The representativeness of decision-making bodies relative to the population governed is a crucial factor for legitimacy. Most often, this principle is applied to elected bodies, but it equally pertains to appointed public officials. American presidents nominate individuals to lead executive bureaucracies that, in turn, influence and implement policy. However, in order to serve in these positions, nominees must pass through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process. Using data from the full Biden administration, we explore how identity influences nominees’ experience of the appointments process and ultimately impacts the representativeness of American bureaucracies. The Biden administration represents a unique case, where a campaign promise to promote diversity in appointments led to a historic shift in nomination practice. Within these favorable conditions, we show that the Senate still serves as an obstacle to appointing a diverse slate of high-level officials, both in terms of delaying and denying such appointments. Evidence also suggests that group stereotypes continue to influence appointee placements. Our findings demonstrate the influence of individual characteristics beyond ideology in appointment politics and advance our understanding of identity within American institutions.
AnziaS. F.BernhardR. (2022). Gender stereotyping and the electoral success of women candidates: New evidence from local elections in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 1544–1563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123421000570
2.
AsmussenN. (2011). Female and minority judicial nominees: President’s delight and senators’ dismay?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 591–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00028.x
3.
BadasA.StaufferK. (2023). Diversity in judicial nominations and perceptions of presidential accomplishment (pp. 249–270). Representation.
4.
BadasA.StaufferK. (2024). Legislative diversity and the rise of women judicial nominees in the United States. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 13(2), 1–9.
5.
BakerA.CookC. (2005). Representing black interests and promoting black culture: The importance of African American descriptive representation in the U.S. house. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 2(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x05050162
6.
BarnesC. Y.HopeE. C. (2017). Means-tested public assistance programs and adolescent political socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(7), 1611–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0624-x
7.
BarretoM. A. (2007). İSí Se puede! Latino candidates and the mobilization of Latino voters. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055407070293
BondJ. R.FleisherR.KrutzG. S. (2009). Malign neglect: Evidence that delay has become the primary method of defeating presidential appointments. Congress and the Presidency, 36(3), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343460903172788
10.
BorrelliM. (2010). Gender desegregation and gender integration in the president’s cabinet, 1933-2010. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 734–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03809.x
11.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.JonesB. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
12.
BoydC.NelsonM.OstranderI.BoldtE. (2021). The politics of federal prosecution. Oxford University Press.
BrattonK. (2002). The effect of legislative diversity on agenda setting: Evidence from six state legislatures. American Politics Research, 30(3), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x02030002001
15.
BrownN. E. (2014). Sisters in the statehouse: black women and legislative decision making: Oxford University Press USA - OSO.
16.
CanonD. T. (1999). Race, redistricting, and representation: The unintended consequences of black majority districts. American politics and political economy: University of Chicago Press.
17.
ChenP.SavageA. (2024). Amy coney barrett is not enough: How descriptive and substantive representation shape trust and legitimacy of the federal bench. Political Research Quarterly, 77(4), 1110–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241262340
18.
ClarkC. J. (2019). Gaining voice: The causes and consequences of black representation in the American states. Oxford University Press.
19.
ClintonJ.BertelliA.GroseC.LewisD.NixonD. (2012). Separated powers in the United States: The ideology of agencies, presidents, and congress. American Journal of Political Science, 4(1), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00559.x
20.
ClintonJ. D.LewisD. E. (2008). Expert opinion, agency characteristics, and agency preferences. Political Analysis, 16(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm009
21.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
DietrichB. J.HayesM. (2023). Symbols of the struggle: Descriptive representation and issue-based symbolism in US house speeches. The Journal of Politics, 85(4), 1368–1384. https://doi.org/10.1086/723966
24.
DittmarK.SanbonmatsuK.CarrollS. (2018). A seat at the table: congress-women’s perspectives on why their presence matters: Oxford University Press.
25.
DittmarK.SanbonmatsuK.CarrollS. J. (2018). A seat at the table: Congresswomen’s perspectives on why their presence matters: Oxford University Press.
26.
