Representation AND Responsiveness: Oup Uncorrected Proof - Proof, 8/10/2010, Spi

978–0–19–955994–7 11-Schickler-Lee-c11-drv Schickler-Lee (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 239 of 894 October 8, 2010 12:55
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – PROOF, 8/10/2010, SPi
p a r t iv
................................................................................................................
REPRESENTATION
A ND
RESPONSIVENESS
................................................................................................................
chapter 11
................................................................................................................
DESCRIPTIVE
REPRESENTATION:
UNDERSTANDING
THE IMPACT OF
IDENTITY ON
SUBSTANTIVE
REPRESENTATION
OF GROUP
INTERESTS
................................................................................................................
michele l. swers
stella m. rouse
When Barack Obama took the oath of office as the nation’s first African American
president in January 2009, he faced a very different Congress from that of the previous
Democratic president, who presided over a Democratic House and Senate. Since Bill
Clinton was elected president in 1992, Congress has experienced dramatic change
242 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse
in the demographic makeup of its membership. While Congress remains a largely

white male institution, the creation of majority–minority districts in the early 1990s
resulted in the election of more African Americans and Hispanics to Congress. The
1992 election, dubbed the ‘Year of the Woman’ by the national media, saw a dramatic
increase in the number of women, particularly Democratic women in Congress, and
this number has risen steadily over the years. The expansion of female and minority
representation still continues, at a slow pace. The electoral advantage enjoyed by
incumbents hinders the advancement of new groups into the institution. Moreover,
to date, few minority legislators have been elected from districts that do not contain a
high percentage of minority constituents. In fact, almost all of the minority legislators
represent majority–minority districts (Lublin 1997; Clayton 2000). Further, studies of
political ambition demonstrate that women who have careers in professions that often
lead to public office are less likely to express an interest in running for office than their
male counterparts. Additionally, women are more likely to need the encouragement
of party leaders or other opinion leaders before they decide to run for office (Lawless
and Fox 2005). Research also shows that, once women are in office, they are more
likely to be influenced by the effect of ‘career ceilings’ (i.e. prolonged service in House
without attaining leadership positions) as a determinant of whether or not they will
seek reelection (Lawless and Theriault 2005). Literature on the congressional careers
of minorities is quite sparse. Examining the career decisions of African Americans in
the House of Representatives, Gerber (1996) finds that African American legislators
are significantly less likely than other Democrats to voluntarily exit from House
service. He asserts that the long careers of African American representatives bode well
for their ability to attain political power in spite of their disproportionate numbers in
Congress.
Although women and minorities remain underrepresented in Congress, individual
legislators have achieved the seniority and political clout necessary to move into
leadership positions. Thus Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) became Speaker of the House in
the 110th Congress and James Clyburn an African American from South Carolina
serves as Majority Whip. Several minority and female members have risen to chair
influential committees in the 111th Congress, including Charles Rangel (D–NY) on
Ways and Means and John Conyers (D–MI) on Judiciary. Silvestre Reyes (D–TX) in
the House and Dianne Feinstein (D–CA) in the Senate lead the Select Committees on
Intelligence.
The increasing presence and political power of women and minorities in Congress
has led scholars to investigate whether the election of descriptive (women and minori-
ties) representatives enhances the substantive representation of group interests. In
this essay we examine the theoretical expectations about the importance of descrip-
tive representation and we evaluate the empirical evidence concerning the impact
of gender, race, and ethnicity on the behavior of legislators. Finally, we identify
important avenues for future research as the level of diversity in Congress continues
to grow and more women and minorities enter the ranks of committee and party
leadership.
descriptive representation 243
Theories of representation and the

link between descriptive and
substantive representation
.............................................................................................................................................
When the founders debated the Constitution, the quality of representation provided
by the Congress was a major subject of debate. Anti-Federalists believed that Congress
should be a microcosm reflecting society, while Federalists contended that groups
have intertwined interests and the need to stand for frequent re-election would keep
members loyal to all elements of their constituency (Storing 1981; Rossiter 1961).
Today the debate continues as theorists weigh the importance of group representation
against the negative consequences of dividing citizens based on demographic charac-
teristics. The concern is that members of social groups are essentialized as having a
specific set of shared interests and views that can only be represented by members of
the group (Mansbridge 1999; Dovi 2002; Phillips 1991, 1995, 1998; Williams 1998).
In her classic work on representation, Pitkin (1967) makes a distinction between
descriptive representatives, those who “stand for” a particular group because they
share characteristics with the group such as race or gender, and substantive repre-
sentatives, who “act for” a group by providing representation of the group’s interests.
Contemporary theorists debate whether the election of more descriptive represen-
tatives is a necessary or a sufficient condition for achieving the substantive repre-
sentation of the interests of minority groups in society. Additionally, other scholars
argue that descriptive representation may be neither strictly necessary nor sufficient
for ensuring group representation, but it may still be beneficial, and thus it provides
advantages that enhance the representation of group interests.
Theorists who advocate for the election of descriptive representatives identify a
number of potential benefits. One set of arguments revolves around the enhancement
of the connection between constituents and their representatives and the consequent
increase in trust in government felt by underrepresented groups. The other major
group of arguments in favor of descriptive representation focuses on the improve-
ment of the quality of deliberation among legislators and on the impact on policy
outputs (Mansbridge 1999; Dovi 2002; Williams 1998; Phillips 1991, 1995, 1998; Griffin
and Newman 2008).
With regard to the relationship between legislators and their constituents, theorists
argue that, in cases where there is a history of discrimination and mistrust, the
election of a descriptive representative will improve communication between the
minority group and government. As a result, constituents will feel more trust in their
representatives and this will enhance the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of
members of the underrepresented group. Moreover, the descriptive representatives
will serve as role models for members of the underrepresented group, providing
symbolic representation for group members and furthering a belief in their ability
to rule in the eyes of both the minority and the majority (Phillips 1991, 1995, 1998;
Mansbridge 1999; Dovi 2002).
Within the legislature, political theorists assert that the election of descriptive
representatives will have important effects on the nature and quality of deliberation
among legislators and the substantive representation of group interests in the con-
tent of policy outputs. On the basis of a history of shared experiences, descriptive
representatives will bring new issues to the congressional agenda and will provide a
different perspective on more established debates by delineating how those issues will
differentially impact members of the underrepresented group. Descriptive represen-
tatives will be more likely to achieve inclusion of group interests in policy outcomes
because of the moral authority they wield as members of the group and because of
the vigorous advocacy they will bring to issues on the basis of their shared life experi-
ences. The ability to bring divergent qualities to the representative arena increases the
chances that a legislative body will achieve normative legitimacy (Mansbridge 1999;
Williams 1998; Phillips 1991, 1995, 1998; Dovi 2002).
Of course a consensus does not exist on the relative costs and benefits of seeking
to enhance descriptive representation. For example, Mansbridge (1999) argues that
the benefits of descriptive representation vary by context; therefore, a descriptive
representative is appropriate only under certain circumstances—specifically, when
the benefits exceed the costs of such representation. In Mansbridge’s view, the greatest
cost of descriptive representation is that it reinforces tendencies toward “essential-
ism.” This is the idea that members of a group have an “essential identity,” shared only
by members of that group. According to Mansbridge, the danger of “essentialism”
is the assumption that members of a group are monolithic in their interests and
that only those interests matter to the group. The empirical research on descriptive
representation seeks to identify the conditions under which social identity influences
legislative behavior.
Descriptive representation and the

constituent–representative link
.............................................................................................................................................
The expansion of representation resulting from the creation of majority–minority

