If voters had the opportunity to choose the characteristics of their representative institutions directly, how would they do so? Voters in several states selected the base of their state legislative apportionment through the initiative process prior to the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, which provides a unique opportunity to answer this question. This study examines 13 such initiatives in four states between 1924 and 1962. Four factors are hypothesized to influence vote choice on these initiatives: urban-rural confict, partisanship, race, and economic self-interest. Through regression analysis of the county-level vote in these elections I find that economic self-interest consistently influences voter support for apportionment initiatives while these other factors influence it only occasionally. This finding suggests that distributive politics drive voters' evaluation of representative institutions and that the influence of other political factors depends on the historical and local context of an initiative.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenDon A.1965. Legislative Sourcebook: California Legislature and Reapportionment, 1849-1965. Sacramento, CA: Assembly of the State of California.
2.
AlmaguerTomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
AnsolabehereStephenGerberAlanSnyderJames M.Jr.2002. “Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and the Distribution of Public Expenditures in the American States.” American Political Science Review96: 767–77.
4.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.Jr.2004. “Reapportionment and Party Realignment in the American States.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review153: 433–57.
5.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.Jr.Charles StewartandIII. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science44: 17–34.
6.
AtlasCary M.GilliganThomas W.HendershottRobert J.ZupanMark A.. 1995. “Slicing the Federal Government Net Spending Pie: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why.” American Economic Review85: 624–9.
7.
BakerGordon E.1955. Rural Versus Urban Political Power: The Nature and Consequences of Unbalanced Representation. New York: Doubleday.
8.
BarclayThomas S.1951. “The Reapportionment Struggle in California in 1948.” Western Political Quarterly4: 313–24.
9.
BickerWilliam E.1971. “The Effects of Malapportionment in the States—A Mistrial.” In Reapportionment in the 1970s, ed. PolsbyNelson. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10.
BrantonRegina P.2003. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly56: 367–77.
11.
BushnellEleanore. 1970. The Impact of Reapportionment on the Thirteen Western States. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
12.
CanonDavid. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
CitrinJackSearsDavid. 1982. Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
ConversePhilip. 1966. “The Concept of a Normal Vote.” In Elections and the Political Order, eds. CampbellAngusConversePhilipMillerWarrenStokesDonald. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
15.
DavidPaul T.EisenbergRalph. 1961. Devaluation of the Urban and Suburban Vote. Vols. 1 and 2. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
16.
DanielsRoger. 1962. The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
DonovanToddSnippJoseph R.. 1994. “Support for Legislative Term Limitations in California: Group Representation, Partisanship, and Campaign Information.” Journal of Politics65: 492–501.
18.
DixonRobert G.Jr.1968. Democratic Representation: Reapportionment in Law and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
DyeThomas. 1965. “Malapportionment and Public Policy in the States.” Journal of Politics27: 586–601.
20.
EaglesCharles W.1990. Democracy Delayed: Congressional Reapportionment and the Urban-Rural Conflict. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
21.
EriksonRobert S.1971. “The Partisan Impact of State Legislative Reapportionment.” Midwest Journal of Political Science15: 57–71.
22.
EriksonRobert S.1973. “Reapportionment and Policy: A Further Look at Some Intervening Variables.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science219: 280–90.
23.
GerberElizabethPhillipsJustin. 2003. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science47: 625–39.
24.
HardyLeroy C.HeslopAlanAndersonnStuart, eds. 1981. Reapportionment Politics: The History of Redistricting in the Fifty States. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
HofferbertRichard I.1966. “The Relation between Public Policy and Some Structural and Environmental Variables in the American States.” American Political Science Review60: 73–82.
26.
JacobHerbert. 1964. “The Consequences of Malapportionment: A Note of Caution.” Social Forces43: 256–61.
27.
JewellMalcolm E.1962. The Politics of Reapportionment. New York: Atherton Press.
28.
KeyV.O.Jr.1956. American State Politics: An Introduction. New York: Knopf.
29.
LeeFrances E.1998. “Representation and Public Policy: The Consequences of Senate Apportionment for the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds.” Journal of Politics60: 34–62.
30.
LeeFrances E.OppenheimerBruce I.. 1999. Sizing up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LublinDavid. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review86: 390–403.
33.
MaglebyDavid. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
McCraryPeytonLawsonSteven. 2000. “Race and Reapportionment: The Case of Georgia Senate Redistricting.” Journal of Policy History12: 293–320.
35.
McCubbinsMathewSchwartzThomas. 1988. “Congress, the Courts, and Public Policy: Consequences of the One Man, One Vote Rule.” American Journal of Political Science32: 295–302.
36.
McKayRobert B.1965. Reapportionment: The Law and Politics of Equal Representation. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
37.
PitchellRobert J.1961. “Reapportionment as a Control of Voting in California.” Western Political Quarterly14: 214–35.
38.
PulsipherAllan G.WeatherbyJames L.Jr.1968. “Malapportionment, Party Competition, and the Functional Distribution of Government Expenditures.” American Political Science Review62: 1207–19.
39.
RobeckBruce W.1972. “Legislative Partisanship, Constituency, and Malapportionment.” American Political Science Review66: 1246–55.
40.
SaxtonAlexander. 1971. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
