The race for the White House is at the top of the ticket, but voters will also choose more than 5,000 state legislators in November 2016. While voters elect and hold the president responsible for one job and state legislators for another, the outcomes of their elections are remarkably related. In analyses of elite and voter behavior in state legislative elections, I show that legislators affiliated with the president’s party—especially during unpopular presidencies—are the most likely to be challenged, and compared with individual assessments of the state legislature, changes in presidential approval have at least three times the impact on voters’ decision-making in state legislative elections. Thus, while state legislatures wield considerable policymaking power, legislators’ electoral fates appear to be largely out of their control.
AndersonChristopher J.WardDaniel S. 1996. Barometer elections in comparative perspective. Electoral Studies15 (4): 447–60.
2.
ArceneauxKevin. 2006. The federal face of voting: Are elected officials held accountable for the functions relevant to their office?Political Psychology27 (5): 731–54.
3.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 1992. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
BerryWilliam D.BerkmanMichael B.SchneidermanStuart. 2000. Legislative professionalism and incumbent reelection: The development of institutional boundaries. The American Political Science Review94 (4): 859–74.
5.
BishopBradfordHatchRebecca. 2012. Perception of state parties and voting in subnational elections. Unpublished manuscript. Durham, NC: Duke University.
6.
CampbellAngus. 1960. Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. The Public Opinion Quarterly24 (3): 397–418.
7.
CampbellJames E.1986. Presidential coattails and midterm losses in state legislative elections. The American Political Science Review80 (1): 45–63.
8.
CarseyThomas M.WrightGerald C.1998. State and national factors in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. American Journal of Political Science42 (3): 994–1002.
9.
CassMichael. 22April2012. GOP expects to increase majorities in TN House, Senate. The Tennessean.
10.
ChubbJohn E.1988. Institutions, the economy, and the dynamics of state elections. The American Political Science Review82 (1): 133–54.
11.
CillizzaChris. 4November2015. The 2015 election tightened the Republican stranglehold on state government. The Washington Post. Available from https://www.washingtonpost.com.
12.
De BoefSuzannaKellstedtPaul M.2004. The political (and economic) origins of consumer confidence. American Journal of Political Science48 (4): 633–49.
13.
DubinMichael J.2007. Party affiliations in the state legislatures: A year by year summary, 1796–2006. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
14.
EriksonRobert S.1988. The puzzle of midterm loss. The Journal of Politics50 (4): 1011–29.
15.
EriksonRobert S.FilippovMikhail G.2001. Electoral balancing in federal and sub-national elections: The case of Canada. Constitutional Political Economy12 (4): 313–31.
16.
FearonJames. 1999. Electoral Accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds. PrzeworskiAdamStokesSusan C.ManinBernard. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FerejohnJohn. 1986. Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50 (1): 5–25.
18.
FiorinaMorris P.1994. Divided government in the American states: A byproduct of legislative professionalism?American Political Science Review88 (2): 304–16.
HamiltonAlexander or MadisonJames8February1788. Federalist No. 52: The House of Representatives. New York Daily Packet.
21.
HammKeith E.HoganRobert E. 2008. Campaign finance laws and candidacy decisions in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly61 (3): 458–67.
22.
HoganRobert E.2004. Challenger emergence, incumbent success, and electoral accountability in state legislative elections. The Journal of Politics66 (4): 1283–303.
23.
JacobsonGary C.1989. Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946–86. The American Political Science Review83 (3): 773–93.
24.
KahnemanDanielFrederickShane. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25.
KaplanM.GoldsteinK. R.HaleM.2005. Local news coverage of the 2004 campaigns. Los Angeles, CA: USC Annenberg School and University of Wisconsin.
26.
KedarOrit. 2006. How voters work around institutions: Policy balancing in staggered elections. Electoral Studies3:509–27.
27.
KellermanMichael. 2008. Balancing or signaling? Electoral punishment in sub-national elections. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
28.
KeyV. O. 1956. American state politics: An introduction. 1st ed. New York, NY: Knopf.
29.
KeyV. O.CummingsMilton C.1966. The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
30.
