Political scientists have demonstrated the importance of lawmakers’ identities, showing that race, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation affect legislative and representational behavior. Is the same true for age? We argue it is, but the effect is conditioned by the salience of different “senior issues.” Analyzing the bill introductions by members of Congress during the 109th and 110th Congresses, we show that older lawmakers are more likely to introduce legislation addressing lower salience senior issues than their younger colleagues. In contrast, sizeable senior constituencies in a district influence lawmaker attention to higher salience senior issues, regardless of a lawmaker’s age. These findings have implications for our understanding of senior power and personal roots of representation in the United States.
AbramsonP. R. (1979). Developing party identification: A further examination of life-cycle, generational, and period effects. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 78-96.
2.
AlwinD. F. (1998). The political impact of the baby boom: Are there persistent generational differences in political beliefs and behavior?Generations, 22, 46-54.
3.
AmerM. (2008). Membership of the 110th congress: A profile (CRS Report No. RS22555). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
4.
AndelR.LiebigP. S. (2002). The City of Laguna Woods: A case of senior power in local politics. Research on Aging, 24, 87-105.
5.
AndersonW. A.AndersonN. D. (1978). The politics of age exclusion: The adults only movement in Arizona. The Gerontologist, 18, 6-12.
6.
BinderS. A. (1999). The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947-96. The American Political Science Review, 93, 519-533.
7.
BinstockR. (1997). The 1996 election: Older voters and implications for policies on aging. The Gerontologist, 37, 15-19.
8.
BishinB. G. (2000). Constituency influence in congress: Does subconstituency matter?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 389-415.
9.
BishinB. G. (2009). Tyranny of the minority: The subconstituency politics theory of representation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
10.
BramlettB. (2015). Senior power or senior peril: Aged communities and American society in the twenty-first century. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
11.
BrattonK. A. (2006). The behavior and success of Latino legislators: Evidence from the states. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 1136-1157.
12.
BrattonK. A.HaynieK. L. (1999). Agenda setting and legislative success in state legislatures: The effects of gender and race. The Journal of Politics, 61, 658-679.
13.
BurdenB. C. (2007). Personal roots of representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
ButlerD. M.BroockmanD. E. (2011). Do politicians racially discriminate against constituents? A field experiment on state legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 463-477.
15.
CameronC.EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1996). Do majority-minority districts maximize substantive black representation in congress?The American Political Science Review, 90, 794-812.
16.
CampbellA. L. (2002). Self-interest, social security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. The American Political Science Review, 96, 565-574.
17.
CampbellA. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior citizen activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
CampbellA. L. (2005). The non-distinctiveness of senior voters in the 2004 election. Public Policy and Aging Report, 15, 13-16.
19.
CarnesN. (2013). White-collar government: The hidden role of class in economic policy making. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
CarnesN. (2016). The Congressional Leadership and Social Status (CLASS) Dataset, (Version 1.9) [Computer file]. Durham, NC: Duke University. Retrieved from www.duke.edu/~nwc8/class.html
21.
CarrollS. J. (2003). Representing women: Congresswomen’s perceptions of their representational roles. In RosenthalC. S. (Ed.), Women transforming congress (pp. 19-40). Norman: Oklahoma University Press.
CurryJ. M. (2015). Legislating in the dark: Information and power in the House of Representatives. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
CutlerN. E. (1977). Demographic, social-psychological, and political factors in the politics of aging: A foundation for research in “Political gerontology.”The American Political Science Review, 71, 1011-1025.
25.
DayC. L. (2014). What older Americans think: Interest groups and aging policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
DeeringC. J.SmithS. S. (1997). Committees in congress (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
27.
DodsonD. L. (2006). The impact of women in congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
EllisW. C.WilsonW. C. (2013). Minority chairs and congressional attention to minority issues: The effect of descriptive representation in positions of institutional power. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 1207-1221.
29.
EpsteinL.SegalJ. A. (2000). Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 66-83.
30.
FennoR. F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
31.
FennoR. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. New York, NY: Pearson.
32.
FennoR. F. (2003). Going home: Black representatives and their constituents. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
FileT. (2013). Young-adult voting: An analysis of presidential elections, 1964-2012. Current Populations Survey Reports (P20-572). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
34.
FrederickB. (2010). Gender and patterns of roll call voting in the U.S. senate. Congress & the Presidency, 37, 103-124.
35.
GambleK. L. (2007). Black political representation: An examination of legislative activity within U.S. house committees. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32, 421-447.
36.
GerrityJ. C.OsbornT.MendezJ. M. (2007). Women and representation: A different view of the district?Politics & Gender, 3, 179-200.
37.
GrimmerJ. (2013). Representational style in congress: What legislators say and why it matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Haider-MarkelD. P. (2007). Representation and backlash: The positive and negative influence of descriptive representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32, 107-133.
39.
HawkesworthM. (2003). Congressional enactments of race-gender: Toward a theory of raced-gendered institutions. The American Political Science Review, 97, 529-550.
40.
HayesT. J.BishinB. G. (2012). Issue salience, subconstituency politics, and legislative representation. Congress & the Presidency, 39, 133-159.
41.
HaynieK. L. (2001). African American legislators in the American states. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
42.
HerrickR. (2009). The effects of sexual orientation on state legislators’ behavior and priorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 1117-1133.