DoanA.PortilloS. (2019). Organizational obliviousness: Entrenched resistance to gender integration in the military. Elements in public and nonprofit administration (1st ed. ed): Cambridge University Press.
27.
DohertyD.DowlingC. M.MillerM. G. (2019). Do local party chairs think women and minority candidates can win? Evidence from a conjoint experiment. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1282–1297. https://doi.org/10.1086/704698
28.
EpsteinD.O’HalloranS. (1999). Measuring the electoral and policy impact of majority-minority voting districts. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 367–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991799
29.
FragaB. L.Gonzalez JuenkeE.ShahP. (2020). One run leads to another: Minority incumbents and the emergence of lower ticket minority candidates. The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 771–775. https://doi.org/10.1086/706599
30.
GayC. (2001). The effect of black congressional representation on political participation. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401003021
31.
GleasonS. A.StoutC. T. (2014). Who is empowering who: Exploring the causal relationship between descriptive representation and black empowerment. Journal of Black Studies, 45(7), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934714545343
GroseC. R. (2005). Disentangling constituency and legislator effects in legislative representation: black legislators or black districts?Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00311.x
34.
GroseC. R. (2011). Congress in Black and white: Race and representation in Washington and at home: Cambridge University Press.
35.
GroseC. R.MangumM.MartinC.. (2007). Race, political empowerment, and constituency service: Descriptive representation and the hiring of African-American congressional staff. Polity, 39(4):449–478. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300081, Publisher: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological republicans and group interest democrats: Oxford University Press.
37.
HajnalZ.TrounstineJ. (2005). Where turnout matters: The consequences of uneven turnout in city politics. The Journal of Politics, 67(2), 515–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00327.x
38.
HeadleyA. M.JamesE.WrightI. I.MeierK. J. (2021). Bureaucracy, democracy, and race: The limits of symbolic representation. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1033–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13358
39.
HeroR. E.PreuhsR. R. (2010). Black-latino political relationships: Policy voting in the U.S. house of representatives. American Politics Research, 38(3), 531–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x09338369
40.
HeroR. E.TolbertC. J. (1995). Latinos and substantive representation in the U.S. house of representatives: Direct, indirect, or nonexistent?American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 640–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111648
41.
HowardN. O.RobertsJ. M. (2015). The politics of obstruction: Republican holds in the U.S. senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12076
42.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of Male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526
43.
HumphreyN.ShannonP.BearfieldD.DoanA. (2023). The oblivious organization: Understanding racial stereotypes in the public sector. Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration, 1(2):51–64. https://doi.org/10.24926/jsepa.v1i2.4924
44.
KingB. A. (2020). Diversity and descriptive representation in election administration. In: BrownM.HaleK.KingB. A. (Eds.), The future of election administration (pp. 169–184): Springer International Publishing.
45.
KingD. S. (1995). Separate and unequal: Black Americans and the US federal government: Clarendon.
46.
KingD. (1999). The racial bureaucracy: African Americans and the federal government in the era of segregated race relations. Governance, 12(4), 345–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00109
47.
KingJ.OstranderI. (2025). Quick to judge? Confirmation by cloture in the post-nuclear senate. American Politics Research, 53(6), 607–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x251343029
48.
KingJ. M.SchoenherrJ.OstranderI. (2025). Anchoring or expanding? Gender adn judicial nominations. Political Research Quarterly, 78(1), 138–150.
49.
KrutzG. S.FleisherR.BondJ. R. (1998). From Abe fortas to zoë baird: Why some presidential nominations fail in the senate. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 871–881. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586309
50.
LeeF. E. (2009). Beyond ideology: Politics, principles, and partisanship in the U.S. senate. University of Chicago Press.
51.
LeeF. E. (2016). Insecure majorities: Congress and the perpetual campaign. University of Chicago Press.
52.
MackenzieG. C. (1981). The politics of presidential appointments. Free Press.
53.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ”Yes. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647821
54.
MartinekW.KemperM.Van WinkleS. R. (2002). To advise and consent: The senate and lower federal court nominations, 1977-1998. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00129
55.