districts and the steady increase in the election of women and minorities since the
early 1990s has allowed scholars systematically to test assertions about the potential
impact of descriptive representation. Interviews with members of Congress demon-
strate that minority and female members of Congress view racial minorities and
women as a distinctive segment of their constituency; they feel a special responsi-
bility to represent women and minority constituents, and they describe themselves as
surrogate representatives of group members living outside their districts who do not
have the benefit of a female or minority representative that understands their unique
concerns (Reingold 1992; Carroll 2002; Hawkesworth 2003; Dodson, Carroll, et al.
1995; Dodson 2006; Swain 1993; Tate 2003). For example, in his qualitative study of
black representatives, Fenno (2003) notes how Louis Stokes (D–OH) was well aware
that his constituency encompassed much more than his district when he was first
elected to Congress in 1968. Stokes commented on the significance of his election,
which, along with that of two other newly elected African-American representatives,
brought the total to nine black House members at that time:
The thrust of our elections was that many black people around America, who had formerly
been unrepresented, now felt that the nine black members of the House owed them the
obligation of also affording them representation in the House. It was in this context that each
of the nine of us realized that in addition to representing our individual districts, we had
to assume the onerous burden of acting as a congressmen-at-large for unrepresented people
around America. (Fenno 2003, 62)
This idea of surrogate representation led to the creation of the Congressional Black
Caucus, of which Louis Stokes was a founding member. Scholars have emphasized the
significance of group consciousness as the catalyst for the unity felt by members of
the African-American community and the expectations they have of any descriptive
representative (Dawson 1994; Tate 2003).
While the impact of descriptive representation on the motivations of legislators is
clear, there is a limited number of studies that focus on whether the social identity
of the representative influences the political views of their constituents. This line
of research has produced mixed results. For example, on the one hand, Brunell,
Anderson, and Cremona (2008) find that the election of a descriptive representa-
tive improves the attitudes of African Americans voters toward their legislator. The
authors also note that these voters’ perceptions about the pervasiveness of African
Americans in Congress enhance their opinion of Congress as an institution. On the
other hand, scholars like Gay (2002) argue that the ability of blacks to identify racially
with their representatives has little effect on how well they feel they are represented.
Instead, blacks place more value on the policy preferences and policy responsiveness
of their legislators. However, Gay does find that African American constituents are
more likely to contact an African American representative, which may indicate at least
a greater comfort level with a descriptive representative. Griffin and Flavin (2007)
show that racial disparities exist at the level of the accountability placed on members
of Congress; these disparities are based, in part, on differences between whites’ and
blacks’ expectations of their representatives. The authors note that African Americans
tend to be very loyal to descriptive representatives and that this loyalty is a disincentive
to obtain information about the activities of their legislators or to be objective about
their legislative behavior. With respect to ethnicity, Barreto (2007) finds that the
presence of Latino candidates, regardless of their ideology or party affiliation, leads to
greater Latino mobilization and participation. He shows that co-ethnicity serves as a
strong heuristic for voter preferences, indicating that descriptive representation (i.e.
the identity of the legislator) is important to Latinos.
With regard to women, there is currently very little empirical evidence that the
political views of female constituents are dramatically affected by having a female rep-
resentative. Burns, Schlozman, and Verba (2001) do find that the number of women
candidates within a state and the presence of a female statewide officeholder improve
feelings of political efficacy among women. Lawless (2004) found that women who
were represented by women offered more positive evaluations of their representatives
in Congress. However, these differences did not translate into increased feelings
of political efficacy and trust in government, nor did they lead to increased levels
of political interest or participation. Scholars should further investigate the impact
that electing minorities and women may have on constituent opinion and political
efficacy, particularly given the competitive presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama—as well as the presence of the first credible Hispanic presidential
candidate, Bill Richardson—during the 2008 presidential election.
Furthermore, we should not expect descriptive representation to take the same
forms and utilize the same mechanisms for all minority groups. Mansbridge (1999)
points out that the history of mistrust and impaired communication between the
majority and the minority has been the most severe on the issue of race. Mansbridge
argues that African-Americans must rely on descriptive representation in order to
maximize the proportional numbers needed to accomplish important legislative
goals such as deliberative synergy (i.e. the principle that more deliberation leads
to better information), critical mass, dispersion of influence, and obtaining a wide
range of policy views. The inability of blacks to benefit from these legislative qualities
is reflected in the fact that the race gap (differences in public opinion and voting
behavior between African-Americans and whites) is the largest political gap in voting,
larger than electoral gaps based on class or gender (Kaufmann, Petrocik, and Shaw
2008). Therefore, the importance of descriptive representation for constituent opin-
ion regarding trust in government and political efficacy may be most pronounced for
racial minorities.
Descriptive representation and

substantive representation of group
interests
.............................................................................................................................................
The vast majority of research on the impact of descriptive representation focuses

on the question of whether electing descriptive representatives has a policy impact.
Do these legislators bring issues of concern to their group to the policy agenda? Do
they make these issues a priority and act as more vigorous advocates for the interests
of their group? Do descriptive representatives bring different perspectives to policy
debates and seek to illuminate the way proposals will impact their communities?
To address these questions, researchers must first define what we mean by group
interests. Efforts to delineate the policy impact of women generally examine a set
of women’s issues related to the ever changing relationship between the public and
the private sphere (Sapiro 1981; Diamond and Hartsock 1981; Gelb and Palley 1996;
Mansbridge 1999). Women’s issues have been broadly defined as issues concerning
women, children, and families. Studies focus on feminist issues such as the expansion
of women’s rights in the home, the workplace, and the political realm. Women’s issues
have also been defined so as to include the social welfare policies that underlie the
gender gap and are traditionally considered to be women’s interests, such as education
and health care (Thomas 1994, 1997; Reingold 2000; Swers 2002; Dodson 2006).
Race scholars point to civil rights, poverty, crime, and unemployment as issues
disproportionately important to African Americans Whitby 1989; Kinder and Winter
2001; Whitby and Krause 2001; Tate 2003; Minta 2009). Haynie (2001) notes the
homogeneity of African-Americans (on the basis of shared culture, history, and
values) in comparison to the state of other groups, as a characteristic that facilitates
the identification of policy priorities for blacks.
Researchers note that Latinos are a much more heterogeneous group than African-
Americans. This heterogeneity has made it difficult to find a distinct set of policy
issues to transcend the many sub-groups that fit under the label ‘Latino’ (Bratton
2006). Beyond immigration and bilingual education, there is no consensus on which
issues reflect Latino interests. Voter surveys demonstrate that Latinos prioritize issues
such as education, crime, and health (Martinez-Ebers, Fraga, et al. 2000). These
policies reflect ‘cross-cutting’ issues that are important to multiple groups; they
are not disproportionately identified with Latinos in the way in which civil rights
concerns have been identified with African-Americans. Indeed, there is a significant
void in the literature on how Latino interests are defined and measured. Future
research should focus on isolating the interests of Latino sub-groups rather than
relying on an aggregate label. The difficulty of isolating an agreed upon set of group
interests further highlights the danger of essentializing a group as sharing interests
on a limited number of issues and with a common point of view. However, from
an empirical standpoint, if policy differences exist, they are most likely to emerge
on issues that are viewed as policies with a disproportionate impact on the minority
group.
More recent work has begun to address the issue of relative group representation.
Griffin and Newman (2008) examine the political influence of different groups in
relation to one another. In particular, the authors emphasize the importance of look-
ing at relative representation and equality, as it pertains to disparities in government
response to majority, white interests, and minority group (African-Americans and
Latinos) demands. Griffin and Newman find “considerable inequality” of represen-
tation in American politics, noting that congressional votes and the content of legis-
lation is largely more in line with the preferences of white Americans. However, the
authors caution about the difficulty in grasping the meaning of political inequality.
They argue that the assessment of political equality changes depending on what
standards are applied, but that under certain circumstances descriptive representa-
tion does improve the relative representation of minorities, which leads to political
parity.
Voting behavior and representation

