Race and Party: Evidence from California's 1946 Initiative on Fair Employment,” Studies in American Political Development 22, no. 2 (2008): 204–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Feinstein, Brian and Schickler, Eric, “Platforms and Partners: The Civil Rights Realignment Reconsidered,” Studies in American Political Development. 22, no. 1 (2008): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; David A. Bateman, “Partisan Polarization on Black Suffrage, 1785–1868,” Perspectives on Politics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719001087.

5. For scholars of abortion policy, the state is hardly a new arena. Yet our focus on the states departs from many of these earlier studies. First, many examine policymaking over one period, focusing on cross-sectional analysis of roll calls. Others examine policymaking over a longer time horizon, but make states the unit of analysis; this is key for understanding state-level legislative characteristics that might matter, for example, the effect of partisan control or gender makeup of the legislative branch, or overall public opinion. Yet it tells us less about how position taking on the issue may vary over time for members of the legislature. See, for example, Kreitzer, Rebecca, “Politics and Morality in State Abortion Policy,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15, no. 1 (2015): 41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berkman, Michael and O'Connor, Robert, “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy,” American Politics Quarterly 21, no. 1 (1993): 102–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Norrander, Barbara and Wilcox, Clyde, “Public Opinion and Policymaking in the States: The Case of Post-Roe Abortion Policy” in The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, C. Z. (New York: Chatham House, 2001), 143–59Google Scholar; Day, George S., “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations,” Journal of Marketing 58, no. 4 (1994): 37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schecter, David, “What Drives the Voting on Abortion Policy? Investigating Partisanship and Religion in the State Legislative Arena,” Women and Politics 23, no. 4 (2001): 61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yamane, David and Oldmixon, Elizabeth A., “Religion in the Legislative Arena: Affiliation, Salience, Advocacy and Public Policymaking,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31, no. 3 (2006): 433–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Calfano, Brian Robert, “The Power of Brand: Beyond Interest Group Influence in U.S. State Abortion Politics,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10, no. 3 (2010): 227–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Carmines, Edward G. and Stimson, James A., Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Bruce, John M. and Wilcox, Clyde, The Changing Politics of Gun Control (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998)Google Scholar; Karol, Party Position Change in American Politics.

7. Adams, Greg D., “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution,” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 3 (1997): 718–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burns, John W. and Taylor, Andrew J., “The Mythical Causes of the Republican Supply-Side Economics Revolution,” Party Politics 6, no. 4 (2000): 419–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Grose, Christian R., Congress in Black and White: Race and Representation in Washington and at Home (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Swers, Michele L., “Connecting Descriptive and Substantive Representation: An Analysis of Sex Differences in Cosponsorship Activity,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30, no. 3 (2005): 407–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Fastnow, Chris, Grant, J. Tobin, and Rudolph, Thomas J., “Holy Roll Calls: Religious Tradition and Voting Behavior in the U.S. House,” Social Science Quarterly 80, no. 4 (1999): 689–701Google Scholar; Yamane and Oldmixon, “Religion in the Legislative Arena,” 433–66; McTague, John and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shana, “Voting from the Pew: The Effect of Senators’ Religious Identities on Partisan Polarization in the U.S. Senate,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2013): 405–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Carnes, Nicholas, White-Collar Government. The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grumbach, Jacob M., “Does the American Dream Matter for Members of Congress?: Social-Class Backgrounds and Roll-Call Votes,” Political Research Quarterly 68, no. 2 (2015): 306–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hansen, Eric, Carnes, Nicholas, and Gray, Virginia, “What Happens When Insurers Make Insurance Laws? State Legislative Agendas and the Occupational Makeup of Government,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 19, no. 2 (2019): 155–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Burden, Barry C., Personal Roots of Representation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Fastnow et al., “Holy Roll Calls”; Yamane and Oldmixon, “Religion in the Legislative Arena”; McTague and Pearson-Merkowitz, “Voting from the Pew.”

14. Carnes, White-Collar Government.

15. Burden, Personal Roots of Representation.

16. Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women?”.

17. Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E., “Constituency Influence in Congress,” The American Political Science Review 57, no. 1 (1963): 45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hedlund, Roland D. and Friesma, H. Paul, “Representatives’ Perception of Constituency Opinion” Journal of Politics 34 no. 3 (1972): 730–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miler, Kristina C., Constituency Representation in Congress: A View from the Hill (New York: Cambridge University Press 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Broockman, David E. and Skovron, Christopher, “Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among Political Elites,” American Political Science Review 112 no. 3 (2018): 542–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, Milderberger, Matto, and Stokes, Leah C., “Legislative Staff and Representation in Congress” American Political Science Review 113 no. 1 (2019): 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Fenno, Richard F., Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978)Google Scholar; Bishin, Benjamin G., Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Theory of Representation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

19. Bawn et al., “A Theory of Political Parties.”

20. Baylor, First to the Party; Hacker and Pierson, “After the Master Theory,” 643–62; Schlozman, When Movements Anchor Parties.

