This chapter covers two key areas in which gender shapes electoral politics from the perspective of political psychology: candidate evaluation and campaign strategy. The bulk of the chapter reviews scholarship about the role of gender stereotypes in candidate evaluations. This work includes stereotypes about traits and policy positions as well as the intersection of gender, partisan, racial, and ethnic stereotypes. The section on candidate evaluation also addresses the effects of sexism and voters’ affective responses to candidates. The section on campaign strategy summarises research about the ways in which candidates and their consultants tailor campaigns to compensate for or take advantage of voters’ gender stereotypes. Overall, the chapter argues that while the impact of gender is often context-dependent, gender remains a highly relevant factor in electoral politics.

For nearly two decades, the percentage of women serving in state legislatures hovered between 20 percent and 25 percent – far below their share of the population. But in 2018, a record number of women sought and won state legislative office. And in one state – Nevada – women became a majority of state legislators after the election, marking the first time in US history that women constituted a majority of a state legislature. In statewide executive offices, as well, new records for women candidates and officeholders were set in 2018. And in 2020, women expanded their presence as state candidates and officeholders albeit less dramatically than in 2018.

During presidential election years, all eyes are focused on the top of the ticket. Congressional races attract attention, too, especially in years in which control of Congress could shift. In contrast, state elections are typically carried out with far less fanfare and attention from voters and the media. However, state elections deserve their turn in the spotlight.

State governments are critical to American politics and public policy. The fifty states are often at the forefront of policy innovations, earning them status as “laboratories” for testing out new ideas. For example, the national Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was influenced by state policies, and today some state family leave and maternity leave policies are more generous than the national policy. Meanwhile, a state's experiences can provide warning to Congress and other states about policy directions that should be avoided.

Voters can influence policy choices through state elections. Who runs, wins, and serves matters because state policies are consequential, affecting people’s daily lives. The decisions that states make today can have effects over the long run, putting a state on a particular trajectory and foreclosing alternatives. Governors and state legislative leaders can also be agenda setters and opinion leaders in their states. Moreover, today’s state legislators and statewide officials are tomorrow’s candidates for governor, Congress, and president.

The largest literature on gender and experimentation in political science concerns voter reaction to candidate gender. One of the earliest and most enduring questions in the study of gender and politics concerns women's election to office. Because the number of women candidates and officeholders has increased in the United States over the past several decades, there are more cases of women candidates and officeholders available for empirical analysis. Today, women are a majority of the electorate, and women candidates tend to win their races at rates similar to those of men. Yet, the gender gap in candidacy and office holding remains large and stable. Understanding how voter beliefs about candidate gender shape attitudes and political behavior remains an important area for research.

Experimentation has helped scholars overcome some of the limitations of using observational studies to investigate candidate gender. As Sapiro (1981) observed, public opinion surveys may not be able to detect prejudice against women candidates if voters provide socially desirable responses. And if prejudice against women is subconscious, then voters may not even be aware of their attitudes. Observational studies are also limited in helping us understand what we cannot observe, namely, why far fewer women than men seek office. If women fail to run because they fear a gendered backlash from voters, then we are unable to evaluate the experiences of those women.

The public was transfixed by the historic presidential election of 2008. But below the national level, there were other riveting gender stories. Only one woman sought the presidency, but more than 2,300 women sought state legislative office. A record number of women were elected to state legislatures in 2008. And for the first time in U.S. history, women won a majority of seats in a state legislative chamber: as a result of the election, women constitute a majority of the New Hampshire Senate – thirteen of twenty-four members. After the election, the woman anticipated to be the next Senate majority leader, Maggie Hassan, observed: “It feels incredibly exciting, but at the same time, not surprising.” The accomplishments of women in the Granite State did not begin in 2008; the state has long been among the nation's leaders in women's representation. Even in the mid-1980s, the legislature was more than 30 percent female. In contrast, as a result of the 2008 election, no women serve in the South Carolina Senate. Unlike New Hampshire, South Carolina has consistently lagged in women's representation. The maximum number of women to ever serve in that state's forty-six-member senate is three.

State elections usually attract less attention than national elections. However, because it is much more common for women to seek state office than federal office, we can learn a great deal about women's candidacies by studying the states. In addition, state legislative or executive office can be a springboard to candidacy for higher office.

Modern democracy is arguably unthinkable save political parties (Schatt schneider 1942). What about democracy for women? Does democracy for women depend on political parties? At first glance, the answer might appear to be no. Women's representation is potentially at odds with representation by parties. The U.S. party system has often been unwelcoming and unresponsive to women. The two major parties were a barrier to women's suffrage. Indeed, after suffrage was won, the leading women's suffrage organization chose to become a nonpartisan organization. The modern women's movement, which emerged decades later, initially eschewed the political parties. Yet because parties organize government and field candidates for office, the political representation of women in American politics is likely to necessitate representation by parties.

One form of women's political representation is descriptive representation, or the presence of women in political office. Descriptive representation poses a fundamental challenge to liberal theories of representation. Whereas district-based representation assumes that political interests are geographically based, descriptive representation posits that interests arise from group identities that transcend geographic boundaries (e.g., Guinier 1994; Williams 1998). Indeed, a descriptive representative may act as a surrogate for group members beyond the district (Mansbridge 2003). Scholars have given more consideration to the relationship between descriptive and geographic representation than to that between descriptive and party representation, and many theories about descriptive representation barely mention parties (e.g., Mansbridge 1999, 2003; Williams 1998).

Voters in Washington state are used to seeing women's names on the ballot. Not only is Washington represented in the U.S. Senate by two women, but one-third of the state legislature is female.

Elsewhere, voters face a different political environment. South Carolina is a good example. Not only do several thousand miles separate Washington from South Carolina, but the two states are worlds apart in terms of gender and politics. In South Carolina, fewer than 10 percent of state legislators are women, and voters there are much less familiar with women candidates.

The presence of women in statewide office varies across the country as well. For example, Arizona has set a number of records for women in state politics, including being the only state in the nation where a woman governor has succeeded another woman. Arizona is not typical, however. In a recent study, women held more than one-third of all statewide executive offices in some states but no statewide offices in other states.

This state diversity in women and politics makes for interesting trivia. But does it matter that the presence of women officeholders varies so widely? Investigating the progress of women in the states is worthwhile for several reasons. If more women are to win seats in Congress, more women need to seek office in the states. State legislative and executive offices are rungs on the career ladder typically climbed by ambitious politicians – stepping stones to higher office including the Oval Office.