A fundamental requirement of democracy is the existence of contested elections. Our study documents and explains trends in uncontested seats in the U.S. Congress and state legislatures over time. We uncover a striking inconsistency in the health of elections: the frequency of uncontested seats in Congress has declined while the frequency of uncontested seats in state legislatures has actually increased. To explore these divergent trends, we consider factors that are common to both Congress and state legislatures such as the redistricting cycle but also variables that are unique to the state level. Our analysis points to the relative “flippability” of Congress compared to many state legislatures as a factor behind diverging levels of contestation. While many state legislatures have become bastions for dominant parties, congressional districts in those same states are often nonetheless viewed as enticing targets because they contribute to control of the federal government.
AldrichJ. H.GriffinJ. D. (2018). Why parties matter: Political competition and democracy in the American south. University of Chicago Press.
2.
AnsolabehereS.GerberA. (1996). The effects of filing fees and petition requirements on U.S. House elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21(2), 249–264.
3.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2002a). The incumbency advantage in U.S. elections: An analysis of state and federal offices, 1942–2000. Election Law Journal, 1(3), 315–338.
4.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2002b). Campaign war chests in congressional elections. Business and Politics, 2, 9–33.
5.
BeckN. L.KatzJ. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634–647.
6.
BowenD. C.GreeneZ. (2014). Should we measure professionalism with an index? A note on theory and practice in state legislative professionalism research. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 14(3), 277–296.
7.
BrunellT. L. (2008). Redistricting and representation: Why competitive elections are bad for America. Routledge.
CainB. E. (2011). More or less: Searching for regulatory balance. In CharlesG-UGerkenH.KangM. S. (Eds.), Race, reform, and regulation of the electoral process: Recurring puzzles in American democracy. Cambridge University Press.
10.
CanonD. T. (1993). Sacrificial lambs or strategic politicians? Political amateurs in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1119–1141.
11.
CareyJ. M.NiemiR. G.PowellL. W. (2000). Incumbency and the probability of reelection in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 671–700.
12.
CarsonJ. L. (2003). Strategic interaction and candidate competition in U.S. House elections: Empirical application of probit and strategic probit models. Political Analysis, 11(4), 368–380.
13.
DahlR. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
14.
FeigenbaumJ. J.FouirnaiesA.HallA. B. (2017). The majority-party disadvantage: Revising theories of legislative organization. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 12(3), 269–300.
15.
ForgetteR.GarnerA.WinkleJ. (2009). Do redistricting principles and practices affect U.S. state legislative electoral competition?State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 9(2), 151–175.
16.
Government Accountability Office. (2010). Experiences of two states that offered full public funding for political candidates. GAO 10–390.
17.
GoodliffeJ. (2001). The effect of war chests on challenger entry in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 830–844.
18.
HammK. E.HoganR. E. (2008). Campaign finance laws and candidacy decisions in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(3), 458–467.
19.
HiranoS.SnyderJ. M. (2009). Using multimember district elections to estimate the sources of the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 292–306.
20.
HoganR. E. (2001). Campaign war chests and challenger emergence in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 815–830.
21.
HoganR. E. (2003). Institutional and district-level sources of competition in state legislative elections. Social Science Quarterly, 84(3), 543–560.
22.
HoganR. E. (2004). Challenger emergence, incumbent success, and electoral accountability in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1283–1303.
23.
JacobsonG. C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections: 1946-86. American Political Science Review, 83(3), 773–793.
24.
JacobsonG. C. (2006). Competition in U.S. congressional elections. In McDonaldM. P.SamplesJ. (Eds.), The marketplace of democracy: Electoral competition and American politics. Brookings Institution Press.
25.
JewellM. E.BreauxD. (1991). Southern primary and electoral competition and incumbent success. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(1), 129–143.
26.
KeyV. O.Jr. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
27.
KlarnerC.BerryW. D.CarseyT. M.JewellM.NiemiR.PowellL.SnyderJ. (2013). State Legislative Election Returns (1967-2010). Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34297.v1
28.
KoniskyD. M.UedaM. (2011). The effects of uncontested elections on legislator performance. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 199–229.
KousserT. (2005). Term limits and the dismantling of state legislative professionalism. Cambridge University Press.
31.
KritzerH. M. (2011). Competitiveness in state supreme court elections, 1945-2009. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 237–259.
32.
LeeF. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.
33.
LublinD. (2004). The republican south: Democratization and partisan change. Princeton University Press.
34.
LublinD.McDonaldM. P. (2006). Is it time to draw the line? The impact of redistricting on competition in state house elections. Election Law Journal, 5(2), 144–157.
35.
MaestasC. D.FultonS.MaiselL. S.StoneW. J. (2006). When to risk it? Institutions, ambitions, and the decision to run for the U.S. House. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 195–208.
36.
MasketS. H.WinburnJ.WrightG. C. (2012). The gerrymanders are coming! Legislative redistricting won’t affect competition or polarization much, no matter who does it. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 39–43.
37.
MayerK. R.WernerT.WilliamsA. (2006). Do public funding programs enhance electoral competition? In McDonaldM. P.SamplesJ. (Eds.), The marketplace of democracy: Electoral competition and American politics. Brookings Institution Press.
38.
MayerK. R.WoodJ. M. (1995). The impact of public financing on electoral competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964-1990. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 69–88.
39.
MummoloJ.PetersonE. (2018). Improving the interpretation of fixed effects regression results. Political Science Research and Methods, 6, 829–835.
40.
MyersA. S. (2018). Changing patterns of uncontested seats in southern state legislative elections, 1984-2012. Social Science Quarterly, 99(2), 583–598.
41.
NiemiR. G.JackmanS.WinskyL. R. (1991). Candidacies and competitiveness in multimember districts. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(1), 91–109.
42.
RogersS. (2015). Strategic challenger entry in a federal system: The role of economic and political conditions in state legislative competition. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 539–570.
SquireP. (2000). Uncontested seats in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(1), 131–146.
45.
SquireP. (2017). A squire index update. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 17(4), 361–371.
46.
TamasB.HindmanM. D. (2014). Ballot access laws and the decline of American third-parties. Election Law Journal, 13(2), 260–276.
47.
Van DunkE. (1997). Challenge quality in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 793–807.
48.
Van DunkE.WeberR. E. (1997). Constituency-level competition in the U.S. states, 1968-1988: A pooled analysis. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22(2), 141–159.
49.
VoldenC.WisemanA. E. (2014). Legislative effectiveness in the United States congress. Cambridge University Press.
50.
WrightonJ. M.SquireP. (1997). Uncontested seats and electoral competition for the U.S. House of representatives over time. Journal of Politics, 59(2), 452–468.
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.
