17 results
Contents
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp vii-vii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
List of Figures
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp viii-ix
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
4 - State Delegations and Legislative Behavior in the Senate
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 85-111
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Similarly to the House, studying state delegations in the U.S. Senate allows us to see how delegations are behaving within a chamber before analyzing agenda crossover across chambers. By analyzing the legislative behavior of same state senators, coupled with the analysis of House delegations in Chapter 3, I continue to build toward the theory of agenda crossover that is addressed directly in Chapter 5. Studying same state senators is similar to the study of representatives in the House in that the senators represent a defined geographic area. However, state delegations in the Senate are different from their counterparts in the House because each senator also shares her constituents with the other senator from the state. This multimember structure allows for interesting and straightforward comparisons between the two senators within a state delegation, and is likely why state delegations in the Senate have been studied more recently than those in the House.
Based on the prominence scholars give to the electoral connection between members of Congress and their constituents, it seems intuitive to expect same state senators to appear similar in their legislative behavior. Yet the most recent scholarship on same-state senators suggests that they may actually have more to gain by distinguishing themselves from one other (Schiller 2000; Schiller and Cassidy 2011). In her book Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations, Schiller compares the legislative behavior of senators from the same state and finds that these senators develop distinct legislative agendas and therefore are known to be experts in different issue areas. This runs somewhat counter to what scholars of representation might expect when studying senators from the same state. After all, the senators represent the same constituency, and therefore it is somewhat surprising that they do not focus on the same issues. However, Schiller finds that senators from the same state are incentivized to carve out a niche for themselves in Congress and become an expert in particular issue areas. On the one hand, this allows each senator to construct a legislative agenda that targets a subset of the state's policy interests, giving each senator as much leeway as possible to focus on issues he cares about. On the other hand, the number of potential issues relevant to the state is not limitless, and eventually the senators have to face the judgment of the voters every six years.
Frontmatter
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
3 - State Delegations and Legislative Behavior in the House
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 51-84
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Before assessing the construction of legislative agendas from the perspective of agenda crossover, Chapters 3 and 4 examine legislative behavior within each chamber separately. This chapter focuses on state delegations in the House of Representatives, and Chapter 4 focuses on state delegations in the Senate. Both of these chapters take a macro-level view of the delegation, which is similar to how previous literature studies state delegations. The goal of these two chapters is to show how intra-chamber delegations behave today and to inform the analysis of agenda crossover presented in Chapter 5.
Taking a bird's-eye view of legislative behavior within delegations is useful as it sheds light on whether there is variation in behavior among states and how this behavior has changed over time. For instance, do state delegations with a large majority of members hailing from one political party behave more similarly than those that are more divided? And how do these voting patterns change over time, especially as the power of delegations to influence outcomes on the floor has declined? Focusing on the individual chambers before exploring the inter-chamber connections as related to agenda crossover is key to gaining a better understanding of the general behavior of state delegations today. Given that so little scholarly attention in recent decades focuses on state delegations, it is important to afford intra-chamber delegations an examination, so that we have a better understanding of how members from the same state and same chamber are behaving today. Additionally, showing the linkages between state delegations and legislative behavior within each chamber enables me to better address the central questions that motivate my analyses on agenda crossover in Chapter 5.
The following analyses address several questions. First, in what way do members of state delegations in the House resemble one another? More specifically, do members of Congress hailing from the same state delegation vote similarly on the floor, and do they focus on similar legislative issues? Second, what explains the variation we find within delegations? That is, why do some members behave similarly while others do not? Third, what implications do these patterns have for the theory of agenda crossover?
List of Tables
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp x-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Appendix B - Wisconsin's Unwritten Rule
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 156-160
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, wi.rlc.org
Republican Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Ryan Admit to Shady Backroom Deal with Democrat Moore, October 25th, 2010
The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin has recently learned of an ongoing backroom-style deal, which goes against the best interests of Wisconsin's Republican voters, involving top ranking Republican Congressmen James Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan, and Democrat Congresswoman Gwen Moore.