McCartyN.RoseR. (1999). Advice and consent: Senate responses to executive branch nominations 1885 - 1996. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 1122–1143. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991820
56.
MettlerS. (2007). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. bill and the making of the greatest generation. Oxford University Press.
57.
MichenerJ. (2018). Fragmented democracy: Medicaid, federalism, and unequal politics. Cambridge University Press.
58.
MichenerJ. (2019). Policy feedback in a racialized polity. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 423–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12328
59.
MintaM. D. (2011). Oversight: Representing the interests of blacks and latinos in congress: Princeton Univ. Press.
60.
MintaM. D. (2021). No longer outsiders: black and Latino interest group advocacy on capitol hill. University of Chicago Press.
61.
NixonD. C. (2005). The independent regulatory commissioner database. Available online from: https://www2.hawaii.edu/∼dnixon/IRC/. Last accessed 9-25-2010.
62.
NixonD. C. (2014). Institutional conflict and perceived property rights in appointment politics. Congress and the Presidency, 41(1), 223–247.
63.
OstranderI. (2016). The logic of collective inaction: Senatorial delay in executive nominations. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1063–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12208
64.
OstranderI. (2017). The politics of executive nominations in the post nuclear senate. Congress and the Presidency, 47(4), 752–776.
65.
OverbyL. M.CosgroveK. M. (1996). Unintended consequences? Racial redistricting and the representation of minority interests. The Journal of Politics, 58(2), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960239
PitkinH. F. (1972). The concept of representation (Reprint ed): University of California Press.
68.
PreuhsR. R.JuenkeE. G. (2011). Latino U.S. state legislators in the 1990s: Majority-minority districts, minority incorporation, and institutional position. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440010387399
69.
PuwarN. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender and bodies out of place: Berg.
70.
RungM. C. (2002). Servants of the state: Managing diversity and democracy in the federal workforce, 1933 - 1953. Athens, Ga. Univ. of Georgia Press.
71.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044
72.
ShapiroR. Y.MahajanH. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/268958
73.
Sinclair-ChapmanV. N. (2002). Symbols and substance: How Black constituents are collectively represented in the United States congress through roll -call voting and bill sponsorship Phd: The Ohio State University United States.
74.
SmithS. S. (2014). The senate syndrome: The evolution of procedural warfare in the modern senate. University of Oklahoma Press.
75.
SolowiejL. A.MartinekW. L.BrunellT. L. (2005). Partisan politics: The impact of party in the confirmation of minority and female federal court nominees. Party Politics, 11(5), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805054980
76.
StoutC. T. (2018). Obamacares: Candidate traits, descriptive representation, and black political participation. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 3(2), 356–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2018.20
77.
SwainC. M. (1993). Black faces, Black interests: The representation of African Americans in congress: Harvard University Press.
78.
TateK. (2003). Black opinion on the legitimacy of racial redistricting and minority-majority districts. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 45–56. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055403000510
79.
TushnetM. V. (2004). Constitutional hardball. 37 J. Marshall L. Rev, 523–553.
80.
Watkins-HayesC. (2011). Race, respect, and red tape: Inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_2), i233–i251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq096
81.
WawroG.SchicklerE. (2018). Reid’s rules: Fillibusters, the nuclear option, and path dependence in the US senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 43(4), 619–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12207
82.
WestE. A. (2017). Descriptive representation and political efficacy: Evidence from obama and clinton. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1086/688888
83.
WhitbyK. J. (1997). The color of representation: Congressional behavior and black interests: University of Michigan Press.
84.
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(3), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123401000217
85.
WhiteA.ShahP.Gonzalez JuenkeE.FragaB. L. (2024). Evaluating the minority candidate penalty with a regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 1006–1013. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123423000583
WilsonW. C. (2017). From inclusion to influence: Latino representation in congress and Latino political incorporation in America: University of Michigan Press.
WoodD. B.WatermanR. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 85(3), 801–828. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963851
90.
YackeeJ. W.Webb YackeeS. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00375.x
