Hostname: page-component-74d7c59bfc-6lv5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-01T03:13:23.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral Incentives and Legislative Organization: An Examination of Committee Autonomy in U.S. State Legislatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Tanya Bagashka  and
Jennifer Hayes Clark
Tanya Bagashka
Affiliation:
University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Jennifer Hayes Clark*
Affiliation:
University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
*
Jennifer Hayes Clark, University of Houston, 447 Philip G. Hoffman Hall, Houston, TX 77204-3011, USA. Email: jclark10@uh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between electoral institutions and committee autonomy in the context of U.S. state legislatures. The distributive theories of legislative organization suggest that electoral rules that make personal reputations more important motivate legislators to decentralize power and enhance committee autonomy to be able to target particularistic goods to their local constituencies. We argue that the distributive theories have direct implications for the relationship between candidate selection procedures and committee autonomy. The need to reach out to a large number of voters and to amass significant financial resources in states with more inclusive candidate selection procedures such as the open primary makes representatives more dependent on special interests, which is conducive to legislative particularism and committee autonomy. We take advantage of the great variation across the American states to investigate the effects of candidate selection procedures, a factor neglected in the previous literature. Examining 24 state legislatures from 1955 to 1995, we find that the inclusiveness of the selectorate, or the body electing candidates, has a significant effect on committee autonomy with more inclusive primary elections leading to more autonomous committee systems. By contrast, however, term limits were not a significant predictor of committee autonomy. This contributes to our understanding of how legislators amend institutional arrangements to achieve their electoral goals.

Keywords

legislative politicslegislative committeescomparative legislatureslegislative professionalismtime seriesquantitative methodsmethodology

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 297 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2014