In a revealing and testimonial email submitted to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin by Michael Strautmann, Campaign Treasurer for WI- 4th Congressional Republican Candidate Dan Sebring, outlines a specific event where both he and Sebring's Campaign Manager, Jessica Strautmann, were present with Congressman Sensenbrenner,when Sensenbrenner admitted directly to Sebring, that he would not endorse Sebring's candidacy because of an already made deal with Congresswoman Gwen Moore; not to help defeat her in a general election. Dan Sebring is the Republican Challenger trying to unseat Congressional incumbent Gwen Moore on November 2nd. Michael Strautmann writes, ”On Friday, August 6, 2010, the Waukesha County GOP held a ‘Pints and Politics’ event at Weissgerber's Seven Seas Restaurant. Jessica and I were present in an attempt to set up a fundraiser for Dan Sebring at that same location. At one point during the evening, Dan approached Sensenbrenner, asking him for five minutes to speak with him, so he could obtain Sensenbrenner's endorsement as Dan goes after Gwen Moore's seat. Sensenbrenner's exact response was “Both Congressman Paul Ryan and I have an ‘agreement’ in place with Gwen Moore and we will not endorse her opposition.”
Strautmann continues, “It took many aback that evening, including those around him, showing us that regardless of how much they (Ryan, Moore, and Sensenbrenner) don't like each other, they will continue to support each other to maintain the status quo. Sensenbrenner's statement really went on to show the deals that incumbent congressmen in this state, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on, will make to save their own seats. Based on the non-reaction from other patrons at this event, it showed the cronyism and hypocricsy amongst GOP insiders at the local, county and state levels.”
Sebring's Campaign Manager Jessica Strautmann also commented on the incident, “I was surprised and extremely disappointed at hearing Congressman Sensenbrenner's reply to Dan's request for an endorsement.
Dedication
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Appendix A - Interviews
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 153-155
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Thirty-two structured, personal interviews were conducted with current or former members of Congress and/or their staff for this project. The interviews started as a way to talk to members about how they saw party operating in Congress today, but, as I write in the book, I was struck almost immediately by a common refrain: members still found their state important for representation. This got me interested in this project and finding out more about state delegations in Congress today. The interviews mentioned in this book are not meant to be used as data but are used to illustrate points and help the reader understand how I constructed the theory of agenda crossover.
The interviews were conducted between June 2011 and June 2014. In each case I requested an interview with the member of Congress, but sometimes only the legislative director, chief of staff, or other staff member was available. All in total, I interviewed nineteen members of Congress and thirteen staffmembers. Although interviewing the members themselves was always my goal, staff members are equally (if not more) informative, as they are the ones responsible for gathering information about policy and also act as constituent liaisons (Evans 2002; Miler 2010).My sample was not random, but I did attempt to make the sample representative of the larger population ofmembers. As a result, the sample is representative of the full Congress in terms of party, seniority, and state size (see Table A.1). In two cases I was able to interview the member and his chief of staff – taking the number of actual interviews to thirty-four. This acted as an informal reliability check on the information staff and members were providing me. This Appendix provides details of these interviews.
CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEWS
Scheduling the interviews was done over the phone or via e-mail. The interviews themselves were done both over the phone and in person. This depended on when and where the interview was scheduled. All “on location” interviews took place in the member's legislative office (district or Washington) or in another office setting such as a university office. The interviews were confidential, and each member or staff member was assured that his or her name would not be disclosed. This was explained when setting up the interview and at the beginning of the interview.
