We examine the effect of issue preferences and partisanship on prefloor behavior by explaining cosponsorship and discharge petition activity over two proposed constitutional amendments, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1970 and the School Prayer Amendment (SPA) in 1971. Previous research has largely focused on the ability of the majority party leadership in the post-Reform House to employ party as a solution to the collective action problem inherent to policy making. We extend the conception of the role of party, arguing that non-leadership issue entrepreneurs are also capable of utilizing party to bring about collective policy outcomes even during the less party-centered pre-Reform era. Our results show that when entrepreneurs have access to institutional resources, both issue preferences and partisanship explain discharge petition activity; when they do not, discharge petition behavior is almost exclusively preference-based with inconsistent party effects. This research thus highlights the conditions under which party can be employed to build legislative coalitions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, John H.1995. Why Parties? The Oigin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Beth, Richard S.1990. The Discharge Rule in the House of Representatives: Procedure, History, and Statistics. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
3.
Binder, Sarah A., Eric D. Lawrence, and Forrest Maltzman. 1999. ‘Uncovering the Hidden Effects of Party.’ Research Note. Journal of Politics61 (August): 815-831.
4.
Browne, William. 1985. ‘Multiple Cosponsorship and Bill Success in the U.S. State Legislatures.’Legislative Studies Quarterly10 (November): 483-488.
5.
Campbell, James E.1982. ‘Cosponsoring Legislation in the U.S. Congress.’Legislative Studies Quarterly7 (August): 415-422.
Congressional Record Index and History of Bills (various years). Washington, DC: U.S.G.PO.
8.
Congressional Quarterly, Inc.1984. Voting Scores For Members of the United States Congress, 1945-1982 [Computer file], 2nd ICPSR ed.Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor].
9.
Costain, Anne N.1992. Inviting Women's Rebellion: A Political Process Interpretation of the Women's Movement. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
Cox, Gary W, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Davis, Flora. 1991. Moving the Mountain: The Women's Movement in America Since 1960. New York: Simon & Schuster.
12.
Freeman, Jo. 1975. The Politics of Women's Liberation. New York: David McKay.
13.
Freeman, Jo. 2000. A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
Gertzog, Irwin N.1995. Congressional Women: Their Recruitment, Integration, and Behavior, 2nd ed.Westport, CT: Preager.
Groseclose, Timothy. 1995. ‘An Examination of the Market for Favors and Votes in Congress.’Economic Inquiry34 (April): 320-340.
17.
Johnson, Donald Bruce. 1973. National Party Platforms, 1840-1972. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
18.
Kessler, Daniel, and Keith Krehbiel. 1996. ‘Dynamics of Cosponsorship.’American Political Science Review90 (September): 555-566.
19.
Kiatch, Rebecca E.1987. Women of the New Right. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
20.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. ‘Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z.’American Journal of Political Science39 (November): 906-923.
21.
Mansbridge, Jane J.1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Regens, James L.1989. ‘Congressional Cosponsorship of Acid Rain Controls.’Social Sciences Quarterly70 (June): 505-512.
24.
Rohde, David W1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Saint-Germain, Michelle A.1989. ‘Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.’Social Science Quarterly70: 956-968.
26.
Schiller, Wendy J.1995. ‘Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas.’American Journal of Political Science39 (February): 186-203.
27.
Shafer, Byron E. and William J.M. Claggett. 1995. The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of Modern American Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Shanahan, Eileen. 1972. ‘Feminists Rate Democratic Vote Record in House over G.O.P's.’New York Times, January 20, p. 54-54.
29.
Sharp, Michael J.1988. The Directory of Congressional Voting Scores and Interest Group Ratings. New York: Facts on File Publications.
30.
Smith, Steven S.1989. Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
31.
Snyder, James M.1991. ‘On Buying Legislatures.’Economics and Politics3 (July): 93-109.
32.
Swers, Michele L. 1999. ‘Placing Women's Issues on the National Agenda: An Analysis of Gender Differences in Women's Issue Bill Sponsorship for the 103rd and 104th Congress.’Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, 2-5 September.
33.
Thomas, Sue. 1989. ‘Voting Patterns in the California Assembly: The Role of Gender.’Women & Politics9 (4): 43-53.
34.
Thomas, Sue, and Susan Welch. 1991. ‘The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators.’Western Political Quarterly44 (June): 445-456.
35.
Young, Cheryl D., and Rick K. Wilson. 1997. ‘Cosponsorship in the United 729 Political Research Quarterly States Congress.’Legislative Studies Quarterly22 (February): 25-43.
36.
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
