Multiple Sponsorship and Bill Success in U. S. State Legislatures William P, Browne Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4, (Nov., 1985), pp. 483-488 Stable URL hitp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicsici=0362-9805% 281985 11% 29 10%3A4%3C483%3AMSABSI%3E2.0,CO%3B2-E Legislative Studies Quarterly is currently published by Comparative Legislative Research Center. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www jstor.org/joumals/clre.him. ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Mon Sep 4 00:38:43 2006WILLIAM P, BROWNE Central Michigan University Multiple Sponsorship And Bill Success In U.S. State Legislatures ‘This research tests how increasing the numbers of sponsors alfect the success of legislation. & total of 1,943 bills and resolutions on the elderly, introduced in four US. state levsatures in a 23-year period, were analyzed. The resuls indicate that large numbers of sponsors, eight or mote, more than double the success rate for these bills and resolutions, The support scores for these “multiplesponsor bills” is higher than for lepsation sponsored by majorty-party members or lssative specialists Political scientists have done little research on legislative sponsor- ship (but see Matthews, 1960; Olson and Nonidez, 1972; Campbell, 1982; Browne and Ringquist, 1984). As a result there isa paucity of empirical data fon who sponsors legislation, why they do so, and what-if any implications there are to patterns of sponsorships. This research note suggests that in state legislatures the number of sponsors may well be an important factor in pre- dicting the likelihood of a bill’s success. Methods and Purpose of This Study ‘This study uses data collected over a 23-year period, 1956-1978, from the state legislatures of Florida, lowa, Michigan, and New Jersey.! The data base includes each separate item of legislation which specifically addresses the elderly residents of those states. The following variables are analyzed: bills and resolutions proposed, bills and resolutions enacted, committee assignment of bill or resolution, number of sponsors, identity of sponsors, partisan affiliation of sponsors, committee assignment of sponsors, and com- mittee and house leadership positions of sponsors. Included are 1,943 proposed bills and resolutions, 256 enacted legislative items, 921 different legislative sponsors,? and 14 types of committees. Each of the data collectors and analysts involved in the study was struck by the variety in numbers of sponsors; there is no obvious explanation for that variety in the literature. Indeed, Campbell (1982, p. 420) has called for specific research on whether bills with many cosponsors or particularly influential sponsors gain greater support. There certainly is reason to expect, LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, X, 4, November 1985 483484 William P. Browne TABLE | Percentage of Bills Passed, ‘By Number of Sponsors and by State Number of| Sponsors Towa Florida —-NewJersey Michigan Total One 11.0(100) 101078 6944) 108.49) 9.6712), Twot thes 9.1 (1) 18.7198) 7.3193) 39.201) 10.0603), Fourtosven 194 G1) 231 G3) 117037) 133.05) 136.286) Hightormore 488 (88) 30.0 47) 170 @4) 142106) 263.35) Overall rte of passge —-26.5(230) 15.3 (536) 9.9568) 9.5 (602) 13.2936) that legislation with such backing will more frequently succeed. Campbell himself notes several goal-oriented reasons why popular bills and resolutions ‘may attract more cosponsors, by a “bandwagon effect.” In addition, cospon- sorship might well be a tactic to broaden coalition support for an item of legislation. Larger numbers of sponsors may increase the number of votes a bill gets, if fellow members use the sponsors as referents in their decision making (Patterson, 1959; Monsma, 1969; Hedlund, 1975). Similarly, as Campbell (1982) suggests, influential cosponsors may secure greater support for a bill or resolution, ‘The curiosity of the researchers, Campbell’s call for research, and the ‘ease with which this data could be drawn together prompted this test. The operational hypothesis predicts that as the number of its sponsors increases, s0 does the likelihood of a bill succeeding. Should this hypothesis hold true, it may be that the test identifies an important factor in predicting the chances of a bill’s success in a state legislature The Data ‘The hypothesis is not quite accurate in describing patterns of