What explains the behavior of legislators on bills that restrict the rights of marginalized minorities? Studies of representation typically focus on factors like party or public opinion but seldom account for theories of minority representation like electoral capture or subconstituency politics. One reason for this is that data allowing for the comparison of these theories are seldom available for U.S. House districts. We overcome this hurdle by implementing multilevel regression with post-stratification to estimate opinion on gay marriage during the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act vote. We show that subconstituency politics explains legislators’ behavior better than electoral capture, party, or public opinion.
AdamsJamesBishinBenjamin G.DowJay K.2004. “Representation in Congressional Campaigns: Evidence for Discounting Directional Voting in U.S. Senate Elections.” Journal of Politics66 (2): 805–15.
2.
BishinBenjamin G. 2000. “Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter.” Legislative Studies Quarterly25 (3): 389–415.
3.
BishinBenjamin G. 2009. Tyranny of the Minority, the Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
4.
BurackCynthia. 2008. Sin, Sex, and Democracy: Antigay Rhetoric and the Christian Right. Albany: State University of New York Press.
5.
CampbellDavidMonsonJ. Quinn. 2008. “The Religion Card: Gay Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly72:399–419.
6.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.2004. Setting the Agenda; Responsible Party Governments in the U.S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DahlRobert A.1971. Polyarchy Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10.
D’EmilioJohn. 2006. “The Marriage Fight Is Setting Us Back.” Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide (November–December) 13 (6): 10–11.
11.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: Representation in Their Districts. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
12.
FrymerPaul. 1999. Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
GelmanAndrewLaxJeffreyPhillipsJustin. 2010. “Support for Same Sex Marriage. State by State.” The New York Times, August21.
15.
GreenJohn C.1995. The Christian Right and the 1994 Elections: A View from the States” Political Science & Politics28 (1): 5–8.
16.
GreenJohn C.GuthJames L.1988. “The Christian Right in the Republican Party: The Case of Pat Robertson’s Supporters.” Journal of Politics50(1):150–65.
17.
GreenJohn C.GuthJames L.HillKevin. 1993. “Faith and Election: The Christian Right in Congressional Campaigns 1978-1988.” Journal of Politics55 (1): 80–91.
18.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.2010. Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections, and Policy Representation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.JoslynMark R.KnissChad J.2000. “Minority Group Interests and Political Representation: Gay Elected Officials in the Policy Process.” Journal of Politics62 (2): 568–77.
20.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.MeierKenneth J.2003. “Legislative Victory, Electoral Uncertainty: Explaining Outcomes in the Battles over Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.” Review of Policy Research20 (4): 671–90.
21.
HillygusD. SunshineShieldsTodd G.2005. “Moral Issues and Voter Decision Making in the 2004 Presidential Election.” PS: Political Science & Politics38 (2):201–209.
22.
HillygusD. SunshineShieldsTodd G.2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
KarolDavid. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
KeyValdimer O.1963. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
25.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2009a. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review103 (3): 367–86.
26.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2009b. “How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in the States?” American Journal of Political Science53:107–21.
27.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science56 (1): 148–66.
28.
LaymanGeoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
29.
LeboMatthew J.McGlynnAdam J.KogerGregory. 2007. “Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress, 1789-2000.” American Journal of Political Science51 (1):464–81.
30.
LeegeDavid C.WaldKenneth D.KruegerBrianMuellerPaul D.2002. The Politics of Cultural Differences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31.
LewisGregory B.GossettCharles W.2008. “Changing Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage: The Case of California.” Politics & Policy36 (1):4–30.
32.
LewisGregory B.RogersMarc ASherrillKenneth. 2011. “Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Voters in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election.” Politics & Policy39 (5): 655–77.
33.
LindsayD. Michael. 2007. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LublinDavid. 2007. The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35.
MayhewDavid. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
36.
ParkDavid K.GelmanAndrewBafumiJoseph. 2004. “Bayesian Multilevel Estimation with Poststratification: State-level Estimates from National Polls.” Political Analysis12 (4):375–85.
37.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2007. “2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.”
38.
PhillipsKevin P.1969. The Emerging Republican Majority. New Rochelle: Arlington Books.
39.
PooleKeithRosenthalHoward. 1997. Congress: A Political History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
RichardsDavid A. J.2005. The Case for Gay Rights, from Bowers to Lawrence and Beyond. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
41.
RohdeDavid W.1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post-Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
RohdeDavid W.AldrichJohn H.2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered, edited by DoddLawrenceOppenheimerBruce, 7th ed., 269–92. Washington: CQ Press.
43.
SherrillKenneth. 1996. “The Political Power of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals.” PS: Political Science and Politics29 (3): 469–73.
44.
SmithCharles Anthony. 2007. “The Electoral Capture of Gay and Lesbian Americans: Evidence and Implications from the 2004 Election.” Studies in Law, Politics, and Society40:103–21.
45.
SmithCharles Anthony. 2011. “Gay, Straight, or Questioning? Sexuality and Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (1): 35–38.
46.
SmithMiria. 2008. Political Institutions and Lesbian and Gay Rights in the United States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
47.
StimsonJames A.MacKuenMichael B.EricksonRobert S.1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review89 (3): 543–65.
48.
TateKatharine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
49.
TrumanDavid B.1951. The Government Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
50.
WarshawChristopherRoddenJonathan. 2011. “How Should We Measure District Level Public Opinion on Individual Issues?” Journal of Politics74 (1): 203-219.
51.
WhitbyKenneth H.1997. The Color of Representation: Congressional Behavior and Black Interests. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
