This study examines term limits to determine the effect they have on female candidate emergence in state legislatures. Initial research finds a negative relationship between term limits and female representation. I offer a candidate-level theory and empirical approach to reevaluate how term limits affect female representation overtime. I argue term limits create an incentive structure that favors female candidates since the incumbency advantage is lessened. To test this theory, I set up a quasi-natural experiment with term limits as the treatment in a difference-in-differences test. Furthermore, I also run logistical regression analysis using candidate-level data from all fifty states from 1990 to 2000. I find women are more likely to run for office in open seats created by term limits. Last, this pattern holds for both Republican and Democratic female candidates.
BarnesTiffanyBrantonRegina P.CasseseErin. 2017. “A Reexamination of Women’s Electoral Success in Open Seat Elections: The Conditioning Effect of Electoral Competition.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy38:298–317.
2.
BernsteinRobertChadha.Anita2003. “The Effects of Term Limits on Representation: Why So Few Women.” In The Test of Time: Coping with Legislative Term Limits, edited by FarmerRickRauschJohn DavidGreenJohn Clifford, 147–58. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
3.
BlackGordon. 1972. “A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives.” American Political Science Review66 (1): 144–59.
4.
BurnsNancySchlozmanLehmanVerbaSidney. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5.
BurrellBarbara C.1994. A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
CampbellDavidWolbrechtChristina. 2006. “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents.” The Journal of Politics68:233–47.
7.
CanonBradley. 1978. “Factionalism in the South: A Test of Theory and a Revisitation of V. O. Key.” American Journal of Political Science22:833–48.
8.
CarrollSusan. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. 2nd ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
9.
CarrollSusanJenkinsKrista. 2001. “Do Term Limits Help Women Get Elected?” Social Science Quarterly82 (1): 197–201.
10.
CarrollSusanSanbonmatsuKira. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
Center for American Women and Politics. 2014. “Women in State Legislatures. Fact Sheet.” www.cawp.rutgers.edu.
12.
ClarkJanet. 1994. “Getting There: Women in Political Office.” In Different Roles, Different Voice, edited by GithensMNorrisP.LovenduskiJ., 63–76. New York: HarperCollins.
DarcyRobertWelchSusanClarkJanet. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. 2nd ed.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
15.
DolanKathleenDeckmanMelissaSwersMichele. 2007. Women and Politics: Paths to Power and Political Influence. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
16.
FerryJonathan. 1994. “Women, Minorities and Term Limits: American’s Path to a Representative Congress.” U.S. Term Limits Foundation Outlook Series. Washington, DC: U.S. Term Limits Foundation
17.
FoxRichard L.2000. “Gender and Congressional Elections.” In Gender and American Politics: Women, Men, and the Political Process, edited by Tolleson-RinehartSueJosephsonJyl J., 227–56. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
18.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 264–80.
19.
FultonSarah. 2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly65 (2): 303–14.
20.
FultonSarah. 2014. “When Gender Matters: Macro-Dynamics and Micro-Mechanisms.” Political Behavior36 (3): 605–30.
21.
FultonSarahet al. 2006. “The Sense of a Women: Gender Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly59 (2): 235–48.
22.
JacobsonGaryKernellSamuel. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23.
KlarnerCarlBerryWilliamCarseyThomasJewellMalcolmNiemiRichardPowellLyndaSnyderJames. 2013. State Legislative Election Returns (1967-2010). ICPSR34297-v1. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2013-01-11. doi:10.3886/ICPSR34297.v1.
24.
KurtzKarl T.CainBruceNiemiRichard. 2007. “Conclusions and Implications.” In Institutional Change in American Politics: The Case of Term Limits, edited by KurtzKarlCainBruceNiemiRichard, 185–98. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
25.
LawlessJenniferPearsonKathryn. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” The Journal of Politics70 (1): 67–82.
26.
LazarusJeffrey. 2008. “Buying in: Testing the Rational Model of Candidates Entry.” The Journal of Politics70 (3): 837–50.
27.
MooneyChristopher. 2009. “Term Limits as a Boon to Legislative Scholarship: A Review.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly9 (2): 204–28.
28.
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2014. “The Term Limited States.” http://www.ncsl.org/.
29.
NorranderBarbaraWilcoxClyde. 2012. “Trends in the Geography of Women in the U.S. State Legislatures.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, edited by ThomasSueWilcoxClyde, 273–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
OsbornL. Tracy. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
ReedRobertShansbergEric. 1995. “The House under Term Limits: What would It Look Like?” Social Science Quarterly76:698–719.
32.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2006. Where Women Run. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
SanbonmatsuKiraCarrollSusan J.WalshDebbie. Center for American Women Politics (CAWP) Recruitment Studies 2008. ICPSR35244-v1. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2015-05-13. doi:10.3886/ICPSR35244.v1.
34.
SapiroVirginia. 1982. “Private Costs of Public Commitments or Public Costs of Private Commitments? Family Roles versus Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science26:265–79.
35.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.MishlerWilliam. 2005. “An Integrated Model of Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics67 (2): 407–28.
36.
SeltzerRichard A.NewmanJodyLeightonMelissa Voorhees. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
37.
SquirePeverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly17:69–79.
38.
SwersMichele. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
ThompsonJoelMoncriefGary. 1993. “The Implications of Term Limits for Women and Minorities: Some Evidence from the States.” Social Science Quarterly74 (2): 300–309.
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.