43.
HornblowerM. (1988, January). Gray power!Time, pp. 36-37.
44.
JenningsM. K.MarkusG. B. (1988). Political involvement in the later years: A longitudinal survey. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 302-316.
45.
JenningsM. K.NiemiR. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
KerrB.MillerW. (1997). Latino representation, it’s direct and indirect. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1066-1071.
47.
KingdonJ. (1989). Congressmen’s voting decisions (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
48.
LazarusJ. (2013). Issue salience and bill introduction in the house and senate. Congress & the Presidency, 40, 215-229.
49.
MacDonaldJ. A.O’BrienE. E. (2010). Quasi-experimental design, constituency, and advancing women’s interests: Reexamining the influence of gender on substantive representation. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 472-486.
50.
MansbridgeJ. (2003). Rethinking representation. The American Political Science Review, 97, 515-528.
51.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
MayhewD. R. (2000). America’s congress: Actions in the public sphere, James Madison through Newt Gingrich. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
MilerK. C. (2010). Constituency representation in congress: The view from Capitol Hill. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
MillerA. H.GurinP.GurinG. (1980). Age consciousness and political mobilization of older Americans. The Gerontologist, 20, 691-700.
55.
MintaM. D. (2009). Legislative oversight and the substantive representation of Black and Latino interests in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 193-218.
56.
NortonN. H. (1999). Uncovering the dimensionality of gender voting in congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24, 65-86.
57.
PitkinH. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
58.
PomanteM. J.IISchraufnagelS. (2015). Candidate age and youth voter turnout. American Politics Research, 43, 479-503.
59.
PrattH. J. (1976). The gray lobby. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
PrattH. J. (1983). National interest groups among the elderly: Consolidation and constraint. In BrowneW. P.OlsonL. K. (Eds.), Aging and public policy: The politics of growing old in America (pp. 145-79). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
61.
PrattH. J. (1993). Gray agendas: Interest groups and public pensions in Canada, Britain, and the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
62.
PreuhsR. R. (2005). Descriptive representation, legislative leadership, and direct democracy: Latino influence on English only laws in the states, 1984-2002. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 5, 203-224.
63.
PreuhsR. R. (2006). The conditional effects of minority descriptive representation: Black legislators and policy influence in the American states. Journal of Politics, 68, 585-599.
64.
ReingoldB. (1992). Concepts of representation among female and male state legislators. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 509-537.
65.
RhodebeckL. A. (1993). The politics of greed? Political preferences among the elderly. The Journal of Politics, 55, 342-364.
66.
RixS. E. (1999). The politics of old age in the United States. In WalkerA.NaegeleG. (Eds.), The politics of old age in Europe (pp. 178-96). Bethlehem, PA: Open University Press.
67.
RoccaM. S.GordonS. B. (2010). The position-taking value of bill sponsorship in congress. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 387-397.
68.
RoccaM. S.SanchezG. R.UscinskiJ. (2008). Personal attributes and Latino voting behavior in congress. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 392-405.
69.
RouseS. M. (2013). Latinos in the legislative process: Interests and influence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
70.
SchillerW. J. (1995). Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 186-203.
71.
SchulzJ. H.BinstockR. H. (2008). Aging nation: The economics and politics of growing older in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
72.
ShermanS. R.WardR. A.LaGoryM. (1985). Socialization and aging group consciousness: The effect of neighborhood age concentration. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 102-109.
73.
StreetD. (1997). Special interests or citizens’ rights? “Senior power,” social security, and Medicare. International Journal of Health Services, 27, 727-751.
74.
SwainC. M. (1993). Black faces, black interests: The representation of African Americans in congress. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
SwersM. L. (1998). Are women more likely to vote for women’s issue bills than their male colleagues?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23, 435-448.
76.
SwersM. L. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
77.
SwersM. L. (2013). Women in the club: Gender and policy making in the senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
78.
TatalovitchR.SchierD. (1993). The persistence of ideological cleavage in voting on abortion legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973-1988. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 125-139.
79.
TateK. (2003). Black faces in the mirror: African Americans and their representatives in the U.S. congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
80.
TrelaJ. E. (1971). Some political consequences of senior center and other old age group memberships. The Gerontologist, 11, 118-123.
81.
WawroG. (2001). Legislative entrepreneurship in the U.S. house of representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
82.
WeaverJ. L. (1976). The elderly as a political community: The case of national health policy. The Western Political Quarterly, 29, 610-619.
83.
WebsterS. W.PierceA. W. (in press). Older, Younger, or more similar? The use of age as a voting heuristic. Social Science Quarterly.
84.
WhitbyK. J. (1996). The color of representation: Congressional behavior and black interests. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
85.
WhitbyK. J.GilliamF. D. (1998). Representation in congress: Line drawing and minorities. In WeisbergH. F.PattersonS. C. (Eds.), Great theatre: The American congress in the 1990s (pp. 33-51). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
86.
WhitbyK. J.KrauseG. A. (2001). Race, issue heterogeneity and public policy: The republican revolution in the 104th US congress and the representation of African-American policy interests. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 555-572.
87.
WilsonW. C. (2010). Descriptive representation and Latino interest bill sponsorship in congress. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 1043-1062.
88.
WolfingerR. E.RosenstoneS. J. (1980). Who votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
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.
