This article tests whether theories of congressional behavior that link legislative responsiveness to the preferences of sub-constituencies at the expense of party preferences apply to the state level. Using ten years of state-level data and roll-call data from nearly 4,000 individual votes on E-Verify legislation, I examine the competing influences of party and constituency preferences on legislative behavior. The results confirm that state legislatures/legislators are responsive to sub-constituencies, but find that responsiveness plays out in different ways depending on the level of analysis and the political party and constituents in question. These results have important implications for our understanding of legislative representation: because responsiveness to sub-constituencies can yield policy results that are antithetical to stated party goals, what appears to be collective irresponsibility from a party may actually be individual legislators striving to be responsive to those constituents that they anticipate will hold them accountable.
AllisonPaul D.1982. “Discrete-Time Methods for the Analysis of Event Histories.” Sociological Methodology13:61–98.
3.
AlvarezJosé. 2005. “Sweetening the US Legislature: The Remarkable Success of the Sugar Lobby.” Political Quarterly76 (1): 92–99.
4.
AndersenKristi. 2006. “In Whose Interest? Political Parties, Context, and the Political Incorporation of Immigrants.” In New Race Politics in America: Understanding Minority and Immigrant Voting, edited by JunnJaneHaynieKerry, pp. 17-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ArceneauxKevin. 2002. “Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly2 (4): 372–88.
6.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Hartford: Yale University Press.
7.
BellemareMarc F.CarnesNicholas. 2015. “Why Do Members of Congress Support Agricultural Protection?” Food Policy50 (January): 20–34.
8.
BernsteinRobert A.1989. Elections, Representation, and Congressional Voting Behavior: The Myth of Constituency Control. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
9.
BerryWilliam D.DeMerittJacqueline H. R.EsareyJustin. 2010. “Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?” American Journal of Political Science54 (1): 248–66.
10.
BirkheadNathaniel A.2015. “The Role of Ideology in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly40 (1): 55–82.
11.
BishinBenjamin G.2000. “Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly25 (3): 389–415. doi:10.2307/440413
12.
BishinBenjamin G.2009. Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
13.
BracePaulSims-ButlerKellieArceneauxKevinJohnsonMartin. 2002. “Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Survey Data.” American Journal of Political Science46 (1): 173–89.
14.
BrattonKathleen A.2006. “The Behavior and Success of Latino Legislators: Evidence from the States.” Social Science Quarterly87 (5): 1136–57.
15.
BrattonKathleen A.HaynieKerry L.1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race.” The Journal of Politics61 (3): 658–79.
16.
BullockCharles S.IIIBradyD. W.1983. “Party, Constituency, and Roll-Call Voting in the U. S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly8 (1): 29–43.
Canes-WroneBrandiceBradyDavid W.CoganJohn F.2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.” American Political Science Review96 (1): 127–49.
19.
CarsonJamieKogerGregoryLeboMatthewYoungEverett. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 598–616.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid, pp. 206-261. New York: The Free Press.
24.
CoxGaryMcCubbinsMathew. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
CreekHeather M.YoderStephen. 2012. “With a Little Help from Our Feds: Understanding State Immigration Enforcement Policy Adoption in American Federalism.” Policy Studies Journal40 (4): 674–97.
26.
DyeThomas R.1961. “A Comparison of Constituency Influences in the Upper and Lower Chambers of a State Legislature.” The Western Political Quarterly14 (2): 473–80.
27.
EkinsEmily.2013. “Support for Immigration Reform Correlated with Perception of Immigrants’ Economic Impact.” Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey. https://reason.com/assets/db/13648288657856.pdf (accessed March 3, 2017).
28.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.McIverJohn P.1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Longman.
31.
GerberElisabeth R.1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of the Popular Initiative.” American Journal of Political Science40:99–128.
32.
GoffBrian L.GrierKevin B.1993. “On the (Mis)Measurement of Legislator Ideology and Shirking.” Public Choice76 (1–2): 5–20. doi:10.1007/BF01049340
33.
GrayVirginiaLoweryDavidFellowesMatthewMcAteeAndrea. 2004. “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Organized Interests in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly57 (3): 411–20.
34.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.KaufmanMatthew S.2006. “Public Opinion and Policy Making in the Culture Wars: Is There a Connection between Opinion and State Policy on Gay and Lesbian Issues?” In Public Opinion in State Politics, edited by CohenJeffrey E., 163–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
35.
HayesThomas J.BishinBenjamin G.2012. “Issue Salience, Subconstituency Politics, and Legislative Representation.” Congress & the Presidency39 (2): 133–59.
36.
HeroRodney E.2010. Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
37.