5 - Agenda Crossover in the U.S. Congress
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 112-140
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
After handily winning his first two campaigns for reelection in 2008 and 2010, Representative Dean Heller (R-NV) began his third term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2011 among widespread speculation that he was interested in running for statewide office (Coolican and Mascaro 2009; Riley 2009). This speculation was not surprising given that, according to the Las Vegas Sun, in 2009 Heller had been courted by the Republican Party to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for a seat in the Senate. Heller declined to challenge Reid, opting to run for reelection to the House in 2010. Heller's decision not to challenge Reid was, perhaps, due in part to John Ensign (R-NV), the other senator from Nevada, publicly admitting to a extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in 2009. Although Ensign would not announce his intent to retire at the conclusion of his term until March 2011, it is likely that Heller saw the writing on the wall for Ensign even back in 2009. At the very least, Ensign's admission of the affair back in 2009 gave Heller the possibility of running for statewide office without having to challenge the Senate's Majority Leader.
However, if Heller was going to make a successful bid for the Senate, he needed to expand his constituency. Heller's congressional district, the second district of Nevada, is traditionally the most conservative of the districts in the state. Heller's district never elected a Democrat to the U.S. House nor had a majority vote for the Democratic nominee for president. For Heller to win statewide office he needed to broaden his appeal, especially in the southern tip of Nevada – an area including Las Vegas – which voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a sixty-four to thirty-four margin in 2008.
Perhaps recognizing the importance of expanding his constituency to gain statewide appeal, in July 2010 Heller introduced a green energy bill in the House, H.R. 5735, The Clean Energy, Community Investment, and Wildlife Conservation Act. The bill requires the secretary of the interior “to establish a wind and solar leasing plot program for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service.”
6 - Rethinking State Delegations in Congress
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 141-152
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In 2010, 2012, and 2014 Republican Dan Sebring challenged incumbent Gwen Moore (D-WI) to represent the Fourth Congressional District in Wisconsin. As mentioned in Chapter 1, much to Sebring's dismay, he never received an endorsement from a sitting Republican congressman from the state of Wisconsin due to the “Unwritten Rule.”The “Unwritten Rule” states that sitting congressmen should not endorse candidates challenging incumbents in the state, even if the incumbent is a member of a different political party. The “Unwritten Rule” is an explicit protection of the state's incumbents – by the state's incumbents – regardless of party affiliation. This example illustrates that even in today's polarized Congress, members prefer their delegation to have a consistent and experienced membership regardless of its partisan makeup. Additionally, the example suggests that members of states are still interested in protecting incumbents. Members seemingly value experience, seniority, and consistency in the delegation over its partisan makeup. This begs the question: How are members utilizing the delegation today that makes them care about the consistency of membership?
This book sets forth to address this question and also the more general puzzle I encountered when asking members of Congress about influences on their legislative behavior. When asked, members consistently told me their party played an important role in influencing their behavior, but more often than not, members also emphasized the importance of their state delegation. This led me to ask three questions: 1) How often are state delegations voting similarly and sponsoring similar legislation in today's Congress? 2) How can members of a delegation utilize each other's legislative agendas to stay abreast of issues important to the state? 3)How do members utilize their delegation to help ensure their own electoral success? Members clearly value their state, which makes me assume states and their delegations are providing members with important information and assistance. What type of benefits are state delegations providing their members? And how do these benefits enhance representation and responsiveness in Congress?
To demonstrate how state delegations today assist their members to promote successful representation and responsiveness and aid in the members’ electoral success, I put forward the theory of agenda crossover.
Acknowledgments
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp xiii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 167-170
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
2 - A History of State Delegations
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 27-50
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
States can be treated for analytical purposes as relatively independent political systems with political cultures at least somewhat distinct to themselves. (Patterson 1968, 195)
The cultures of states in the 1960s and earlier suggested to many political scientists, like Patterson, that states had unique interests worthy of representation. In fact, legislative behavior often reflected geographic preferences during this time period. State delegations worked together to set strategy and determine what was best for the state's constituents. Part of the reason for this was, as Patterson notes, that many states had specific cultures and interests needing representation in Congress. These interests unified the delegation on legislation and strategy.