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

Abramowitz, Alan, Rapoport, Ronald, and Stone, Walter. 1991. “Up Close and Personal: The 1998 Iowa Caucuses and Presidential Politics.” In Nominating the President, eds. Emmett H. Buel Jr., and Lee Sigelman (pp. 42–71). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Aranson, Peter, and Ordeshook, Peter. 1972. “Spatial Strategies for Sequential Elections.” In Probability Models for Startegic Elections, eds. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg (pp. 298–331). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Arellano, Manuel. 1993. “On the Testing of Correlated Effects with Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics 59:87–97.10.1016/0304-4076(93)90040-CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arellano, Manuel, and Bond, Stephen. 1991. “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations.” Review of Economic Studies 58:277–97.10.2307/2297968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Allen, and Sorauf, Frank J.. 1992. Party Politics in America. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Case, Anne. 2003. “Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature 41:7–73.10.1257/.41.1.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule, Partisanship, and the Development of Congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David, Hahrie, Han, and Pope, Jeremy. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32:79–106.10.3162/036298007X201994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buell, Emmett, and Jackson, John. 1991. “The National Conventions: Diminished but Still Important in a Primary Dominated Process.” In Nominating the President, eds. Emmett Buel and Lee Sigelman (pp. 230–51). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John. 1996. Term Limits and Legislative Representation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John, Niemi, Richard, and Powell, Linda. 1998. “The Effects of Term Limits on State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23:271–300.10.2307/440283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, Craig, and Scott, Gary. 1984. “The Logic of State Primary Classification Schemes.” American Politics Quarterly 12:465–76.10.1177/1532673X8401200405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas, Klarner, Carl, Berry, William, Jewell, Malcolm, Niemi, Richard, Powell, Lynda, and Snyder, James. 2012. State Legislative Election Returns (1967-2010). ICPSR 34297. Ann Arbor: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Jenkins, Jeffery A.. 2011. “Examining the Electoral Connection across Time.” Annual Review of Political Science 14:25–46. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030310-221852 (accessed May 20, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citizens' Conference on State Legislatures. 1971. The Sometimes Governments: A Critical Study of the 50 American Legislatures. Kansas City, MO: The Citizens' Conference on State Legislatures.Google Scholar
Coleman, James. 1971. “Internal Processes Governing Party Positions in Elections.” Public Choice 11:35–60.10.1007/BF01726211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, James. 1972. “The Positions of Political Parties in Elections.” In Probability Models of Collective Decision Making, eds. Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F.. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, pp. 332–357.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David. 1981. “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75:411–25.10.2307/1961374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Legislative Rules Changes: Assessing Schickler and Rich's Evidence.” American Journal of Political Science 41:1376–86.10.2307/2960493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, Douglas. 1997. Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew: Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.14912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven, and Scarrow, Howard. 1985. “Party Identification and Party Enrollment: The Difference and Consequence.” Journal of Politics 47:620–42.10.2307/2130899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress-Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1987. “Alternative Rationales for Restrictive Procedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3:337–45.Google Scholar
Freeman, Patricia, and Hedlund, Ronald. 1993. “The Functions of Committee Change in State Legislatures.” Political Research Quarterly 46:911–29.10.1177/106591299304600413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamm, Gerald, and Kousser, Thad. 2010. “Broad Bills or Particularistic Policy? Historical Patterns in American State Legislatures.” American Journal of Political Science 104(1): 151–70.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elizabeth, and Morton, Rebecca. 1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law Economics, & Organization 14:304–24.10.1093/jleo/14.2.304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckelman, Jacc. 2004. “A Spatial Model of U.S. Senate Elections.” Public Choice 118:87–103.10.1023/B:PUCH.0000013799.51776.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah, Moore, Michael K., and Hibbing, John R.. 1994. “Unfastening the Electoral Connection: The Behavior of U.S. Representatives When Reelection Is No Longer a Factor.” Journal of Politics 56:214–27.10.2307/2132354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Michael, and Shotts, Kenneth. 2006. “Term Limits and Pork.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31:383–403.10.3162/036298006X201850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert. 2003. “Sources of Competition in State Legislative Primary Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28:103–26.10.3162/036298003X200827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm. 1981. “The State of Legislative Research.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 6:1–25.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm. 1984. Parties and Primaries: Nominating State Governors. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Johannes, John. 1984. To Serve the People: Congress and Constituency Service. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kanthak, Kristen, and Morton, Rebecca. 2003. “Primaries and Turnout.” Working Paper. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/morton/KanthakMort.pdf.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonathan, and Sala, Brian. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90:21–33.10.2307/2082795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, Bruce, Magleby, David, Nelson, Candice, Orr, Elizabeth, Westlye, Mark, and Wolfinger, Raymond. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520912236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Patrick. 1986. “Explaining Primary Turnout: The Senatorial Case.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11:65–73.10.2307/439909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, James. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:327–43.10.2307/440374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, Robin, and Katz, Richard. 1992. “The United States.” In Party Organization: A Data Handbook, eds. Katz, Richard and Mair, Peter. London: SAGE, pp. 871–930Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. “Are Committees Composed of Preference Outliers?” American Political Science Review 84:149–63.10.2307/1963634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.8850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, John R. Jr. 1990. “Attendance Rates, Political Shirking, and the Effect of Post-elective Office Employment.” Economic Inquiry 28:133–50.10.1111/j.1465-7295.1990.tb00807.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Shane. 2011. “Electoral Institutions, the Personal Vote and Legislative Organization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:339–61.10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00018.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martorano, Nancy. 2006. “Balancing Power: Committee System Autonomy and Legislative Organization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31:205–34.10.3162/036298006X201788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meinke, Scott. 2008. “Institutional Change and the Electoral Connection in the Senate: Revisiting the Effects of Direct Election.” Political Research Quarterly 61:445–57.10.1177/1065912907309156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, Gideon, and Hazan, Reuven. 2001. “Candidate Selection Methods.” Party Politics 7(3): 297–322.10.1177/1354068801007003003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1981. “Candidate Selection.” In Democracy at the Polls, eds. Penniman, Howard, Butler, David, and Ranney, Austin. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 75–106.Google Scholar
Rohde, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226724058.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, Wendy. 2006. “Building Careers and Courting Constituents: U.S. Senate Representation, 1889-1924.” Studies in American Political Development 20:185–97.10.1017/S0898588X06000095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81:85–104.10.2307/1960780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry. 1994. “Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19:149–79.10.2307/440423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1988. “Career Opportunities and Membership Stability in Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13:65–82.10.2307/439945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1993. “Professionalization and Public Opinion of State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 55:479–91.10.2307/2132277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1997. “Another Look at Legislative Professionalization and Divided Government in the States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22:417–32.10.2307/440323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill, Hamm, Keith, Hedlund, Ronald, and Moncrief, Garry. 2004. “Electoral Reforms, Membership Stability and the Existence of Committee Property Rights in American State Legislatures.” British Journal of Political Science 35:169–81.Google Scholar
Swift, Elaine. 1997. The Making of an American Senate: Reconstitutive Change in Congress, 1787-1841. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Joel. 1986. “State Legislative Reform: Another Look, One More Time, Again.” Polity 19:27–41.10.2307/3234857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uslaner, Eric. 1985. “Casework and Institutional Design: Redeeming Promises in the Promised Land.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10(1): 35–52.10.2307/440114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry, and Marshall, William. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress.” Journal of Political Economy 96:132–63.Google Scholar
Westley, Christopher, Calcagno, Peter, and Ault, Richard. 2004. “Primary Election Systems and Candidate Deviation.” Eastern Economic Journal 30:365–76.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1977. “Candidates with Policy Preferences: A Dynamic Model.” Journal of Economic Theory 14:180–89.10.1016/0022-0531(77)90091-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivations: A Synthesis of Alternatives.” American Political Science Review 77:142–57.10.2307/1956016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1991. “Spatial Strategies When Candidates Have Policy Preferences.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, eds. Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J.. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–98.Google Scholar
Wittrock, Stephen, Nemeth, Howard, DiSarro, Brian, and Squire, Peverill. 2008. “The Impact of the Australian Ballot on Member Behavior in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 61:434–44.10.1177/1065912907307291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 2007. “Do Term Limits Affect Legislative Roll Call Voting? Representation, Polarization and Participation.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7:256–80.10.1177/153244000700700302CrossRefGoogle Scholar