HoganRobert E.2004. “Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success, and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections.” The Journal of Politics66 (November): 1283–303.
38.
JacobsonGary C.1993. “Deficit-Cutting Politics and Congressional Elections.” Political Science Quarterly108 (October): 375–402.
39.
JacobyWilliam G.SchneiderSaundra K.2001. “Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis.” The Journal of Politics63 (2): 544–68.
40.
JenkinsShannon. 2006. “The Impact of Party and Ideology on Roll-Call Voting in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly31 (2): 235–57.
41.
JenkinsShannon. 2008. “Party Influence on Roll-Call Voting: A View from the US States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly8 (3): 239–62.
42.
JenkinsShannon. 2010. “Examining the Influences over Roll-Call Voting in Multiple Issue Areas: A Comparative U.S. State Analysis.” Journal of Legislative Studies16 (1): 14–31.
KingdonJohn W.1968. Candidates for Office: Beliefs and Strategies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45.
KirklandJ. H.HardenJ. J.2016. “Representation, Competing Principals, and Waffling on Bills in US Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly41:657–86.
46.
KlarnerCarlBerryWilliam D.CarseyThomas M.JewellMalcolmNiemiRichardPowellLyndaSnyderJames. 2011. State Legislative Election Returns (1967-2010). Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2013-01-11. doi:10.3886/ICPSR34297.v1
47.
KrehbielKeith. 1993. “Where’s the Party?”British Journal of Political Science23:235–66.
48.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review103 (3): 367–86.
49.
LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2012. “The Democratic Deficit in the States.” American Journal of Political Science56 (1): 148–66.
50.
LindNancy S.RankinErik T.HarrisGardenia. 2016. Today’s Economic Issues: Democrats and Republicans. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
51.
LopezMark HugoMinushkinSusan. 2008. “2008 National Survey of Latinos.” Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. September18.
52.
LowryRobert C.AltJames E.FerreeKaren E.1998. “Fiscal Policy Outcomes and Electoral Accountability in American States.” American Political Science Review92 (4): 759–74.
53.
LupiaArthurKrupnikovYannaSeth LevineAdamPistonSpencerVon Hagen-JamarAlexander. 2010. “Why State Constitutions Differ in Their Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage.” The Journal of Politics72 (4): 1222–35.
54.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. 2nd ed.New Haven: Yale University Press.
55.
MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” The American Political Science Review57 (1): 45–56. doi:10.2307/1952717
56.
MonoganJames E.2013. “The Politics of Immigrant Policy in the 50 US States, 2005-2011.” Journal of Public Policy33 (1): 35–64.
57.
NewmanBenjamin J.Christopher D.JohnstonStricklandApril A.CitrinJack. 2012. “Immigration Crackdown in the American Workplace: Explaining Variation in E-Verify Policy Adoption across the US States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly12 (2): 160–82.
58.
NorranderBarbara. 2000. “The Multi-Layered Impact of Public Opinion on Capital Punishment Implementation in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly53:771–94.
59.
NyhanBrendanMcGheeEricSidesJohnMasketSethGreeneSteven. 2012. “One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll-Call Votes in the 2010 Election.” American Politics Research40 (September): 844–79.
60.
PattersonS. C.1996. “Legislative Politics in the States.” In Politics in the American States, edited by GrayV.JacobH., 6th ed., 159–206. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
PlotnickRobert D.WintersRichard F.1985. “A Politico-Economic Theory of Income Redistribution.” The American Political Science Review79 (2): 458–73. doi:10.2307/1956660
63.
RogersSteven. 2017. “Electoral Accountability for State Legislative Roll-Calls and Ideological Representation.” American Political Science Review111 (3): 555–71.
64.
ShorBorisMcCartyNolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 530–51.
65.
SnyderJames M.GrosecloseTim. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 193–211.
66.
TausanovitchChrisWarshawChristopher. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” The Journal of Politics75 (2): 330–42.
67.
TreadwayJ. M.1985. Public Policy Making in the American States. New York: Praeger.
68.
U.S. Congress House Committee on the Judiciary. 2013. How E-Verify Works and How It Benefits American Employers and Workers: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, 113th Cong., 1st sess., February27.
69.
VesenkaMary H.1989. “Economic Interests and Ideological Conviction.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization12 (2): 259–63.
WongTom K.2012. “287(g) and the Politics of Interior Immigration Control in the United States: Explaining Local Cooperation with Federal Immigration Authorities.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies38 (5): 737–56. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.667983
73.
ZingherJoshua N.2014. “The Ideological and Electoral Determinants of Laws Targeting Undocumented Migrants in the US States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly14 (1): 90–117.
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.
