This article examines Black and Latino legislators' use of bill sponsorship and cosponsorship in Congress. As we explain, sponsoring and cosponsoring legislation are unique in that they are among the few activities outside the roll call arena that have both position taking and policy implications. We hypothesize that given minority legislators' lack of influence in Congress, they sponsor and cosponsor fewer bills than do nonminorities. We find support for our expectation; on average, Black and Latino legislators sponsor and cosponsor significantly fewer bills in Congress than do Whites and non-Latinos, respectively. But we also find the relationship to be contingent on which party controls Congress. Whereas Democratic Congresses encourage minorities' bill sponsorship and cosponsorship, Republican Congresses depress it. Because the concepts of participation and representation in Congress are so intimately tied to one another, these findings have a number of implications for the study of descriptive and substantive representation.
Adler, E.S., & Wilkerson, J.D. (2005, August). The scope and urgency of legislation: Reconsidering bill success in the House of Representatives . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
2.
Amer, M.L. (2005). Black members of the United States Congress: 1870-2005. Congressional research report for Congress, order code RL 30378. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.senate.gov/reference
3.
Amer, M.L. (2006). Women in the United States Congress: 1917-2006. Congressional research report for Congress, order code RL 30261. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://www.senate.gov/reference
4.
Anderson, W.D., Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., & Chapman, V.S. (2003). The keys to legislative success in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28, 357-386.
5.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1990). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
6.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1992). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
7.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1994). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
8.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1996). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
9.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1998). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
10.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (2000). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
11.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (2002). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
12.
Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (2004). Almanac of American politics. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.
13.
Bratton, K.A., & Haynie, K.L. (1999). Agenda setting and legislative success in state legislatures: The effects of gender and race. Journal of Politics , 61, 658-679.
14.
Cameron, C., Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive Black representation in Congress?American Political Science Review, 90, 794-812.
15.
Campbell, J.E. (1982). Cosponsoring legislation in the U.S. Congress . Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7, 415-422.
16.
Cannon, D.T. (1999). Race, redistricting, and representation: The unintended consequences of Black majority districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Cobb, M.D., & Jenkins, J.A. (2001). Race and the representation of Blacks' interests during reconstruction. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 181-204.
18.
Crenshaw, K.W. (1997). Beyond racism and misogyny: Black feminism and 2 Live Crew. In C. J. Cohen, K. B. Jones, & J. C. Tronto (Eds.), Women transforming politics (pp. 549-568). New York: New York University Press.
19.
Duerst-Lahti, G. (2002a). Governing institutions, ideologies, and gender: Toward the possibility of equal political representation. Sex Roles, 47, 371-387.
20.
Duerst-Lahti, G. (2002b). Knowing Congress as a gendered institution: Manliness and the implications of women in Congress. In C. S. Rosenthal (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 20-49). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
21.
Fenno, R.F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
22.
Fenno, R.F. (1978). Home style: Representative in their districts . Boston: Little, Brown.
23.
Fowler, J.H. (2006a). Connecting the Congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. PoliticalAnalysis, 14, 456-487.
24.
Fowler, J.H. (2006b). Legislative cosponsorship networks in the U.S. House and Senate. Social Networks, 28, 454-465.
25.
Franzitch, S.E. (1979). Who makes our laws? The legislative effectiveness of members of Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 5, 409-428.
26.
Hall, R.L. (1996). Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
Harris, D.B. (2005). Orchestrating party talk: A party-based view of 1-minute speeches in the House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30, 127-141.
28.
Hawkesworth, M. (2003). Congressional enactments of race-gender: Toward a theory of raced-gendered institutions. American Political Science Review, 97, 529-555.
29.
Hero, R.E., & Tolbert, C.J. (1995). Latinos and substantive representation in the U.S. House of Representatives: Direct, indirect, or nonexistent?American Journal of Political Science, 39, 640-652.
30.
Hibbing, J.R. (1991). Congressional careers: Contours of life in theU.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
31.
Highton, B., & Rocca, M.S. (2005). Beyond the roll-call arena: The determinants of position taking in Congress. Political Research Quarterly , 58, 303-316.
32.
Hill, K.A. (1995). Does the creation of majority Black districts aid Republicans? An analysis of the 1992 congressional elections in eight southern states. Journal of Politics, 57, 384-401.
33.
Hutchings, V.L., McClerking, H.K., & Charles, G.U. (2004). Congressional representation of Black interests: Recognizing the importance of stability. Journal of Politics , 66, 450-468.
34.
Jacobson, G.C. (1990). The electoral origins of divided government: Competition in U.S. House Elections, 1946-1988. Boulder, CO: Westview.
35.