of minority interests
.............................................................................................................................................
Voting is the most frequent and public method by which members of Congress are
forced to take a stand on policy that can be evaluated by voters in the next election.
If descriptive representatives vote differently from members of the same party with
similar constituency characteristics, this would be a clear indicator that these legis-
lators have distinctive preferences and these preferences have potential consequences
for policy outcomes.
The significance of voting behavior is especially pronounced in the literature
on race and ethnicity. One major debate in the minority representation literature
surrounds the effectiveness of majority–minority districts as an institutional tool
to enhance the representation of minority interests. The argument for the creation
and continued existence of minority–majority districts is that they provide minority
groups with the best opportunity to achieve both descriptive and substantive repre-
sentation (Davidson and Grofman 1994; Lublin 1997). However, some scholars argue
that an unintended consequence of creating majority–minority districts has been the
dilution of minorities in other districts for the purpose of concentrating them in
smaller areas (Swain 1993; Cameron, Epstein, and O’Halloran 1996). Thus, packing
minorities into single districts creates whiter and more conservative surrounding
districts and significantly hurts the electoral prospects of white Democrats in those
districts (Overby and Cosgrove 1996). In this respect, it is argued that majority–
minority districts often promote descriptive representation at the expense of the
broader substantive representation of minorities.
The creation of majority–minority districts was seen as a contributing factor to the
election of a Republican majority in 1994 (Cameron, Epstein, and O’Halloran 1996).
Scholars like Overby and Cosgrove (1996) argue that majority–minority districts have
been a “mixed blessing”—allowing for the election of more black representatives,
but at the same time diminishing the responsiveness of white representatives to
the interests of African-Americans in districts that had lost black constituents. This
triggered a debate over whether the interests of racial minorities were better served by
electing minority representatives and by expanding the ranks of conservative, Repub-
lican representatives or by spreading the minority population across more districts,
to elect more ideologically compatible white Democrats. Cameron, Epstein, and
O’Halloran (1996) found that, in non-Southern states, majority–minority districts do
not enhance the substantive representation of African-Americans; rather, black voters
should be maximized by being distributed equally across districts, in order for as
many Democrats as possible to be elected (i.e. giving up possible gains in descriptive
representation in order to increase the substantive representation of group interests).
Cameron Epstein, and O’Halloran (1996) note, however, that in the South it makes
more sense to have ‘concentrated’ black districts, yet not to the point of creating
majority–minority districts. They argue for the construction of southern districts
that approximate 47 percent black voters, which would maximize black substantive
representation while still providing a minority presence in other districts. Overall,
the authors conclude that a tradeoff exists between the descriptive and the substantive
representation of minorities and that these tradeoffs vary depending on regional and
electoral context.
Other scholars contest the claim that the creation of majority–minority districts
has led to a decrease in the substantive representation of minority voters. Shotts
(2003) argues that, after racial redistricting in the South in the 1980s and 1990s, there
was an increase in the election of legislators whose policy preferences were to the left
rather than to the right of the median House member. To Shotts, this implies that the
creation of majority–minority districts actually promoted liberal policy outcomes,
despite a decline in the number of Democrats elected to Congress. However, Lublin
and Voss (2003) dispute Shotts’ findings; they contend that he fails to account for
the sharp rightward shift of the House median member after the 1994 Republican
takeover of Congress. Lublin and Voss argue that this omission leads to an incomplete
and unrealistic account of the effects of majority–minority districts in southern states,
where many moderate Democratic legislators were replaced by strong conservative
Republicans. This debate over the actual consequences of racial redistricting calls for
further research that considers, among other things, changes in party polarization
and multiple shifts in congressional power.
The creation of majority–minority districts and the use of other institutional tools
designed to maximize opportunities to elect minorities have raised questions about
the link between descriptive and substantive representation. Some scholars are strong
proponents of emphasizing substantive representation over descriptive representa-
tion, in part due to the “side effects” ’ of majority–minority districts, as discussed
above. In a study of African-American representation in Congress, Swain (1993) finds
that party and not race is the strongest indicator of support for black interest legisla-
tion. Therefore, in similar manner to the arguments posited by Cameron, Epstein,
and O’Halloran (1996), Swain states that the best way for African-Americans to
maximize substantive representation is to promote the election of more Democrats,
regardless of race, rather than to focus on the narrow goal of increasing the number
of blacks in Congress. However, in an analysis of DW–NOMINATE scores, McCarty,
Poole, and Rosenthal (1997) argue that African-American legislators are different
from other Democratic legislators, as these representatives anchor the liberal end of
the ideological spectrum.
Other scholarship examines how well minority interests are represented by legis-
lators elected form large minority districts. Gay (2007) compares the responsiveness
of legislators from majority-white districts and legislators from majority–minority
districts in California and finds that constituency preferences are just as likely to
influence the policy positions of the former as they influence the policy choices
of the latter. Gay concludes that, despite the usual criticisms of majority–minority
districts—lack of electoral competition and low voter turnout—legislators from these
districts do not eschew their role as representatives. Hutchings, McClerking, and
Charles (2004) examine how and when black constituency size (i.e. district racial
composition) affects a legislator’s support for black interests. In particular, they look
at the stability of support across varying districts and different legislative policies.
They find that in the South, where there is more racial division, constituency size
is a less consistent indicator of support for black policies among white Democrats
(e.g. some legislators in the South with over 30 percent black constituents did not
support legislation in the interest of blacks), while in the North the size of the black
population reduces across-district variation in support for black interests among
white Democrats. Among Republican legislators, the authors note that an increase in
the size of a black constituency influences support for black legislation in the North,
but not in the South.
To date, there are few studies that examine the legislative behavior of Latinos in
Congress; the existing research has found an inconsistent link between descriptive
and substantive representation. In one of the earliest studies on Latino representation,
Welch and Hibbing (1984) looked at the effect of Latino constituencies and Latino
representatives on roll-call voting. They found that Latino representatives and non-
Latino representatives with a large Latino constituency exhibited a more liberal voting
record than their non-Latino counterparts. Conversely, in a separate study conducted
on the voting records of members of Congress, Hero and Tolbert (1995) maintain that
there is no link between the descriptive and substantive representation of Latinos,
despite an increase in the Latino population in the 1980s. Instead, they assert that
Latinos receive ‘indirect’ substantive representation through the policy agenda of the
Democratic Party. Similarly, Santos and Huerta (2001) discern no ethnic influence
on representation. Rather, they note that constituency (large Latino districts) and
ideology are the strongest indicators of substantive representation of Latino interests.
By contrast, using the same data as Hero and Tolbert (1995), Kerr and Miller (1997)
arrive at a different conclusion. These scholars find not only that Latino House mem-
bers exhibit a distinct voting behavior from non-Latino members, but that Latino
legislators do indeed provide direct substantive representation to Latinos.
In a more recent piece on the representation of Latinos in Congress, Rocca,
Sanchez, and Uscinski (2008) examine the effects of a representative’s personal
attributes on how she votes. They maintain that specific descriptive characteristics of
Latino representatives (e.g. education gender, generational status, nativity) influence
voting behavior. The authors note that differences in descriptive attributes among
Latinos help illustrate that Latino legislators are not a monolithic group and that a
better understanding of the descriptive–substantive link must recognize within-group
differences in representation. The work of Rocca et al. is one of the first to recognize
the heterogeneity of Latino legislators and how this translates into distinctions in
voting behavior and policy preferences. Future work should continue on this path of
recognizing Latino sub-group differences.
Studies that seek to determine if women legislators are generally more liberal than
male legislators have had varying results, depending on the time period and the mea-
sure of ideology utilized (Leader 1977; Frankovic 1977; Dolan 1997; Swers 1998, 2002;
Schwindt-Bayer and Corbetta 2004; Frederick 2009, 2010). However, research does
indicate that women vote more liberally on bills related to women’s issues, particularly
abortion (Dolan 1997; Swers 1998; Norton 1999; Tatalovich and Schier 1993; Frederick,
2010). The largest differences occur among Republicans, because taking a position in
favor of reproductive rights involves going against the stance of the majority of the
Republican Party. However, the dwindling of the ranks of moderate Republicans in
recent years may eliminate the gender differences found in voting on abortion and
other women’s issues. Indeed, in an analysis of DW–NOMINATE scores over time,
Frederick (2009) finds that the scores of Republican women have converged with the
rest of the Republican caucus over time and that since the mid-2000s,Republican
women tare not distinctively more liberal than their male Republican colleagues.
The inconsistent results of the research on descriptive representation and vot-
ing behavior may partially stem from the fact that scholars rely mainly on interest
group scores from groups such as the American Association of University Women
(Dolan 1997; Swers 1998; Frederick 2010), the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
(Cameron, Epstein and O’Halloran 1996; Swain 1993; Canon 1999), AFL–CIO Com-
mittee on Political Education (Swain 1993; Lublin 1997), the Southwest Voter Research
Institute (Hero and Tolbert 1995; Kerr and Miller 1997), and the National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda (Santos and Huerta 2001). The overall utility of interest group
scores has been criticized on several fronts. First, many of the issues upon which
the scores are based are not necessarily exclusive to one particular group (i.e. issues
affect multiple groups similarly) and, second, these scores (and, more broadly, overall
roll-call votes) measure only a binary vote choice (yea or nay) instead of a policy
preference. The latter reason has lead scholars to look beyond the roll-call stage of the
legislative process in order to assess quality of representation.
Beyond voting behavior: Exploring the

link between descriptive and
substantive representation
throughout the legislative process
.............................................................................................................................................
While roll-call voting is the most visible and parsimonious legislative activity, its
usefulness as an indicator of the impact of descriptive representation is quite limited.
Since roll-call votes occur at the end of the process, when the choices and policy
options are already defined, we cannot determine through vote analyses if descriptive
representatives are bringing new issues and different perspectives to the congres-
sional agenda. In other words, roll-call voting is not the only way, or necessarily
the best way to assess legislative effectiveness or the quality of representation. Since
a large part of the potential impact of descriptive representation is to improve the
deliberative process among legislators, we need measures that allow us to examine
more closely whether descriptive representatives are more likely to prioritize issues
related to group interests and whether they act as vigorous advocates for those issues
with their colleagues, thereby translating descriptive representation into substantive
representation. A broader approach to how minorities and women are substantively
represented must include a more comprehensive examination of legislative activity.
Recent studies look beyond roll-call votes, to examine earlier stages of the legisla-
tive process and gauge whether descriptive representatives have a distinctive influence
on the definition of policy alternatives and on the debate over policy outcomes.
Utilizing surveys of legislators’ priorities and analyses of bill sponsorship, research
on state legislatures demonstrated that women and minorities have distinctive policy
priorities and are more likely to act as advocates for group interests (Haynie 2001;
Bratton and Haynie 1999; Saint-Germain 1989; Thomas 1994; Dodson and Carroll
1991; Reingold 2000; Poggione 2004; Bratton 2006). State legislative studies have the
advantage of being able to compare the influence of race, ethnicity, and gender in
settings with different political cultures and institutional dynamics and varying levels
of minority group representation. However, because of the complexity of gathering
data across multiple state legislatures, these studies do not focus as much as they
should on the impact of internal institutional norms, constituent influences, and the
political opportunity structure.
At the congressional level, scholars have tried to determine whether the impact
of race, ethnicity, and gender on legislators’ policy activity persists after one has
accounted for the major partisan, institutional, and constituency factors that influ-
ence legislative behavior. The evidence for a distinctive impact is most apparent at the
agenda-setting stage. Agenda-setting provides legislators with a broad opportunity
to define problems and establish policy alternatives (Kingdon 2005; Baumgartner
and Jones 1993). For minorities, in particular, agenda-setting allows the representa-
tives to exert individual rather than aggregate influence through their sponsorship
and cosponsorship behavior. Therefore agenda-setting is the stage of the legislative
process at which the link between descriptive and substantive representation may be
most pronounced (Bratton and Haynie 1999; Swers 2002).
The literature on African American legislators indicates strong links between
descriptive and substantive representation at the agenda-setting stage and in commit-
tee deliberations. Thus, Canon (1999) finds that, in particular, black representatives
who are willing to embrace and promote multiracial interests not only sponsor more
legislation, but achieve greater success throughout the legislative process. Canon
points out that blacks being elected from white majority districts will always be the
exception rather than the rule. He argues that the creation of black majority districts
should be embraced because they produce representatives who promote the common
interests of multiple groups (what he refers to as the “politics of commonality”) rather
than the intended purpose of majority–minority districts, namely to produce repre-
sentatives who would push for interests primarily important to African-American
(what Canon terms as the “politics of difference”). Canon refers to the election of
these black legislators—those willing to embrace a “politics of commonality” that
breaks down race barriers—as one of the “unintended consequences” of increases in
minority descriptive representation. Haynie (2001) also argues that having black faces
in state legislatures is crucial to achieving substantive representation of black interests.

