Policy representation requires legislators to advance the interests of their constituents. As a consequence, much research on representation examines the congruence between constituents’ preferences and legislators’ behaviors. This article argues it is more realistic to think of policy representation as listening—a process—than congruence—an outcome. Listening involves legislators monitoring constituent interests and using that information in making decisions. Using data from a survey of state legislators in 26 states, this research finds that monitoring contributes to using constituent information and offers a measure of listening based on these two behaviors. Furthermore, it finds that compared with the decisions of others, the decisions (measured as cosponsoring gay, lesbian, and bisexual [GLB] issue legislation) of legislators who listen are more strongly influenced by district preferences (measured as district votes on same-sex marriage ballot initiatives). This suggests that listening contributes to representation.
BaileyMichaelBradyDavid W.1998. “Heterogeneity and Representation: The Senate and Free Trade.” American Journal of Political Science42(2): 524–44.
2.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.KimballDavid C.MeinkeScott R.TateKatherine. 2003. “The effects of Political Representation on the Electoral Advantage of House Incumbents.” Political Research Quarterly56:259–70.
3.
BrewerPaul R.2003. “The Shifting Foundation of Public Opinion about Gay Rights.” The Journal of Politics65(4): 1208–20.
4.
BullockCharles S.III.BradyDavid W.1983. “Party, Constituency, and Roll-Call Voting in the U.S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly8(1): 29–43.
5.
CareyJohn M.NiemiRichard G.PowellLynda W.MoncriefGary. State Legislative Survey, 2002 [Computer file]. ICPSR20960-v1. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-03-25.
6.
ChoWendy K. TamFowlerJames H.2010. “Legislative Success in a Small World: Social Network Analysis and the Dynamics of Congressional Legislation.” The Journal of Politics72(1): 124–35.
7.
ClintonJoshua D.2006. “Representation in congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House.” The Journal of Politics68(2): 397–409.
8.
DillmanDon A.2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
EllicksonMark C.WhistlerDonald E.2001. “Explaining State Legislators’ Casework and Public Resource Allocation.” Political Research Quarterly54(3): 553–69.
10.
EulauHeinzWahlkeJohn. 1978. The Politics of Representation: Continuities in Theory and Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
EulauHeinzKarpsPaul. 1978. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.” In The Politics of Representation: Continuities in Theory and Research, eds. EulauHeinzWahlkeJohn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 55–72.
12.
FreemanPatricia K.RichardsonLilliardJr. 1996. “Explaining Variation in Casework among state Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly21(1): 41–56.
13.
GartzkeErikWrightonJ. Mark. 1998. “Thinking Globally or Acting Locally? Determinants of the GATT Vote in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly23(1): 33–55.
14.
GilliganCarol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
Haider-Markel. 1999. “Morality Policy and Individual-Level Political Behavior: The Case of Legislative Voting on Lesbian and Gay Issue.” Policy Studies Journal27(4): 735–49.
16.
HedlundRonald D.FriesemaPaul. 1972. “Representatives’ Perceptions of Constituency Opinion.” Journal of Politics34:730–52.
17.
HerbstSusan. 1998. Reading Public Opinion: How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
HerreraCheryl LynHerreraRichardSmithEric R. A. N.1992. “Public Opinion and Congressional Representation.” Public Opinion Quarterly56(2): 185–205.
19.
HerrickRebekahMooreMichael K.HibbingJohn R.1994. “Unfastening the Electoral Connection: The Behavior of U.S. Representatives when Reelection Is No Longer a Factor.” Journal of Politics56(1): 214–27.
20.
HerrickRebekah. 2010. “Legislators’ Positions on Gay and Lesbian Rights: The Personal and Political.” Journal of Homosexuality57(7): 928–43.
21.
HibbingJohn R.AlfordJohn R.1990. “Constituency Population and Representation in the U.S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly15(4): 581–98.
22.
JewellMalcolm E.1982. Representation in State Legislators. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
23.
JonesBryan D.1973. “Competitiveness, Role Orientations, and Legislative Responsiveness.” The Journal of Politics35:1973.
24.
KuklinskiJames H.1978. “Representativeness and Elections: A Policy Analysis.” American Political Science Review72:165–77.
25.
KuklinskiJames H.EllingRichard C.1977. “Representational Role, Constituency Opinion, and Legislative Roll-Call Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science21(1): 135–47.
26.
LaxJefferyPhillipsJustin. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” The American Political Science Review103(3): 367-386.
27.
LevittSteven D.1996. “How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology.” The American Economic Review86(3): 425–41.
28.
LilleyWilliamIII.DeFrancoLaurence J.BernsteinMark F.RamsbyKari L.2007. The Almanac of State Legislative Elections Voting Patterns and Demographics. 3rd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
29.
LongJ. ScottFreeseJeremy. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, Second Edition. College Station: Stata Press.
30.
MaestasCherie. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly25(4): 663–90.
31.
MaestasCherie. 2003. “The Incentive to Listen: Progressive Ambition, Resources, and Opinion Monitoring among State Legislators.” Journal of Politics65(2): 439–57.
32.
MaestasCherieNeeleyGrant W.RichardsonLilliard E.2003. “The State of surveying Legislators: Dilemmas and Suggestions.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly3(3): 90–108.
33.
McCroneDonald J.KuklinskiJames H.1979. “The Delegate Theory of Representation.” American Journal of Political Science23(2): 278–300.
34.
MilerKristina C.2007. “The View from the Hill: Legislative Perceptions of the District.” Legislative Studies Quarterly32(4): 597–628.
35.
MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
36.
MooneyChristopher Z.1991a. “Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly16(3): 445–55.
37.
MooneyChristopher Z.1991b. “Peddling Information in the State Legislature: Closeness Counts.” Western Political Quarterly44(2): 433–44.
38.
OppenheimerB. L.1996. “The Representational Experience: The Effects of State Population on Senator-Constituency Linkages.” American Journal of Political Science40: 1280-1299.
39.
PitkinHanna F.1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
PrimoDavid M.JacobsmeierMatthew L.MilyoJeffrey. 2007. “Estimating the Impact of State Policies and Institutions with Mixed-Level Data.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7(4): 446–59.
41.
RosenthalAlan. 1981. Legislative Life: People, Process, and Performance in the States. New York: Harper & Row.
42.
RosenthalAlan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy: Process, Participation, and Power in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
43.
RothenbergLawrence S.SandersMitchell S.2000. “Lame-Duck Politics: Impending Departure and the Votes on Impeachment.” Political Research Quarterly53(3): 523–36.
44.
SerraGeorgeMoonDavid. 1994. “Casework, Issue Positions, and Voting in Congressional Elections: A District Analysis.” Journal of Politics56:200–13.
45.
SquirePeverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7(2): 211–27.
46.
ThomasSue. 1992. “The Effects of Race and Gender on Constituency Service.” Western Political Quarterly45:169–80.
47.
WeberRonald E.TuckerHarvey J.BracePaul. 1991. “Vanishing Marginals in state Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly16(1): 29–47.
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.