21. Williams, Daniel K., Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 41.

23. For a discussion of how Beilenson became interested in the issue, and why he may have been more successful than Knox in pushing reform, see Jain, Sagar and Hughes, Steven, California Abortion Act 1967: A Study in Legislative Process (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Population Center, 1968), 32–33Google Scholar. We thank Lori Delaney at the University of North Carolina Population Center for helping to locate a copy of the report.

24. Mohr, James C., Abortion in America: the Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Luker, Kristin, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Joffe, Carole E., Weitz, Tracy A., and Stacey, Clare L., “Uneasy Allies: Pro-Choice Physicians, Feminist Health Activists and the Struggle for Abortion Rights,” Sociology of Health & Illness 26, no. 6 (2004): 775–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

25. “CMA Endorses Legislation to Broaden Abortion Law,” Fresno Bee, March 24, 1966, p. 17.

26. Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood; Joffe et al., “Uneasy Allies,” 729–30.

27. Jain and Hughes, “California Abortion Act 1967,” 36–38.

28. Ibid., 36–37.

29. Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 71.

30. San Francisco Chronicle, July 7, 1965, Press Clippings, Schlesinger MC 289, Society for Humane Abortion (hereinafter SHA Papers), box 1, folder SHA Newsletters, 1965–1973 (scattered).

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 74.

34. Keith Monroe, “How California's Abortion Law Isn't Working,” New York Times, December 26, 1968.

35. Several have argued that the dominance of Catholics in both the organized and mass opposition may have undermined broader public support. According to the director of the Northern California Right to Life League, the visibility as Catholics as the main opponents “made it easy for the proponents of the bill to label the opposition as a Catholic reaction based on archaic thinking.” Jain and Hughes, “California Abortion Act 1967,” 39. See also Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, 130; Williams, Defenders of the Unborn.

36. Hout, Michael, Brooks, Clem, and Manza, Jeff, “The Democratic Class Struggle in the United States, 1948–1992,” American Sociological Review 60, no. 6 (1995): 805–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Cannon, Lou, Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), 130Google Scholar.

38. Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, 94.

39. Williams, Defenders of the Unborn.

40. Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, 94.

41. Dochuk, Darren, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroots Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism (New York: W.W. Norton, 2010), 345–46Google Scholar.

42. Jain and Hughes, “California Abortion Act 1967,” 39; Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 230.

43. Texas Right to Life, “An Interview with the Leader of America's Oldest Pro-Life Organization, Texas Right to Life, August 19, 2014, https://www.texasrighttolife.com/an-interview-with-the-leader-of-america-s-oldest-pro-life-organization/; Miller, Patricia, Good Catholics: The Battle over Abortion in the Catholic Church (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), 46Google Scholar; Betty Liddick, “Pro-Life Viewpoint Championed: Abortion Foe Wants Equal Time,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1972; Society for Humane Abortion, newsletter, vol. 7, no. 3, Winter 1971, 1-2, in SHA Papers, box 1, folder SHA Newsletters, 1965–1969 (scattered).

44. Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 137.

45. A district representative for a pro-life group in Southern California explained the strategy in an interview with Kristin Luker: “Primarily what we do is visit the various legislators and try to convince them. We present petitions to them, and try to educate them on our feelings about life and when life begins, this kind of thing. And then … when the funding comes up or, like in the case of the Human Life Amendment, present him with petitions or floods of letters to convince him that this is what his constituents want.” Vaughn interview transcript, n.d., 1, in Kristin Luker Papers, MC 186, Schlesinger Library, Harvard University (hereafter Luker Papers), box 3: folder: Schlesinger M186, Kristin Luker Papers, box 3, folder Mrs. Vaughn. See also Society for Humane Abortion, newsletter, vol. 7, no. 3, Winter 1971, 2, SHA Papers, box 1, folder SHA Newsletters, 1965–1969 (scattered).

46. Society for Humane Abortion, newsletter, vol. 7, no. 3, Winter 1971, 2, SHA Papers, box 1, folder SHA Newsletters, 1965–1969 (scattered).

47. Ibid.

48. Coventry interview transcript, n.d., 13, Luker Papers, box 3, folder Mr. Coventry.

49. Dochuk, From Bible Belt to Sunbelt, 341.

50. “Dueling Bibles: Timberlake vs. Sheldon,” California Journal, July 1985, 274.

51. Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 253–54.