spon- sorship, however. The data were subjected to regression analysis, both with raw data and by percentages, and no strong relationships were identified either in the aggregate or by state. Several factors explain that failure. The prepon- derance of items have either one (37 percent) or more than eight (17.4 per- cent) sponsors. Several categories between two and seven have very small ‘numbers of sponsors; and success rates vary greatly by category, Asa result, any single increase in number of sponsors does not appear to be of great importance in predicting a bill or resolution’s chance of passage.Multiple Sponsorship 485 The general endency does hold for each state ifthe dataare grouped, however. This is ilustrated in Table 1, which gives the percentage of bills passed by number of sponsors. These data, which total to rates of legislation passed by state, also make clear the particular importance of large, if not Increasingly larger, numbers of sponsors. The success of items with eight or more sponsors is much higher than for any other category. Only Michigan's succes ratio increases ata low level for what wil be labeled “mmultiplesponsor bill.” Thus, the data for at least three of the states suggest either that large numbers of cosponsors are very advantageous to an item’ passage or that cosponsors are simply attracted to the more popular items. This latter inter pretation is more open to question, since neatly 80 percent ofthe “multiple sponsor bills” stil fil to secure passage The important relationship between multiple sponsors and legislative success can better be demonstrated over time by considering the relationship a more recent phenomenon. Again, simple percentage data on rates of passage describe the change over time. Table 2 shows that single-sponsor legislation fared best inthe period from 1956 to 1960, partly because state Tegslatures ‘were only then beginning to allow cosponsotship. After that period, each of the four state legislatures favored multiplesponsor bills. For lowa and Florida, this rate of success continued to increase in the 1970s, Asa result from 1961 to 1978, a multiplesponsor bill is nearly three times as likely’ to succeed asa singlesponsor bil Since the hypothesis held some merit when multiple sponsorship ‘was identified as an important indicator of success, the additional influence variables associated with the sponsors were included in the analysis in order to test and compare ther effect. Partisanship and three measures of legislative specialization (chair of involved committee, committee membership, and suceess in passing three or more related aging bills) ate related to both single and multiple sponsorship (Table 3).5 Both the Matthews and the Olson and Nonidez studies noted the importance of specialization in inluencing leis lation, as did an article by Freeman (1983), but multiple sponsorship was a ‘more important factor here. Multiplesponsor bills passed at a rate nearly three times greater than that for single sponsor ones. The rate approximately tripled for most status characteristics when these were associated with multiple sponsorship as well. The data suggest thatthe number of sponsors is, when taken alone, more important for the bll’s passage than the characteristics of those sponsors. ‘An additional comparison shows that while 20.1 percent of all ‘multiple sponsor bills sueceed, the success rats foreach of the other influence factors falls below that figure. Majrity-party bills sueceed 14.8 percent of the time for all bills and resolutions. Committee chairs have a 19.2 percent success rate while that figure is 14.4 percent for all committee membersWilliam P. Browne 486 ‘osuods se soyquriog ye to stosuods aus 20 wo ui SMG eopoyaut Aco ¥6W9 TUL, Gon crt (sn sor aper — @onon (e9eoc Met (es net GOO GrDEs LOE GTO @HLLY — oDOTT mot (HLT GOTT GOL GLDEL —DOSL HBT — aus TLBT (HOKE — ODL YO =— OE. UERY — COMET —_oLer-I96T no ones @o DEE —GDELE — EDO —_as6T9561 stotuods —_sosuods ‘adnm atau are sioruods oro sosuods —rosuods ——ysiosuods—sowuods_——_poweg aun sidniny aug “adm tug “adr at {819g MAN pu exo stosuods ajdrymny 40 affurg pue ‘oreig poureg out Aq, “poseg se Jo ofenuaoI0q caTava,Multiple Sponsorship 487 TABLES Percentage of Bills Passed, by Number of Sponsors And Characteristics of Legsative Sponsors (All States) Sponsors Who Were Sponsors Members of atleast Numberof of Majority Members of Committee Throe Enacted Sponsors Party Committee Chairpersons? Aging Bills Al Bills 1080332) 11.0200) 4807) 12005) 9.6657) gmt ormore® 31.7145) 34.869) 43416) 385.3), 27.8 47) AUBlls 145 (872) 16.7412) 20.1(102)— 19.1068) 16.3.