Through an examination of five state legislatures, Haynie finds that policies impor-
tant to African-Americans are more likely to be introduced and deliberated upon
when black representatives are present. Haynie makes a strong connection between
the race of a representative and the quality of representation African Americans
receive (see also Bratton and Haynie 1999). At the committee stage, Gamble (2007)
finds that African Americans in the House of Representatives are more likely than
their white counterparts to participate actively in committee activities when black
interest policies are being considered. Similarly, Minta (2009) notes that both African-
American and Latino legislators are more likely to participate in oversight committee
hearings dealing with minority interests such as enforcement of fair housing and
other civil rights laws. Moreover, these minority legislators are more likely to focus
their questions on minority interests.
In contrast to the literature on African-Americans, there are few studies on Latino
legislative behavior beyond roll-call voting. Comparing the sponsorship activity of
Latino and non-Latino state legislators, Bratton (2006) finds that Latino legislators
are more likely than non-Latino ones to sponsor ‘Latino interest’ measures. In a study
of Latinos in legislative leadership positions, Preuhs (2005) notes that these legis-
lators use their leadership positions to block legislation that may negatively impact
Latinos.
Studies of gender and representation have also highlighted the distinctive policy
impact of female representatives. In a comprehensive study of gender differences in
legislative activities including sponsorship, cosponsorship, and committee and floor
behavior, Swers (2002) found that women were more likely to prioritize feminist
and social welfare issues, even after accounting for members’ party affiliation, con-
stituency characteristics, and institutional position, including committee assignment
and membership in the majority or minority party (see also Dodson 2006; Dodson
et al. 1995; Norton 1995, 2002). Wolbrecht (2000, 2002) notes that women in Congress
play a key role in bringing previously ignored women’s concerns to the national
agenda. In her longitudinal study of policymaking on women’s issues, Wolbrecht
found that women, particularly Democratic women, were the most likely to identify
new issues related to women’s rights and to bring new policy solutions to the agenda.
Recent work by Gerrity, Osborn, et al. (2007) and by MacDonald and O’Brien
(Forthcoming) holds constituency factors constant by comparing members who serve
the same district over time. The authors found strong evidence for agenda-setting
effects, as women introduced more bills related to women’s issues than men repre-
senting the same district. However, Gerrity, Osborn, et al. (2007) found no differences
in the frequency of floor speeches that members gave on women’s issues.
As women continue to increase their numbers in Congress, there will be more
opportunities to conduct studies of differences in policy priorities and behavior
among members who represented the same district in Congress. However, the fact
that the vast majority of African American and Hispanic representatives represent
majority–minority districts and are replaced with other minority legislators after they
leave Congress makes this technique less useful for studying the effect of descriptive
representation among racial minorities. The numerous studies of policy differences

at various stages in the legislative process demonstrate that within the boundaries
of what a constituency will accept legislators have significant latitude to decide which
policies to champion, thus highlighting the importance of social identity and personal
background as an influence on legislative behavior.
Descriptive representatives and vigorous advocacy

for group interests
Case study and interview-based research demonstrate that minorities and women
do act as vigorous advocates for the interests of their group. For example, in his
descriptive account of the representation provided by four black legislators, Fenno
(2003) notes the intensity by which black members of Congress advocate for the
interests of the black community, particularly interests related to civil rights, poverty,
and criminal justice. Fenno credits the strength of group consciousness within the
black community for providing such policy consensus. Similarly, Fraga, Lopez, et al.
(2007) discover in personal interviews that Latino state legislators also exhibit a com-
mitment to the larger Latino community by supporting the policy priorities of other
Latino legislators. These priorities include immigration, education, and healthcare.
Although Latinos are much more heterogeneous than blacks in their policy interests
and do not share a strong sense of group consciousness, the work of Fraga, Lopez, et
al. demonstrates that Latino legislators are, nonetheless, willing to act collectively for
the benefit of the broader Latino community.
With regard to women, Dodson (2006) found that women members were pivotal
in placing issues such as domestic violence and women’s health on the congressional
agenda. Women lobbied their male colleagues to adopt these issues as priorities and
played pivotal roles in the efforts to move bills through the legislative process on these
issues such as the Violence Against Women Act, or legislation designed to increase
women’s health research and to create an Office of Women’s Health within the
National Institutes of Health. (See also Swers 2002.) Studies of welfare reform indicate
that Republican and Democratic women were instrumental in getting enhanced child
support enforcement and greater childcare subsidies included in the final bill. Women
of color were uniformly opposed to what they perceived as the punitive nature of the
welfare reform and worked together to offer alternative legislation (Dodson 2006;
Swers 2002; Hawkesworth 2003; Norton 2002; Johnson, Duerst-Lahti, and Norton
2007).
Analyses of floor debate indicate that women are more likely to speak about
women’s concerns and issues and they are more likely to invoke their authority as
women and mothers (Shogan 2001; Cramer Walsh 2002; Levy, Tien, and Aved 2002).
Additionally, in a study of the evolution of discourse on the frequently debated topic
of abortion, Levy, Tien, and Aved (2001) find that female legislators have influenced
the substance and style of their male colleagues’ floor speeches. Understanding the
ways in which women and minorities have influenced the legislative behavior of
majority group legislators constitutes an important area for future research.
The greater levels and the intensity of activity on group-related concerns found
in the research on descriptive representatives reflects both the policy preferences of
legislators and the nature of the political opportunity structure in the legislative
arena. Representatives are aided in their ability to build a legislative niche on these
issues because of their perceived moral authority as members of the minority group.
Furthermore, in an age of competitive elections and constant media attention, party
leaders rely on women and minorities to champion the party’s message on these issues
with the public, in an effort to boost the party’s image, and, in the case of both gender
and ethnicity, to capitalize on the potential gap in voting, in which various groups of
women and Latinos are seen as potential swing voting blocs (Swers 2002; Dodson
2006; Norton 2002; Alvarez and Garcia Bedolla 2003).
The importance of institutional

and partisan dynamics
.............................................................................................................................................
Empirical research has established that minorities and women do provide substantive
representation of group interests in Congress. However, the impact of race and gender
is not uniform across policy issues and the importance of identity as an influence
on behavior is dependent on the nature of the political opportunity structure and
on the legislator’s position within the institutional context. With regard to issues,
the strongest gender effects are found on feminist or women’s rights issues rather
than on social welfare issues. The ability and willingness of members to champion
specific issues vary with changes in the political context. For example, Swers (2002)
finds that women were more likely to sponsor social welfare bills when they were in
the majority party and had access to the legislative agenda. However, there were no
gender differences in sponsorship behavior on social welfare issues when women were
in the minority. Moreover, moderate Republican women found it easier to champion
feminist causes when they were in the minority party and were only expected to bring
along their contingent of votes. As members of the majority, these Republican women
risked alienating important party activists and in turn incurring the animosity of
the party leaders and caucus members whom they relied on to advance other policy
objectives and their own position within the institution (Swers 2002; Dodson 2006).
The changes in the strategic calculations that legislators make on the basis of the
nature of the political environment argue for a continued focus on the influence of
political context and institutional dynamics on the likelihood that descriptive repre-
sentatives will pursue preferences on the basis of group membership. Among women,
future work needs to focus more on the position of women within the Democratic
and Republican caucuses. Party and ideology are two of the most important guides
to congressional behavior. At the individual level, Democratic women are generally

the most likely to bring women’s issues to the legislative agenda and to spend political
capital to pursue their inclusion in public policy (Swers 2002; Dodson 2006). Research
demonstrates that moderate Republican women are actively engaged in pursuing leg-
islation related to women’s interests. Moderate Republican women drive differences
in voting behavior on women’s issues, as these women are taking positions that go
against the majority in their party (Dolan 1997; Swers 1998, 2002; Dodson 2006).
In recent years, the ranks of moderate Republican women and moderate Republi-
cans more generally have dwindled. Frederick (2010) notes a convergence in the DW–
NOMINATE scores among Republican men and women as moderate Republican
women from the Northeast have left Congress and are replaced by conservative
women who hail from the South and the West, the current strongholds of the Repub-
lican Party (Frederick 2010; Elder 2008). Future research must examine whether and
how conservative women engage women’s issues. Do they perceive themselves as
champions of women’s interests and engage with those causes, for instance women’s
health, which can fit within their ideology? Do they deny the existence of women’s
issues, or do they engage with and champion these issues from a conservative or anti-
feminist point of view? (See Swers and Larson (2005) for an analysis of Republican
women’s views on gender identity and women’s issues.)
Beyond party affiliation and ideology, institutional factors such as seniority, com-
mittee position, and a member’s relationship with and place within leadership all
impact the ability of descriptive representatives to pursue group interests. Minorities
and women who were elected in the early 1990s are now achieving enough seniority
to gain access to more prestigious committees, such as Appropriations and Ways and
Means, and to lay claim to subcommittee chairmanships and some full committee
chairs. These changes call for new analyses of the impact of minorities and women
on the agendas of congressional committees. Do subcommittees chaired by women
and minorities hold more hearings on issues related to group interests? Do they
draft more legislation on these issues? When committees include greater numbers of
women and minorities, do these legislators join together to advocate for the inclusion
of group interests in committee legislation?
Finally, the majority of research on descriptive representation focuses on the House
of Representatives. Indeed, the increased representation for small states, which was
built into the design of the Senate by the founding fathers, also inhibits the repre-
sentation of racial and ethnic minorities and of minority group interests. Because
more racial and ethnic minorities reside in large states including California, Texas,
Illinois, and Florida than in small states like Montana and North and South Dakota,
these minority groups have fewer opportunities to elect a descriptive representative,
and their ability to translate their numbers into policy influence across senators is
reduced (Dahl 1956; Lee and Oppenheimer 1999). Furthermore, Griffin (2006) found
that, over time, there is an increasingly negative relationship between a state’s voting
weight in the Senate and the size of a state’s African American and Latino populations.
Looking at representation of group interests, Griffin notes that there is no difference
in the overall voting behavior of small and large state senators. However, in an analysis
of LCCR (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights) voting scores, Griffin finds that
senators who hail from states with greater voting weight in the Senate are more
likely to oppose the policy positions of the LCCR. Thus the policy interests of racial
minorities are clearly disadvantaged by the structure of the Senate (Griffin 2006).
While minorities continue to lag in their representation in the Senate, a similar
proportion of women serves in the House and in the Senate. Further examination of
descriptive representation in the Senate can shed light on how the influence of social
identity varies with the nature of the institution. Thus the enhanced media profile
of senators and the protection of minority rights provide senators with more oppor-
tunities to influence a range of policies in comparison to the opportunities House
members, who are more constrained by such factors as the jurisdiction of their com-
mittees and the higher frequency of re-election. Scholars should examine whether the
increased policy freedom enjoyed by senators leads women and minorities to act as
more aggressive advocates for group interests. Alternatively, the need for senators to
have policy proposals on all issues may diminish the distinctive importance of social
identity (Swers 2007, 2008, forthcoming).
Critical mass and institutional

