The authors uncover evidence that citizens’ priorities about various spheres of legislative representation differ across demographic groups and that these differences are subsequently reflected in the in-office behavior of their elected officials. Specifically, African Americans and Latinos are less concerned than whites with policy representation—the attentiveness of elected officials to citizens’ policy preferences—but place more emphasis on their district receiving its fair share of federal money. Citizens with higher incomes place a higher priority on policy representation and less on constituency service than do those with lower incomes. Importantly, these priorities map onto their member of Congress’s behavior.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.Jr.StewartCharlesIII. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science45:136-59.
3.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 1990. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 2004. Congress, the press, and political accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BallaSteven J.LawrenceEric D.MaltzmanForrestSigelmanLee. 2002. Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science46:515-25.
6.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. New York: Russell Sage.
7.
CainBruce E.FerejohnJohn A.FiorinaMorris P.1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
CampbellAndrea Louise. 2003. How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Canes-WroneBrandiceBradyDavid W.CoganJohn F.2002. Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review96:127-40.
10.
CanonDavid T.1999. Race, redistricting, and representation: The unintended consequences of black majority districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
CarmanChristopher Jan. 2007. Assessing preferences for political representation in the US. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties17:1-19.
12.
DahlRobert A.1971. Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
DavidsonRoger H.1970. Public prescriptions for the job of congressman. Midwest Journal of Political Science14: 648-66.
14.
Delli CarpiniMichael X.KeeterScott. 1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
DixitAvinashLondreganJohn. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics58:1132-55.
16.
EllicksonMark C.WhistlerDonald E.2001. Explaining state legislators’ casework and public resources allocations. Political Research Quarterly54:553-69.
17.
EriksonRobert S.1971. The electoral impact of congressional roll call voting. American Political Science Review65:1018-32.
18.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.2000. Representation of constituency ideology in Congress. In Continuity and change in House elections, ed. BradyDavid W.CoganJohn F.FiorinaMorris P., 149-77. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
EulauHeinzKarpsPaul D.1977. The puzzle of representation: Specifying components of responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly2:233-54.
20.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1978. Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
21.
FiorinaMorris P.1974. Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
22.
FiorinaMorris P.1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
GaventaJohn. 1980. Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
24.
GayClaudine. 2007. Legislating without constraints: The effect of minority districting on legislators’ responsiveness to constituency preferences. Journal of Politics69: 442-56.
25.
GilensMartin. 2005. Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly69:778-96.
26.
GrantJ. TobinRudolphThomas J.2004. The job of representation in Congress: Public expectations and representative approval. Legislative Studies Quarterly29:431-45.
27.
GriffinJohn D.2006. Electoral competition and democratic responsiveness: A defense of the marginality hypothesis. Journal of Politics68:911-21.
28.
GriffinJohn D.FlavinPatrick. 2007. Racial differences in information, expectations, and accountability. Journal of Politics69:220-36.
29.
GriffinJohn D.NewmanBrian. 2008. Minority report: Evaluating political equality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
HagenMichael G.LascherEdward L.Jr.CamobrecoJohn F.2001. Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the effect of ballot initiatives on policy responsiveness. Journal of Politics63:1257-63.
31.
HutchingsVincent L.2001. Political context, issue salience, and selective attentiveness: Constituent knowledge of the Clarence Thomas confirmation vote. Journal of Politics63: 846-68.
32.
HutchingsVincent L.2003. Public opinion and democratic accountability: How citizens learn about politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
JewellMalcolm E.1982. Representation in state legislatures. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
34.
JohannesJohn R.1984. To serve the people: Congress and constituency service. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
35.
JohannesJohn R.McAdamsJohn C.1981. The congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election. American Journal of Political Science25:512-42.
36.
KimballDavid C.PattersonSamuel C.1997. Living up to expectations: Public attitudes toward congress. Journal of Politics59:701-28.
37.
KingdonJohn W.1989. Congressmen’s voting decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
KrasnoJonathan S.1994. Challengers, competition, and reelection: Comparing Senate and House elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
LewisJeffrey B.PooleKeith T.2004. Measuring bias and uncertainty in ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis12:105-27.
40.
MacRaeDuncanJr. 1952. The relation between roll call votes and constituencies in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. American Political Science Review46:1046-55.
41.
MartinPaul S.2003. Voting’s rewards: Voter turnout, attentive publics, and congressional allocation of federal money. American Journal of Political Science47:110-27.
42.
MatsusakaJohn G.2001. Problems with a methodology used to evaluate the voter initiative. Journal of Politics63:1250-56.
43.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1963. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review57:45-56.
45.
NossiterAdam. 2007. Race, politics and a bridge in South Carolina. New York Times, February25, A14.
46.
PattersonSamuel C.HedlundRonald D.BoyntonG. Robert. 1975. Representatives and the represented: Bases of support for the American legislatures. New York: John Wiley.
47.
RiversDouglas. 2006. Sample matching: Representative sampling from Internet panels. Polimetrix White Paper Series.
48.
RothenbergLawrence S.SandersMitchell S.2000. Severing the electoral connection: Shirking in the contemporary Congress. American Journal of Political Science44:316-25.
49.
SerraGeorgeMoonDavid. 1994. Casework, issue positions, and voting in congressional elections: A district analysis. Journal of Politics56:200-13.
50.
SossJoe. 1999. Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review93:363-80.
51.
SteinRobert M.BickersKenneth N.1994. Congressional elections and the pork barrel. Journal of Politics56:377-99.
52.
TateKatherine. 2003. Black faces in the mirror: African Americans and their representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
ThomasSue. 1992. The effects of race and gender on constituency service. Western Political Quarterly45:169-80.
54.
TomzMichaelWittenbergJasonKingGary. 2003. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. http://gking.harvard.edu/.
55.
VerbaSidneyNieNorman H.1972. Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row.
56.
WeberRonald E.2000. Race-based districting: Does it help or hinder legislative representation?Political Geography19:213-47.
57.
WolpertRobin M.GimpelJames G.1997. Information, recall, and accountability: The electorate’s response to the Clarence Thomas nomination. Legislative Studies Quarterly22:535-50.
58.
WrightGerald C.1978. Candidates’ policy positions and voting in U.S. congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly3:445-64.