Kaufmann, K. (2003, June). Cracks in the rainbow: Group commonality as a basis for Latino and African American political coalitions. Political Research Quarterly, pp. 199-210.
36.
Kerr, B., & Miller, W. (1997). Latino representation, it's direct and indirect . American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1066-1071.
37.
Kessler, D., & Krehbiel, K. (1996). Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review, 90, 555-566.
38.
King, G. (1989). Unifying political methodology: The likelihood theory of statistical inference. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Koger, G. (2003). Position taking and cosponsorship in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28, 225-246.
40.
Krutz, G.S. (2005). Issues and institutions: Winnowing in the U.S. Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 313-326.
41.
Lublin, D.I. (1997). The paradox of representation: Racial gerrymander and minority interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Maltzman, F., & Sigelman, L. (1996). The politics of talk: Unconstrained floor time in the U.S. House of Representatives. Journal of Politics , 58, 819-830.
43.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.” Journal of Politics , 61, 628-657.
44.
Matthews, D.R. (1960). U.S. senators and their world. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
45.
Mayhew, D.R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
McClain, P.D. (1993). Minority group influence: Agenda setting, formulation, and public policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
47.
Moore, M.K., & Thomas, S. (1991). Explaining legislative success in the U.S. Senate: The role of the majority and minority parties. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 53-60.
48.
Morris, J.S. (2001). Reexamining the politics of talk: Partisan rhetoric in the 104th House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26, 101-121.
49.
National Association of Latino Elected Officials. (2005). National directory of Hispanic elected officials . Los Angeles: NALEO Educational Fund.
50.
Olson, D.M., & Nonidez, C.T. (1972). Measures of legislative performance in the U.S. House of Representatives. Midwest Journal of Political Science , 16, 269-277.
51.
Pinney, N., & Serra, G. (1995). The congressional Black caucus: Group agreement and voting influences. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 583-608.
52.
Preuhs, R.R. (2006). The conditional effects of minority descriptive representation: Black legislators and policy influence in the American states . Journal of Politics, 68, 585-599.
53.
Rocca, M.S. (2007). Nonlegislative debate in the U.S. House of Representatives . American Politics Research, 35, 489-505.
54.
Schiller, W.J. (1995). Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 186-203.
55.
Singh, R. (1998). The Congressional Black caucus: Racial politics in the U.S. Congress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
Smith, S.S. (1989). Call to order: Floor politics in the House and Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
57.
Swain, C.M. (1992). Changing patterns of African American representation in Congress. In A. D. Hertzke & R. Peters (Eds.), The atomistic Congress: An interpretation of congressional change (pp. 107-140). Armonk, NY : M. E. Sharpe.
58.
Swain, C.M. (1993). Black faces, Black interests: The representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59.
Swers, M.L. (2000). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
Swers, M.L. (2002). Transforming the agenda? Analyzing gender differences in women's issue bill sponsorship. In C. S. Rosenthal (Ed.), Women transforming Congress (pp. 260-283). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
61.
Talbert, J.C., & Potoski, M. (2002). Setting the legislative agenda: The dimensional structure of bill cosponsoring and floor voting. Journal of Politics, 64, 864-891.
62.
Tamerius, K.L. (1995). Sex, gender, and leadership in the representation of women. In G. Duerst-Lahti & R. M. Kelly (Eds.), Gender, power, leadership, and governance (pp. 93-112). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
63.
Tate, K. (2003). Black faces in the mirror: African Americans and their representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. New York : Oxford University Press.
65.
Uhlaner, C.J., & Garcia, F.C. (2002). Latino public opinion. In B. Norrander & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Understanding public opinion (pp. 77-102). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
66.
Valentino, N.A., & Sears, D.O. (2005). Old times there are not forgotten: Race and partisan realignment in the contemporary south. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 672-688.
67.
Vega, A., & Firestone, J.M. (1995). The effects of gender on congressional behavior and the substantive representation of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10, 213-222.
68.
Wawro, G. (2000). Legislative Entrepreneurship in theU.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
69.
Welch, S., & Hibbing, J.R. (1984). Hispanic representation in the U.S. Congress. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 328-335.
70.
Whitby, K.J. (1997). The color of representation: Congressional behavior and Black interests. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
71.
Whitby, K.J. (2002). Bill sponsorship and interracial voting among African American representatives. American Politics Research , 30, 93-109.
72.
Whitby, K.J., & Krause, G.A. (2001). Race, issue heterogeneity and public policy: The Republican revolution in the 104th U.S. Congress and the representation of African American policy interests. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 555-572.
73.
Wilson, R.K., & Young, C.D. (1997). Cosponsorship in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 25-44.
74.
Yiannakis, D.E. (1982). House members' communication styles: Newsletters and press releases. Journal of Politics, 44, 1049-1071.