influence on descriptive
representation
.............................................................................................................................................
The behavior of individuals within an institution is strongly conditioned by the

makeup of its membership. Research in the disciplines of sociology and psychology
reveals how institutions establish behavioral norms and how the relationship between
the majority and minority groups influences individual actions. This work is quite
relevant to the study of politics, in particular with respect to questions about insti-
tutional norms and their impact on individual legislative behavior. Furthermore, the
insights from sociology and psychology highlight the need to examine the impact
of the relative proportions of minority and majority group members. Do individual
legislators exhibit a greater willingness to act on behalf of the substantive interests
of the group when they constitute a larger proportion of the membership in the
legislature? How does the presence of more minority group members influence the
behavior of majority group members?
Race, gender, and institutional norms

With regard to institutional norms, scholars note that institutions reflect the pref-
erences and norms of the dominant group. Therefore the standard operating
procedures and accepted practices within Congress are both raced and gendered
(Acker 1992; Kenney 1996; Duerst-Lahti 2002; Hawkesworth 2003; Rosenthal 1998,
2005). The need to adapt to and negotiate these standards sets up additional hur-
dles for gaining acceptance within the institution. Anecdotal and interview-based
evidence from state legislative and congressional research indicates that women and
minorities do report feeling that they have to work harder to prove themselves.
Moreover, female and minority members are more likely to perceive the existence of
these separate standards than are their majority group colleagues (Hawkesworth 2003;
Thomas 1994; Kenney 1996). For example, Swers (2007) finds that staffers for female
members felt that Democratic women senators had to work harder than ideologically
similar male colleagues to prove themselves on defense issues to voters; and they
believed they were taken less seriously by Pentagon officials. Additionally, an analysis
of appearances on Sunday talk shows demonstrated that women needed to achieve
leadership positions on defense-related committees and within the party before they
were asked to talk about defense issues on these shows. By contrast, credentials did
not play as significant a role in the appearances by male senators. While male senators
who led important committees dominated the Sunday talk shows, other male senators
who had not achieved leadership positions on foreign policy were also invited to speak
on defense issues.
Hawkesworth (2003) finds that minority women serving in the Democratic con-
trolled 103rd Congress and the Republican controlled 104th Congress felt marginal-
ized by white male and female colleagues. Regardless of legislative setting or level
of seniority, these minority women believed that their policy proposals were more
likely to be ignored and their knowledge discounted by majority group members
(see also Hedge, Button, and Spear 1996 and Smooth 2008 for evidence at the state
level). Uncovering the gender and race-based norms within Congress is a very difficult
task. Future research on the subject must be careful to account for other potential
explanations, particularly ideology and partisanship. Moreover, it is very difficult to
develop systematic measures of norms that will move us beyond subjective anecdotal
and interview accounts.
Critical mass and legislative behavior

Understanding how the composition of the legislature as a whole influences the
decision-making of individual legislators is another important question. Do legis-
lators respond to chamber diversity when making decisions about policy interests
and legislative agendas? Research at the state level has long focused on the impact of
numbers, investigating whether the achievement of a “critical mass” makes it more
likely that minorities and women will feel they can champion group interests without
being stigmatized or marginalized (Thomas 1994; Kathlene 2005).
The majority of research that has focused on the “critical mass” debate is confined
to the gender and politics literature. Thus, more work needs to be done on the
impact of numbers on the behavior of ethnic and racial minorities. The critical
mass research was based initially on the work of Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977), who
argued that token women in male dominated organizations (women who make up
less than 15 percent of the organizational membership) feel pressure to conform,
which is manifested in ways such as downplaying gender differences and work-related
accomplishments. Kanter noted that minorities in these organizational settings try to
obfuscate group differences, in an attempt to blend into the majority culture. Applied
to the political setting, particularly legislative institutions, critical mass scholars have
argued that it is necessary for women to achieve a certain percentage within a chamber
(approaching 15 percent) in order to observe gender differences in the legislative
priorities placed on issues important to women (Saint Germain 1989; Thomas 1991,
1994).
Early research on state legislatures found some evidence to support the idea that,
as the proportion of women in the legislature rose, legislative activity on women’s
issues increased; however, there were no clear threshold effects (Saint Germain 1989;
Thomas 1991, 1994). At the congressional level, MacDonald and O’Brien (Forthcom-
ing) examined sponsorship of feminist and social welfare bills from 1973 to 2002.
They found that congresswomen sponsored more feminist and social welfare bills
as the proportion of women in the House increased. However, other recent research
contradicts critical mass theory by finding that women are more inclined to advocate
for group interests when they are underrepresented in the legislature (Bratton 2005;
Crowley 2004).
As a result of these contradictory findings, scholars have begun to question the
usefulness of the critical mass concept (e.g. Bratton 2005; Childs and Krook 2006b;
Beckwith 2007; Grey 2006). Researchers note that there are important differences
between women as political actors and women in other institutional settings, such
as corporations. Most importantly, women legislators must be responsive not only
to colleagues but also to voters. To achieve re-election, legislators must develop a
legislative niche and a record to promote to voters. If voters perceive women as more
qualified to handle women’s issues, then female legislators will be more active on these
issues (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; Dolan 2004; Crowley 2004). Moreover, status as
a minority within a legislature may yield more of the media spotlight necessary to
gain attention to one’s proposals. Furthermore, as women become a greater presence
within a legislative chamber, they may influence the behavior of men. If men become
more willing to champion women’s issues as the level of diversity within the chamber
rises, then differences between the two groups will be minimized, as women approach
a critical mass (Bratton 2005).
Finally, critical mass theory’s focus on numbers ignores the importance of insti-
tutional position and the level of power a member wields within the institution.
Thus scholars suggest that, instead of focusing on critical mass or on the need for
women to achieve a particular proportion of membership, it is important to exam-
ine how members maximize their policy effectiveness and individual power within
institutions (Grey 2006; Dahlerup 2006). Childs and Krook (2006b, 524 ) argue that
the critical mass debate must be reframed from focusing on when women matter to
“how the substantive representation of women occurs.” They also point out that the
diversity of women, as individuals rather than as a group, can provide a significant

amount of legislative impact. Therefore, the focus should be on “critical actors” rather
than on “critical mass,” in order to understand policy effectiveness (Childs and Krook
2006b, 528).
Critical mass and institutional power

in congress
.............................................................................................................................................
Taking into account the criticisms of critical mass theory and the findings from state
legislative research, we argue for a renewed focus on how numbers combine with
institutional position to affect the ability of descriptive representatives to influence
policy. If numbers matter, when and how do they matter? It is likely that individual
legislators look for a legislative niche to distinguish themselves to voters. Therefore
the probability that any one woman or minority legislator will make these issues a
part of their legislative agenda may be stronger when there are fewer members of the
group in Congress. However, to achieve policy outcomes, legislators need to be able
to form coalitions to convince other members to adopt their priorities. Thus we need
to investigate whether and how women and minorities try to utilize their numbers to
leverage their influence within Congress as a whole and within their party caucus.
The political culture of the Democratic Party emphasizes the importance of diver-
sity (Evans 2005; Sanbonmatsu 2002; Wolbrecht 2000; Peters and Rosenthal, 2010;
Rosenthal 2008). All of the African American members of Congress and the vast
majority of the Hispanic members are Democrats. Since the 1992 election, the growth
in the number of women in Congress is almost entirely driven by the election of
more Democratic women. Thus at the opening of the 111th Congress there were
fifty-six Democratic women and only seventeen Republican women serving in the
House of Representatives. Similarly, only four of the seventeen women serving in the
U.S. Senate are Republicans (Center for the American Woman and Politics 2009).
The concentration of women and minorities within the Democratic Party means
that these groups have their greatest influence on policy when Democrats are in the
majority and they have very little access to the agenda when Republicans are in the
majority.
Scholars need to examine whether and how women and minorities leverage their
numbers within the Democratic caucus to gain influence over the direction of policy.
For example, scholars like Whitby (1989), Canon (1999), and Fenno (2003) demon-
strate that African American legislators have long utilized the Congressional Black
Caucus to pressure Democratic party leadership to adopt their legislative priorities,
expand group membership on key committees, and move more African American
representatives into leadership positions on committees. Gertzog (2004) notes that
because of the need to be bipartisan, the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues
never developed the power of the Congressional Black Caucus. However, women have
used the caucus to craft legislation and build coalitions of support for individual
legislator’s bills.
Within the Democratic caucus, women have leveraged their numbers to demand
a seat at the party leadership table and more influential committee seats. Indeed,
when Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) was elected minority whip in the 107th Congress and
later rose to the positions of party leader and Speaker in the 110th Congress, the
Democratic women were an important part of her coalition (Rosenthal 2008; Peters
and Rosenthal, 2010; Swers and Larson 2005). In contrast to the situation of the
Democrats, the smaller proportion of women in the Republican caucus, combined
with a party culture that is less responsive to demands for increased diversity, limits
the ability of Republican women to enhance their individual power or work together
to advance group interests (Evans 2005; Swers and Larson 2005; Rosenthal 2008).
Leadership differences in substance