KlarnerCarl. 2010. Forecasting the 2010 state legislative elections. PS: Political Science & Politics43 (4): 643–48.
31.
KlarnerCarlBerryWilliamCarseyThomasJewellMalcolmNiemiRichardPowellLyndaSnyderJames. 2013. State Legislative Election Returns (1967–2010). ICPSR34297-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
32.
KrauseGeorge A.1997. Voters, information heterogeneity, and the dynamics of aggregate economic expectations. American Journal of Political Science41 (4): 1170–200.
33.
LeighAndrewMcleishMark. 2009. Are state elections affected by the national economy? Evidence from Australia. Economic Record85 (269): 210–22.
34.
LeiserowitzAnthonyMaibachEdwardRoser-RenoufConnie. 2009. Global warming’s six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
35.
LeonSandra. 2012. How does decentralization affect electoral competition of state-wide parties? Evidence from Spain. Party Politics3 (20): 391–402.
36.
LublinDavid Ian. 1994. Quality, not quantity: Strategic politicians in U.S. Senate elections, 1952–1990. The Journal of Politics56 (1): 228–41.
37.
MadisonJames. 22November1787. Federalist No. 10: The same subject continued: The union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection. New York Daily Advertiser.
38.
MalhotraNeil. 2008. The impact of public financing on electoral competition: Evidence from Arizona and Maine. State Politics & Policy Quarterly8 (3): 263–81.
39.
MartinsRodrigoVeigaFrancisco José. 2013. Economic voting in Portuguese municipal elections. Public Choice155 (3–4): 317–34.
40.
MayerKenneth R.WoodJohn M.1995. The impact of public financing on electoral competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964–1990. Legislative Studies Quarterly20 (1): 69–88.
41.
MondakJeffery J.1999. Reconsidering the measurement of political knowledge. Political Analysis8 (1): 57–81.
PikettyThomas. 2000. Voting as communicating. The Review of Economic Studies67 (1): 169–91.
44.
PowellG. Bingham. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
PritchardAnita. 1992. Strategic considerations in the decision to challenge a state legislative incumbent. Legislative Studies Quarterly17 (3): 381–93.
46.
ReifKarlheinzSchmittHermann. 1980. Nine second-order national elections - A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8 (1): 3–44.
47.
RoddenJonathanWibbelsErik. 2011. Dual accountability and the nationalization of party competition: Evidence from four federations. Party Politics17 (5): 629–53.
RogersSteven. 2015. Strategic challenger entry in a federal system: The role of economic and political conditions in state legislative competition. Legislative Studies Quarterly40 (4): 539–70.
50.
SchattschneiderElmer Eric. 1942. Party government. New York, NY: Praeger.
51.
SimonDennis M.OstromCharles W.MarraRobin F.1991. The president, referendum voting, and subnational elections in the United States. The American Political Science Review85 (4): 1177–92.
52.
SquirePeverill. 1989. Competition and uncontested seats in U. S. House elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly14 (May): 281–95.
53.
SquirePeverill. 2000. Uncontested seats in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly25 (1): 131–46.
54.
SquirePeverill. 2012. The evolution of American Legislatures: Colonies, territories, and states, 1619–2009. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
55.
State Partisan Composition. 20April2016. National Conference of State Legislature.
56.
TidmarchCharles M.LonerganEdwardSciortinoJohn. 1986. Interparty competition in the U.S. states: Legislative elections, 1970–1978. Legislative Studies Quarterly11 (3): 353–74.
57.
ToddChuck. 2015. Meet the Press Transcript:November8, 2015. NBC News. Available from http://www.nbcnews.com.
58.
TufteEdward R.1975. Determinants of the outcomes of midterm congressional elections. The American Political Science Review69 (3): 812–26.
59.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185 (4157): 1124–31.
60.
WernerTimothyMayerKenneth R.2007. Public election funding, competition, and candidate gender. PS: Political Science and Politics40 (October): 661–67.
61.
Vanderbilt University poll. November2013. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Vanderbilt University. Available from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/Nov2013.pdf.
62.
YglesiasMatt. 2015. Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble. Vox. Available from http://www.vox.com.