52. Self, Robert O., All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy Since the 1960s (New York: Hill and Wang, 2013), 371Google Scholar; Williams, Defenders of the Unborn, 219–42; Lewis, Andrew, The Rights Turn in Conservative Christian Politics: How Abortion Transformed the Culture Wars (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017), esp. pp. 16–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53. Karol, Party Position Change in American Politics, ch. 3.

54. Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, 92.

55. Ibid.

56. Association to Repeal Abortion Laws, “Ways to Work for Abortion Law Repeal,” n.d., SHA Papers, box 4, folder Publications ca. 1966–1971.

57. Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, 94.

58. “Feminism: The Bills are Coming Due,” Los Angeles Times, August 5, 1973, 11; Staggenborg, Suzanne, The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press,1991), 202Google Scholar; Barakso, Maryann, Governing Now: Grassroots Activism in the National Organization for Women (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. Society for Humane Abortion, newsletter, vol. 5, no. 1, April 1969, 1; Society for Humane Abortion, newsletter, vol. 6, no. 1, December 1969–January 1970, 1, both in SHA Papers, box 1, folder SHA Newsletters, 1965–1969 (scattered).

60. Staggenborg, The Pro-Choice Movement, 84.

61. Mary Haberman Clark to CARAL-South Supporters and Friends, February 5, 1977, in NARAL Printed Materials Collection, Pr-3, Schlesinger Library, Harvard University (hereafter NARAL), carton 1, folder California.

62. Ibid; “First Annual Meeting,” April 29, 1978; CARAL-North, press release, October 22, 1979; California Abortion Rights Action League, South, “Abortion Rights Organizers in San Diego” press release, June 12, 1979, all in NARAL, carton 1, folder California.

63. Mary Haberman Clark to CARAL-South Supporters and Friends, February 5, 1977, NARAL, carton 1, folder California.

64. Sharon J. Simms to Pro-Choice Activists (CARAL North Coast) Legislative Alert no. 2, April 29, 1978, NARAL, carton 1, folder California.

65. California Abortion Rights Action League, South, “Abortion Rights Organizers in San Diego,” press release, June 12, 1979, NARAL, carton 1, folder California.

66. For example, after holding pickets of seven anti-abortion state legislators in advance of the 1980 elections, the executive director justified the decision: “We are putting these and other anti-choice legislators on notice that we, as individuals, will remember their voting records on election day, 1980. We will call upon their constituents who agree with us to make their voices heard. Across this state and the nation you will hear the phrase ‘I'm pro-choice … and I vote!’ We are just as single-issue in our dedication to the right of every woman to decide for herself whether or not to have an abortion as is the other side in their determination not to allow that option.” Sharon Simms, quoted in CARAL-North, press release, October 22, 1979, NARAL, carton 1, folder California.

67. Mansbridge, Jane, Why We Lost the ERA (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolbrecht, Christina, The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

68. DW-NOMINATE Scores for California Assembly members were estimated by Masket, Seth, “It Takes an Outsider: Extralegislative Organization and Partisanship in the California Assembly, 1849–2006,” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (2007): 482–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, using the same procedures as Poole and Rosenthal use to calculate scores for Members of Congress.

69. But see Lee, Frances, Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., Green, John C., Herrera, Richard and Cooperman, Rosalyn, “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics,” American Political Science Review 4, no. 2 (2010): 324–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71. California Field Poll data are from the University of California, Berkeley, Data Lab and are available at https://dlab.berkeley.edu/data-resources/california-polls.

72. In fact, a witness during hearings for the 1967 Beilenson bill cited the Field Polls’ findings from July 1966 about the broad support among citizens, among Protestants, and the bare majority of Catholics, also noting that despite 51 percent agreeing, only 26 percent were opposed. See Edmund W. Overstreet, “Testimony before the California Senate Committee on Judiciary on Senate Bill 462,” in Michigan State Senate Committee on Abortion Law Reform SR 185, “Information on the California Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967,” December, 1968, 9.

73. McTague and Pearson-Merkowitz, “Voting from the Pew,” 405–30.

74. We created this measure by geocoding the addresses of all Catholic churches, as listed in the Catholic Directory, and them placing them into Assembly districts based on legislative redistricting maps for each decade.

75. Adams, Abortion, 718–37.

76. Tatalovich, Raymond and Schier, David, “The Persistence of Ideological Cleavage in Voting on Abortion Legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973–1988,” American Politics Research 21, no. 1 (1993): 125–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Fastnow et al., “Holy Roll Calls,” 689–701.

77. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Women in State Legislatures for 2019,” July 25, 2019, http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/womens-legislative-network/women-in-state-legislatures-for-2019.aspx.

78. Karol, David, Red, Green and Blue: The Partisan Divide on Environmental Issues (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Karol also reports a growing partisan divide on environmental issues among California legislators.

79. Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women?”

80. Beienburg, Sean, Prohibition, The Constitution and States’ Rights (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.