and style
.............................................................................................................................................
The movement of more women and minorities into positions of leadership in the
parties and committees offers an opportunity to examine differences in the sub-
stance and style of leadership. Studies of gender differences in leadership style in
state legislatures note that female committee chairs were more likely to emphasize
consensus building, compromise and open dialogue, while male chairs exhibit more
hierarchical and competitive leadership styles (Kathlene 1994; Rosenthal 1998, 2005).
While state legislatures vary in their level of professionalization and competitiveness,
Congress is a highly competitive and professionalized setting. Therefore the norms
of the institution and the set of skills necessary to gain election to Congress limit
the likelihood that there will be significant differences in leadership style among men
and women. However, gender, race, and ethnicity may affect the substance of rep-
resentatives’ leadership and their presentation of self. Thus scholars should examine
whether female and minority chairs are more likely to include issues related to group
concerns on the committee agenda and to include the differing perspectives of group
members in committee deliberations on the range of issues under a committee’s
jurisdiction. For example, one could examine whether female and minority chairs
schedule more hearings on group-related interests and whether they are more likely to
seek testimony at hearings from interest group advocates of minority group interests
such as women’s organizations and civil rights groups.
At the level of party leadership, the advancement of Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) to
Speaker of the House invites investigation of how gender impacts her leadership style.
Early analyses describe her management style as that of a fierce partisan, in the mold
of Newt Gingrich, rather than that of a consensus builder (Peters and Rosenthal,
2010; Rosenthal 2008). However, gender has influenced Pelosi’s decision-making.
Women make up a key portion of her coalition of support and several Democratic
women, particularly those from California, are among her closest advisors. Pelosi
has taken more direct control of the committee appointment process than previous
party leaders, and she has used her influence to place a premium on diversity in the
committee assignment process, seeking representation for minorities, women, and
conservative Democrats. In her public statements and her presentation of self, Pelosi
emphasizes her interest in women and children. She constantly refers to herself as
a mother and grandmother and asserts that these roles guide her political decision-
making. The presentation of herself as a mother and grandmother also limits the
ability of Republicans to paint her as a San Francisco liberal (Peters and Rosenthal,
2010; Rosenthal 2008; Swers and Larson 2005).
Diversity and intersectionality

.............................................................................................................................................
As minorities and women expand their numbers in Congress, the diversity of back-
grounds, ideologies, and experiences within these groups expands. Future research
needs to focus more on the diversity of opinion within and among minority groups
rather than simply exploring similarities and differences across groups. The majority
of research on racial minorities examines African American legislators. We need to
focus more in our studies on the impact of Latino representatives and on how they
respond to the interests of Latino sub-groups. Scholarship to date has shown that
Latinos vary in their opinions on a number of issues on the basis of their national
origin, generational status, level of acculturation, and feelings of group consciousness
(Sanchez 2006; Branton 2007; Rocca, Sanchez, and Skinks 2008). Future research
into both the descriptive and substantive representation of Latinos needs to take into
account variations in these characteristics.
We also need to investigate the impact of intersectionality to understand how
race, gender, and ethnic identities influence the decision-making of, and interactions
among, representatives. Do legislators experience conflict between the goals and
values of their varying identities? How do these overlapping identities affect repre-
sentatives’ policy priorities and relationships within the institution? At the state level,
Bratton, Haynie, and Reingold (2007) examine the agenda-setting behavior of African
American women in the lower chambers of ten state legislatures. The authors find that
African American women respond both to their gender and to their racial identities;
African American women sponsor more legislation in the interest of women and of
blacks than other groups do. The authors also note an interesting ‘ “critical mass” ’
effect whereby African American women are less likely to sponsor women’s interest
bills in chambers that have a high proportion of women (see also Barrett 1995). Orey,
Smooth, et al. (2007), examining the one state legislature with the highest proportion
of black representative (Mississippi), find that African American women are more
likely than any other group to introduce progressive legislation, including women’s
interest bills. Contrary to expectations, they also note that legislation introduced by
African American women is no less likely to be defeated than legislation passed by
white males.
Fraga, Lopez, et al. (2007) look at the increasing role of Latina women in state
legislatures. Using elite level interviews, the authors look at differences in policy
priorities, legislative behavior, and policy success between Latinas and Latino men.
They conclude that, although there are a number of representational similarities,
several differences between the two groups emerged. Latinas place a greater emphasis
than Latino males on representing the interests of multiple minority groups. As in
the findings of the gender and race literature, Latinas are more likely than their
male counterparts to introduce and successfully pass legislation dealing with a broad
Latino agenda.
At the congressional level, Hawkesworth (2003) finds that African American and
Hispanic Democratic women were united in their opposition to welfare reform and
used their floor time to speak against the stereotyping of welfare mothers as irrespon-
sible, poor minority women. By contrast, minority men and white women in the
Democratic Party split their votes on the welfare reform bill. Thus minority women
felt a responsibility to advocate for the interests of poor minority women. (See also
Garcia Bedolla, Tate, and Wong 2005.) Similarly, Dodson (2006) finds that, when
Bill Clinton became president in 1992, abortion rights supporters hoped to achieve
legislative victories after twelve years of Republican control of the presidency. She
notes that white women focused their attention on the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill
that would codify the right to abortion granted by Roe vWade. By contrast, minority
women were more committed to overturning the Hyde amendment, which prevents
federal Medicaid dollars from being used to fund abortions. These minority women
placed a priority on facilitating access to abortion services for their poor constituents
rather than on codifying the abstract right (Dodson 2006; Dodson, Carroll et al. 1995).
More work needs to be done on how the overlapping identities of race, gender, and/or
ethnicity influence members’ policy priorities and the type of coalitions they build to
support their initiatives at the congressional level.
Moving beyond race and gender issues

.............................................................................................................................................
The impact of descriptive representation on women’s issues and civil rights con-
cerns has been clearly established. Scholars need to focus more on the question
of whether women and minorities bring a different perspective to issues outside
of what is traditionally considered gender and race issues. Future research should
look at deliberation within committees to examine whether women and minorities

