Canonical models of urban politics have often treated political parties as clientelistic patrons rather than ideological entities. I argue that parties play an important role in organizing local legislatures at the microlevel. I examine the influence of political parties in local legislatures by systematically analyzing elected officials’ behavior. By examining roll call votes cast by city council members in San Diego, I conclude that partisan coalitions play an important role in structuring local politics. My results suggest that elite party membership predicts legislative behavior—even in nonpartisan legislatures—which may help explain why partisan versus nonpartisan elections do not produce divergent policy outcomes at the macrolevel.
AldrichJH (1995) Why Parties? The Origins and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
ArringtonT (1978) Partisan campaigns, ballots, and voting patterns: the case of charlotte. Urban Affairs Quarterly14: 253–261.
3.
AustinRA (2002) Seats that may not matter: testing for racial polarization in the U.S. city councils. Legislative Studies Quarterly27(3): 481–508.
4.
BanfieldECWilsonJQ (1963) City Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and MIT Press.
5.
BerryCRHowellWG (2007) Accountability and local elections: rethinking retrospective voting. Journal of Politics69: 844–858.
6.
Blom-HansenJMonkerudLCSørensenR (2006) Do parties matter for local revenue policies? A comparison of Denmark and Norway. European Journal of Political Research45: 445–465.
7.
BorgeLESørensenRJ (2002) Aggregating spending preferences: an empirical analysis of party preferences in Norwegian local governments. Public Choice110: 225–243.
8.
BoudreauCElmendorfCSMacKenzieSA (2015) Lost in space? Information shortcuts, spatial voting, and local government representation. Political Research Quarterly68: 843–855.
9.
BrazerHS (1959) City Expenditures in the United States. National Bureau of Economic Research Occasional Paper No. 66, Washington, DC.
10.
BridgesA (1997) Morning Glories: Municipal Reform in the Southwest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
CarrollRLewisJBLoJ. (2009) Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: points of difference and Monte Carlo tests. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(4): 555–591.
14.
ClintonJJackmanSRiversD (2004) The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review98(2): 344–370.
15.
CooperCANownesAJRobertsS (2005) Perceptions of power: interest groups in local politics. State & Local Government Review37(3): 206–216.
16.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
CraigSGKohlhaseJAustinDA. (2014) Why do big cities redistribute income out of own source revenue?Working Paper, University of Houston, Houston, TX.
19.
de Benedictis-KessnerWarshawC (2016) Mayoral partisanship and municipal fiscal policy. Journal of Politics78: 1124–1138.
20.
DownesBT (1969) Issue conflict, factionalism, and consensus in suburban city councils. Urban Affairs Review4(4): 477–497.
21.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
22.
DuboisPL (1979) Voter turnout in state judicial elections: an analysis of the tail on the electoral kite. Journal of Politics41: 865–887.
23.
EinsteinKLKoganV (2016) Pushing the city limits: policy responsiveness in municipal government. Urban Affairs Review52: 3–32.
24.
ErieSPKoganVMacKenzieSA (2011) Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25.
FerreiraFGyourkoJ (2009) Do political parties matter? Evidence from U.S. Cities. Quarterly Journal of Economics124(1): 349–397.
26.
FriedRC (1975) Comparative urban policy and performance. In: PolsbyNWGreensteinFI (eds), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 6. Reading: Addison-Wesley, pp. 305–379.
27.
GammGKousserT (2010) Broad bills or particularistic policy? Historical patterns in American State Legislatures. American Political Science Review104(1): 151–170.
28.
GerberERHopkinsDJ (2011) When mayors matter: estimating the impact of mayoral partisanship on city policy. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 326–339.
29.
GilbertCE (1964) National political alignments and the politics of large cities. Political Science Quarterly79(1): 25–51.
30.
GilletteCP (2007) Local redistribution, living wage ordinances, and judicial intervention. Northwestern University Law Review101: 1057–1122.
31.
GrimmerJHershEFeinsteinB. (2010) Are Close Elections Randomly Determined?Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
32.
GustafsonC (2009) Hueso Re-Elected Leader of Council Unanimously. San Diego Union-Tribune. Dec. 8, 2009. San Diego, CA, P. B-2.
33.
HillKAMorenoDVCueL (2001) Racial and partisan voting in a Tri-Ethnic City: the 1996 Dade County Mayoral Election. Journal of Urban Affairs23(3–4): 291–307.
34.
HoggartK (1984) Political parties and local authority capital investments in English cities, 1966-1971. Political Geography Quarterly3(1): 5–32.
35.
HuckshornRJYoungCE (1960) Study of voting splits on city councils in Los Angeles County. Western Political Quarterly13(2): 479–497.
36.
KaminLJ (1958) Ethnic and party affiliations of candidates as determinants of voting. Canadian Journal of Psychology12: 205–212.
37.
KeyVO (1949) Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
38.
KiewietDRMcCubbinsMD (1991) The Logic of Delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
KrehbielK (1993) Where is the party?British Journal of Political Science23(2): 235–266.
40.
KrehbielK (2003) The coefficient of party influence. Political Analysis11(1): 95–103.
LoganJRSwanstromT (1991) Beyond the City Limits. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
43.
LorinskasRAHawkinsBWEdwardsSD (1969) The persistence of ethnic voting in urban and rural areas: results from the controlled election method. Social Science Quarterly49: 891–899.
44.
MartinADQuinnKM (2002) Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis10: 134–153.
45.
MasketSShorB (2015) Polarization without Parties: term limits and legislative partisanship in Nebraska’s unicameral legislature. State Politics and Policy Quarterly15: 67–90.
46.
MatsonMFineTS (2006) Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly6: 49–72.
RohdeDW (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
SalisburyRHBlackG (1963) Class and party in partisan and non-partisan elections: The case of des moines. American Political Science Review57(3): 584–592.
57.
San Diego City Clerk (2010) Voter Registration in the City of San Diego. San Diego, CA, Nov. 1, 2010.
58.
SchaffnerBStrebMJ (2002) The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly66: 559–581.
59.
SchicklerERichA (1997) Controlling the floor: parties as procedural coalitions in the house. American Journal of Political Science41: 1340–75.
60.
SchleicherD (2007) Why is there no partisan competition in city council elections? The role of election law. Journal of Law & Politics23: 419–473.
61.
ShaffnerBStrebMJWrightG (2001) Teams without uniforms: the nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 7–30.
62.
ShorBMcCartyN (2011) The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review105: 530–551.
63.
SimpsonDW (2001) Rogues, Rebels, and Rubber Stamps: The Politics of the Chicago City Council from 1863 to the Present. Boulder: Westview Press.
64.
SquirePSmithERAN (1988) The effects of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. Journal of Politics50: 169–179.
65.
StoneCSandersH (1987) The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
66.
SwanstromT (1985) The Crisis of Growth Politics: Cleveland, Kucinich, and the Challenge of Urban Populism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
67.
TausanovichCWarshawC (2014) Representation in Municipal Government. American Political Science Review108: 605–641.
68.
ThurstoneLL (1925) A method of scaling psychological and educational tests. Journal of Educational Psychology16: 433–451.
69.
WelchSBledsoeT (1988) Urban Reform and Its Consequences: A Study in Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
70.
WellerN (2009) Trading policy: constituents and party in U.S. Trade Policy. Public Choice141: 87–101.
71.
WolffE (2007) What about Brian? Maienschein remains popular in His District, But City Hall is Asking, Where Has He Gone?San Diego CityBeat. Available at: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5917 (accessed 10 October 2010).
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.