However, in today's polarized Congress and more mobile society, ideology or party, rather than geography, is often thought to be a better predictor of legislative behavior. Despite the clear role of ideology and party in Congress today, the question remains: Do states today still maintain independent political cultures and interests requiring representation in Congress? Although this book demonstrates that, yes, state delegations continue to be interesting organizational units in Congress and, under certain conditions, they can even overcome partisanship, there is less evidence for states maintaining strong, independent political cultures. Before discussing state delegations today in greater detail, this chapter first sets out to briefly review the history of state delegations in Congress.
The notion that states have distinct political cultures can be traced back to before the writing of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the original thirteen colonies were thought to be distinct enough to require equal representation, with each state receiving one vote. In writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers continued to emphasize states as distinct in their institutional design of the Senate, the Electoral College, and the mechanism by which the president would be chosen should there be a tie in the Electoral College. Despite this clear appreciation for states as representational units, state delegations are frequently overlooked in contemporary literature on Congress. Thus, constructing a comprehensive history of state delegations is essential to developing a theory of how state delegations operate in and influence congressional behavior today.
This chapter first examines the history of state delegations in Congress by discussing the relevant literature dating back to the nation's founding.
Bibliography
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 161-166
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
1 - State Delegations in Congress
- Sarah A. Treul, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
-
- Book:
- Agenda Crossover
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017, pp 1-26
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
My state is certainly important. [My delegation] is second only to the party in thinking about what influences my [legislative] behavior. I might not always vote with the delegation, but I am always interested in what the delegation is working on. —Member of Congress, 2011
Academics spend too much time talking about parties and not enough time understanding states. —Member of Congress, 2011
Representation in the U.S. Congress is frequently discussed in terms of states. Pundits and the general public tend to picture a member of Congress as a delegate from a specific state, casting votes and sponsoring legislation in a manner consistent with the state's economic and political interests. Members of Congress also emphasize the importance of their states when asked what influences their behavior in Congress – often, as the first member did above, listing their states and the delegation second only to their political party in importance (Clausen 1972; Truman 1956). The importance of the state in the members’ minds is unsurprising when we consider that it is the residents of the state that reelect the members of Congress. The electoral connection to the state requiresmembers to know what is happening in the state and stay aware of any changing policy preferences in the constituency. The other members of the state delegation provide the member with plentiful information regarding changes back home. In fact, despite the intense polarization that has developed in Congress over the last decade or two, the representational unit of a state delegation continues to play a key role in shaping individual legislative behavior and, thereby, the macro public policy agenda of Congress. State delegations continue to be interesting organizational units in Congress, and, under certain conditions, they have the power to overcome partisanship. State delegations can affect what legislation is on the agenda and, more important, provide useful information to their members to aid them in their bids for reelection. Given the emphasis still placed on states by members of Congress and congressional observers (although, in the mind of the member above, not nearly enough by political scientists), this book explores the role of state delegations in Congress, focusing not just on intra-chamber behavior but also cross-chamber relationships within the delegation.
I am particularly interested in how these inter-chamber relationships can help the delegation's members provide quality representation to their constituents and even aid them in their reelection efforts.
Agenda Crossover
- The Influence of State Delegations in Congress
- Sarah A. Treul
-
- Published online:
- 13 April 2017
- Print publication:
- 20 April 2017
-
Agenda Crossover updates our understanding of state delegations, exploring how they influence representation and responsiveness in Congress today. The theory of agenda crossover posits that members of the House and Senate have much to gain from monitoring the legislative agendas of other members of the delegation, especially those in the opposite chamber. Treul clearly demonstrates that individual members of delegations still utilize their fellow delegates in order to help them respond to constituents and enhance their own electoral success. It is argued that on certain issues - particularly the ones most relevant to a state's economy - members of Congress are willing to set aside partisan differences and work across the aisle. In this way, these bicameral connections between members of a state delegation - even across party lines - can, at times, trump the power of party in Congress.