advocate for the interests of their group by addressing how a range of policies will
differentially impact the group. For example, in an analysis of senators’ legislative
proposals on defense issues, Swers (2007, 2008) finds that women are more likely
than their male partisan colleagues to focus on defense policies related to benefits for
military personnel and veterans, such as health and education. These policies reflect
the social welfare concerns that are traditionally associated with women. Moreover,
women are also more likely to prioritize issues related to the needs of women who
are serving in the military, from participation of women in combat to shining a
spotlight on the incidence of sexual assault within the military (Swers, forthcoming).
Additionally, Gamble (2007) shows that African American on legislative commit-
tees are more engaged and involved in the deliberative process when issues such as
discrimination and crime are considered. Further examination of deliberation in
committees and on the floor could highlight how the different perspective derived
from shared experiences as a female and/or as member of a racial or ethnic minority
permeates legislative debates among members and impacts policy outcomes.
Conclusion
.............................................................................................................................................
The integration of women and minorities into Congress and the state legislatures has
spurred a plethora of research on the substantive and symbolic impact of electing
descriptive representatives. While controversy persists over the need for and legit-
imacy of descriptive representation, the existing research does provide important
insight into the influence of identity on legislative behavior. Research on gender
and race (primarily on African Americans) indicates that the social identity of the
legislator influences policy preferences and decision-making about what policy pri-
orities to pursue and how much political capital to expend on these initiatives.
Descriptive representatives have a particularly important impact at the agenda-setting
stage, bringing new problems and policy solutions to the legislative arena. Moreover,
descriptive representatives act as vigorous advocates for group interests, expending
scarce resources of time, staff, and political capital in pursuit of group goals.
Having established that social identity does shape legislative behavior, scholars are
now trying to delineate the circumstances in which gender, race, and ethnicity are
most likely to influence representatives’ decision-making. Future research will con-
tinue to examine how identity interacts with institutional norms, electoral incentives,
and the political opportunity structure to influence members’ policy choices and
legislative activities. As women and racial and ethnic minorities continue to gain
seniority in Congress and enter the party leadership structure, scholars will be able
to examine more closely how identity impacts leadership style and whether these
members leverage their leadership positions to advance group interests.
As the integration of women and minorities into Congress continues, the number
of, and diversity among, minority group legislators will continue to grow. It is esti-
mated that, by 2050, Latinos, already the largest minority group in the U.S., will triple
in size and account for the majority of the country’s population growth. By 2050,
Latinos will make up 29 percent of the U.S. population, a 15 percent increase from
2005. In comparison, non-Hispanic whites, who currently account for 67 percent of
the population will make up only 47 percent; while Asian Americans will increase
from 5 percent to 9 percent, and African American will remain roughly the same at
about 13 percent (Pew Research Center 2008). The changing dynamics of the U.S.
population will provide more opportunities to test theories about the impact of
descriptive representation on the substantive representation of group interests. Fur-
thermore, as more women and minorities are elected, there will be greater ideological,
partisan, and regional diversity within minority groups and more opportunities to
investigate the influence of overlapping identities of race, ethnicity, and gender on
legislative behavior.
References
Acker, J. 1992. Gendered Institution: From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions. Contemporary
Sociology, 21: 565–9.
Alvarez, M., and Garcia Bedolla, L. 2003. The Foundations of Latino Voter Partisanship:
Evidence from the 2000 Election. Journal of Politics, 65: 31–49.
Barreto, M. A. 2007. Si se puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino Voters.
American Political Science Review, 101: 425–41.
Barrett, E. 1995. The Policy Priorities of African American Women in State Legislatures.
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20: 223–47.
Baumgartner, F. R., and Jones, B. D. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beckwith, K. 2007. Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive and Substantive Representation
of Women. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40: 27–49.
Branton, R. 2007. Latino Attitudes Toward Various Areas of Public Policy: The Importance of
Acculturation. Political Research Quarterly, 60: 293–303.
Bratton, K. A. 2002. The Effect of Legislative Diversity on Agenda Setting: Evidence from Six
State Legislatures. American Politics Research, 30: 115–42.
. 2005. Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in
State Legislatures. Politics and Gender, 1: 97–125.
. 2006. The Behavior and Success of Latino Legislators: Evidence from the States. Social
Science Quarterly, 87: 1136–57.
, and Haynie, K. L. 1999. Agenda-Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures:
The Effects of Gender and Race. Journal of Politics, 61: 658–79.
, , and Reingold, B. 2007. Agenda Setting and African American Women in State
Legislatures. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 28: 71–96.
Brunell, T. L., Anderson, C. J., and Cremona, R. K. 2008. Descriptive Representation,
District Demography, and Attitudes toward Congress Among African Americans. Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 33: 223–44.
Burns, N., Lehman Schlozman, K., and Verba, S. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action:
Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cameron, C., Epstein, D., and O’Halloran, S. 1996. Do Majority–Minority Districts Maxi-
mize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? The American Political Science Review,
90: 794–812.
Canon, D. T. 1999. Race, Redistricting and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of
Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carroll, S. 2002. Representing Women: Congresswomen’s Perception of Their Representa-
tional Roles. Pp. 50–68 in Women Transforming Congress, ed. C. S. Rosenthal. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 2009. Fact Sheet: Women in the U.S.
Congress 2009. New Brunswick: Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey.
Childs, S., and Krook, M. L. 2006a. Gender and Politics: The State of the Art. Politics &
Gender, 26: 18–28.
, and . 2006b. Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes.
Politics & Gender, 2: 522–30.
Clayton, D. M. 2000. African Americans and the Politics of Congressional Redistricting. New
York: Garland Publishing.
Cramer Walsh, K. 2002. Resonating to Be Heard: Gendered Debate on the Floor of the
House. Pp. 00–00 in Women Transforming Congress, ed. C. S. Rosenthal. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Crowley, J. E. 2004. When Tokens Matter. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29: 109–36.
Dahl, R. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahlerup, D. 2006. The Story of the Theory of Critical Mass. Politics and Gender, 2: 511–22.
Davidson, C, and Grofman, B., eds. 1994. Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the
Voting Rights Act 1965–1990. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dawson, M. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African American Voting. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Diamond, I., and Hartsock, N. 1981. Beyond Interests in Politics: A Comment on Vir-
ginia Sapiro’s “When are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of
Women.” American Political Science Review, 75: 717–21.
Dodson, D. L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
, and Carroll, S. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. New
Brunswick: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers, The State University
of New Jersey.
, Carroll, S. J., Mandel, R. B., Kleeman, K. E., Schreiber, R., and Liebowitz, D. 1995.
Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact of Women in the 103rd Congress. New Brunswick: Center for
the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Dolan, J. 1997. Support for Women’s Interests in the 103rd Congress: The Distinct Impact of
Congressional Women. Women & Politics, 18: 81–94.
Dolan, K. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Dovi, S. 2002. Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Women, Black, or
Latino Do? American Political Science Review, 96: 745–54.
Duerst-Lahti, G. 2002. Knowing Congress as a Gendered Institution: Manliness and the
Implications of Women in Congress. Pp. 20–49 in Women Transforming Congress, ed.
C. S. Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Elder, L. 2008. Whither Republican Women: The Growing Partisan Gap among Women in
Congress. The Forum, 6: Issue 1, Article 13.
Evans, J. J. 2005. Women, Partisanship, and the Congress. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Fenno, R. F. 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and Their Constituents. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Fox, R. L., and Lawless, J. L. 2005. To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent
Political Ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49: 642–59.
Fraga, L. R., Lopez, L., Martinez-Ebers, V., and Ramirez, R. 2007. Gender and Ethnicity:
Patterns of Electoral Success and Legislative Advocacy among Latina and Latino State
Officials in Four States. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 28: 121–45.
Frankovic, K. A. 1977. Sex and Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives 1961 1975. American
Politics Quarterly, 5: 315–30.
Frederick, B. 2009. Are Female House Members still more Liberal in a Polarized Era? The
Conditional Nature of the Relationship between Descriptive and Substantive Representa-
tion. Congress and the Presidency, 36: 181–202.
. 2010. Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Congress and the
Presidency, 37: 103–24.
Gamble, K L. 2007. Black Political Representation: An Examination of Legislative Activity
within U.S. House Committees. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32: 421–46.
Garcia Bedolla, L., Tate, K., and Wong, J. 2005. Indelible Effects: The Impact of Women
if Color in the U.S. Congress. Pp. 152–75 in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and
Future, 2nd edition., ed. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gay, C. 2002. Spirals of Trust? The Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship
Between Citizens and Their Government. American Journal of Political Science, 46: 717–33.
. 2007. Legislating Without Constraints: The Effect of Minority Districting on Legislators’
Responsiveness to Constituency Preferences. Journal of Politics, 69: 442–56.
Gelb, J., and Lief Palley, M. 1996. Women and Public Policies: Reassessing Gender Politics.
Charlotsville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
Gerber, A. 1996. African Americans’ Congressional Careers and the Democratic House Dele-
gation.Journal of Politics, 58: 831–45.
Gerrity, J. C., Osborn, T., and Morehouse Mendez, J. 2007. Women and Representation: A
Different View of the District. Politics & Gender, 3: 179–200.
Gertzog, I. N. 2004. Women and Power on Capitol Hill: Reconstructing the Congressional
Women’s Caucus. Boulder: Lynn Rienner.
Grey, S. 2006. Numbers and Beyond: The Relevance of Critical Mass in Gender Research.
Politics & Gender, 2: 492–502.
Griffin, J. D. 2006. Senate Apportionment as a Source of Political Inequality. Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 31: 405–32.
, and Flavin, P. 2007. Racial Differences in Information, Expectations, and Accountabil-
ity. Journal of Politics, 69: 220–36.
, and Newman, B. 2008. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hawkesworth, M. 2003. Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of
Raced–Gendered Institutions. American Political Science Review, 97: 529–50.
Haynie, K. L. 2001. African American Legislators in the American States. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hedge, D., Button, J., and Spear, M. 1996. Accounting for the Quality of Black Legislative
Life: The View From the States. American Journal of Political Science, 40: 82–98.
Hero, R. E., and Tolbert, C. 1995. Latinos and Substantive Representation in the U.S. House
of Representatives: Direct, Indirect, or Nonexistent? American Journal of Political Science, 39:
640–52.
Huddy, L., and Terkildsen, N. 1993. The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women
Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office. Political Research Quarterly, 46: 503–25.
Hutchings, V. L., McClerking, H. K., and Charles, G. U. 2004. Congressional Represen-
tation of Black Interests: Recognizing the Importance of Stability. Journal of Politics, 66:
450–68.
Johnson, C. M., Duerst-Lahti, G., and Norton, N. H. 2007. Creating Gender: The Sexual
Politics of Welfare Policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Kanter, R. M. 1977. Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and
Responses to Token Women. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965–90.
Kathlene, L. 1994. Power and Influence of State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of
Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates. American Political Science Review, 88:
560–76.
. 2005. In a Different Voice: Women and the Policy Process. Pp. 213–29 in Women and
Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kaufmann, K. M., Petrocik, J. R., and Shaw, D. R. 2008. Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and
Myths About American Voters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kenney, S. J. 1996. New Research on Gendered Political Institutions. Political Research Quar-
terly, 49: 445–66.
Kerr, B., and Miller, W. 1997. Latino Representation, It’s Direct and Indirect. American
Journal of Political Science, 41: 1066–71.
Kinder, D. R., and Winter, N. 2001. Exploring the Racial Divide: Blacks, Whites, and Opinion
on National Policy. American Journal of Political Science, 45: 439–56.
Kingdon, J. W. 2005. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd edition. New York: Long-
man.
Lawless, J. L. 2004. Politics of Presence: Women in the House and Symbolic Representation.
Political Research Quarterly, 53: 81–99.
, and Fox, R. L. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
, and Theriault, S. M. 2005. Will She Stay or Will She Go? Career Ceilings and
Women’s Retirement from the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30: 581–96.
Leader, S. G. 1977. The Policy Impact of Elected Women Officials. Pp. 00–00 in The Impact of
the Electoral Process, ed. J. Cooper and L. Maisel. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Lee, F. E., and Oppenheimer, B. L. 1999. Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of
Equal Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levy, D., Tien, C., and Aved, R. 2002. Do Differences Matter? Women Members of Congress
and the Hyde Amendment. Women & Politics, 23: 105–27.
Lublin, D. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests
in Congress. Princeton: University of Princeton Press.
, and Voss, D. S. 2003. The Missing Middle: Why Median Voter Theory Can’t Save
Democrats from Singing the Boll-Weevil Blues. Journal of Politics, 65: 227–37.
MacDonald, J. A., and O’Brien, E. E. Forthcoming. Quasi-Experimental Design, Con-
stituency, and Advancing Women’s Interests: ‘Critically’ Reexamining the Influence of Gen-
der on Substantive Representation. Political Research Quarterly.
Mansbridge, J. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A
Contingent ‘Yes.’ Journal of Politics, 61: 628–57.
Martinez-Ebers, V., Fraga, L., Lopez, L., and Vega, A. 2000. Latino Interests in Education,
Health and Criminal Justice Policy. PS: Political Science and Politics, 33: 547–54.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., and Rosenthal, H. 1997. Income Redistribution and the Realign-
ment of American Politics. Washington, D.C: AEI Press.
Minta, M. D. 2009. Legislative Oversight and the Substantive Representation of Black and
Latino Interests in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34: 193–218.
Norton, N. H. 1995. Women, It’s Not Enough to Be Elected: Committee Position Makes a
Difference. Pp. 115–40 in Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, ed. G. Duerst-Lahti
and R. M. Kelly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
. 1999. Committee Influence over Controversial Policy: The Reproductive Policy Case.
Policy Studies Journal, 27: 203–16.
. 2002. Transforming Congress from the inside: Women in Committee. Pp. 00–00 in
Women Transforming Congress, ed. C. S. Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Orey, B. D., Smooth, W., Adams, K. S., and Harris-Clark, K. 2007. Race and Gender Mat-
ter: Refining Models of Legislative Policy Making in State Legislatures. Journal of Women,
Politics, and Policy, 28: 97–119.
Overby, M. L., and Cosgrove, K. M. 1996. Unintended Consequences? Racial Redistricting
and the Representation of Minority Interests. Journal of Politics, 58: 540–50.
Peters, Jr., R. M., and Rosenthal, C. S. 2010. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the New American
Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pew Research Center. 2008. U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050. Social and Demographic
Trends. Washington, D.C: Pew Hispanic Center.
Phillips, A. 1991. Engendering Democracy. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University
Press.
. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1998. Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should it Matter Who our Representa-
tives Are? Pp. 00–00 in Feminism and Politics, ed. A. Phillips. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkley: University of California Press.
Poggione, S. 2004. Exploring Gender Differences in State Legislators’ Policy Preferences.
Political Research Quarterly, 57: 305–14.
Preuhs, R. R. 2005. Descriptive Representation, Legislative Leadership, and Direct Democ-
racy: Latino Influence on English only Laws in the States, 1984–2002. State Politics and Policy
Quarterly, 5: 203–24.
Reingold, B. 1992. Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators.
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17: 509–37.
. 2000. Representing Women: Sex Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and
California. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Rocca, M. S., Sanchez, G. R., and Uscinski, J. 2008. Personal Attributes and Latino Voting
Behavior in Congress. Social Science Quarterly, 89: 392–405.
Rosenthal, C. S. 1998. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures.
New York: Oxford University Press.
. 2005. Women Leading Legislatures: Getting There and Getting Things Done. Pp. 197–
212 in Women in Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox, 2nd
edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 2008. Climbing Higher: Opportunities and Obstacles Within the Party System. Pp.
197–222 in Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. B. Reingold. Boulder:
Lynne Reiner.
Rossiter, C., ed. 1961. The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay.
New York: Mentor Book.
Saint-Germain, M. 1989. Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women
on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature. Social Science Quarterly, 70: 956–68.
Sapiro, V. 1981. Research Frontier Essay: When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of
Political Representation of Women. American Political Science Review, 75: 701–16.
Sanbonmatsu, K. 2002. Gender Equality, Political Parties, and the Politics of Women’s Place.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sanchez, G. 2006. The Role of Group Consciousness in Latino Public Opinion. Political
Research Quarterly, 59: 435–46.
Santos, A., and Huerta, J. C. 2001. An Analysis of Descriptive and Substantive Latino
Representation in Congress. Pp. 57–75 in Representation of Minority Groups in the U.S.:
Implications for the Twenty-First Century, ed. C. E. Menifield. Lanham, Maryland: Austin
and Winfield Publishers.
Schwindt-Bayer, L. A., and Corbetta, R. 2004. Gender Turnover and Roll-Call Voting in
the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29: 215–29.
Shogan, C. 2001. Speaking out: An Analysis of Democratic and Republican Women-Invoked
Rhetoric of the 105th Congress. Women & Politics, 23: 129–46.
Shotts, K. W. 2003. Does Racial Redistricting Cause Conservative Policy Outcomes? Policy
Preferences of Southern Representatives in the 1980s and 1990s. Journal of Politics, 65: 216–26.
Smooth, W. 2008. Gender, Race, and the Exercise of Power and Influence. Pp. 175–96 in
Legislative Women: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. B. Reingold. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Swain, C. M. 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in
Congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Swers, M. L. 1998. Are Congresswomen More Likely to Vote for Women’s Issue Bills Than
Their Male Colleagues? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23: 435–48.
. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
. 2007. Building a Reputation on National Security: The Impact of Stereotypes Related to
Gender and Military Experience. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32: 559–96.
. 2008. Policy Leadership Beyond ‘Women’s’ Issues. Pp. 117–34 in Legislative Women:
Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. B. Reingold. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Forthcoming. Making Policy in the New Senate Club: Women and Representation in the
U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swers, M., and Larson, C. 2005. Women and Congress: Do They Act as Advocates for
Women’s Issues? Pp. 00–00 in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, 2nd
edition, ed. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tatalovich, R., and Schier, D. 1993. The Persistence of Ideological Cleavage in Voting on
Abortion Legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973–1988. American Politics Quar-
terly, 21: 125–39.
Tate, K. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the
U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, S. 1991. The Impact of Women on State Legislatures. Journal of Politics, 53: 958–76.
. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 1997. Why Gender Matters: The Perceptions of Women Officeholders. Women and
Politics, 17: 27–53.
Welch, S. and Hibbing, J. 1984. Hispanic Representation in the U.S. Congress. Social Science
Quarterly, 65: 328–35.
Whitby, K. J. 1989. Measuring Congressional Responsiveness to the Policy Interests of Black