(1870) “Averages ae inflated by the reduced min this table chairs of committee having jurisdiction only. The following 15 types of committes received age-based proposals in the four states: appropriations, agriculture, conser: tion and recreation, commerce, busines and industry, constitutional change, eduction, government operations, health and welate, housing and urban development/tfars, human resoures, judiciary, social services, tation, and transportation. only the first three sponsors of each bill are analyzed, In the fist category, wo ot more sponsors must belong to majority party: in the stoond and thed categories, sponsor belongs to that committee having jurisdiction over bill: and in the fourth ‘ategory, only one sponsor neod have sponsored other enacted aging bills and 17.9 percent for those who have had three or more related bills enacted, This provides evidence which suggests the strategic importance of multiple: sponsored legislation, especially in the absences of stronger decisional referents. Conclusion ‘These results indicate that patterns of multiple sponsorship relate to a greater success rate for state legislation. The reasons for this are not obvious, since legislator opinions are unknown, but multiple sponsorship ‘may play some part in referent decision making within legislatures. On the fother hand, multiple sponsorship may more simply be a bandwagon effect of legislators wanting to be identified with a popular bill. In the absence of any well-developed theories of sponsorship, the most that data like this can do is point the way for additional research. As a follow through, given this high success rate for multiple sponsor bills, one could suggest the utility in studying both why coalitions form among cosponsors and why house members.488 William P. Browne are attracted 10 vote for bills having this characteristic. The betweentate variation, with especially high levels of success for lowa and much lower ones in Michigan, make the result of such analyses of even more likely interest. William P. Browne is Professor of Political Science, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48859, NOTES 1. This study owes a great deal to Laurily Keir Epstein, who collaborated on data gathering and the initial draft of other project papers. We thank her and Myrna Froning, who helped sather the low ata 2, Data were collected on the identity of primary sponsors only. We opera- tionalized these asthe frst three sponsors listed for each bill, 3. These include standing committees on such matters as appropriation and taxation and a variety of committees oversecing services to the elderly, 4, Towa committees were able to report bills out under committee sponsor: ship. These were included under “multiplesponsor bills” rather than separately because ‘their success rates were comparable, Committe rates were 49.3 percent while individual bills with eight or more sponsors succeeded 41.2 percent ofthe time, 5. Otherhouse leaders were not included because they sponsored few aging bill REFERENCES Browne, William P. and Delbert J. Ringquist. 1984. “Measuring Legislative Output Through Periods of Change: An Analysis of Four States." Delivered at the ‘Annual Mecting of the Midwest Politial Science Associaton, Chicago. Campbet, James F, 1982. “Cosponsoring Legislation in the US. Congress," Legislative ‘Studies Quarterly 7415-422. Freeman, Patricia K, 1983. “Comparing Members Perceptions with ‘Objective’ Data on Lesishative Activity,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8:481-493, Hedlund, Ronald D. 1975, “Perceptions of Decisional Referens in Legislative Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Seience 19:527-542, Matthews, Donald R. 1960. U.S, Senators and Their World, New York: Random Howse. Monsma, Stephen V. 1969. “Integration and Goal Attainment as Functions of Informal Legislative Groups," Western Political Quateriy 22:19-28, Olson, David M, and Cynthia T. Nonidez. 1972. “Measures of Legislative Performance in the US. House of Representatives,” Mdwest Journal of Poltcal Science 14:269-277, Patterson, Samuel C. 1959. “Patterns of Interpersonal Relations in a State Legislative ‘Group: The Wisconsin Assembly," Public Opinion Quarterly 23:101-109.