Constituents. Social Science Quarterly, 68: 367–77.
, and Krause, G. A. 2001. Race, Issue Heterogeneity, and Public Policy: The Republi-
can Revolution in the 104th Congress and the Representation of African American Policy
Interests. British Journal of Political Science, 31: 555–72.
Williams, M. 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal
Representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wolbrecht, C. 2000. The Politics of Women’s Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
. 2002. Female Legislators and the Women’s Rights Agenda. Pp. 170–239 in Women
Transforming Congress, ed. C. S. Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Representation AND Responsiveness: Oup Uncorrected Proof - Proof, 8/10/2010, Spi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Representation AND Responsiveness: Oup Uncorrected Proof - Proof, 8/10/2010, Spi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

978–0–19–955994–7 11-Schickler-Lee-c11-drv Schickler-Lee (Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 239 of 894 October 8, 2010 12:55

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – PROOF, 8/10/2010, SPi

242 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

in the demographic makeup of its membership. While Congress remains a largely

descriptive representation 243

Theories of representation and the

244 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

Descriptive representation and the

The expansion of representation resulting from the creation of majority–minority

descriptive representation 245

246 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

Descriptive representation and

The vast majority of research on the impact of descriptive representation focuses

descriptive representation 247

248 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

Voting behavior and representation

descriptive representation 249

250 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

descriptive representation 251

Beyond voting behavior: Exploring the

252 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

descriptive representation 253

in state legislatures is crucial to achieving substantive representation of black interests.

254 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

representation among racial minorities. The numerous studies of policy diﬀerences

Descriptive representatives and vigorous advocacy

descriptive representation 255

The importance of institutional

256 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

to congressional behavior. At the individual level, Democratic women are generally

descriptive representation 257

Critical mass and institutional

The behavior of individuals within an institution is strongly conditioned by the

Race, gender, and institutional norms

258 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

Critical mass and legislative behavior

descriptive representation 259

260 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

diversity of women, as individuals rather than as a group, can provide a significant

Critical mass and institutional power

descriptive representation 261

Leadership differences in substance

262 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

Diversity and intersectionality

descriptive representation 263

Moving beyond race and gender issues

264 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

look at deliberation within committees to examine whether women and minorities

descriptive representation 265

266 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

descriptive representation 267

268 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

descriptive representation 269

270 michele l. swers & stella m. rouse

descriptive representation 271

Whitby, K. J. 1989. Measuring Congressional Responsiveness to the Policy Interests of Black

You might also like