This investigation explores sex offender bill sponsorship by male and female legislators from both political parties to determine if female policymakers legislate in a “different voice.” Quantitative results indicate that sex offender bill sponsorship often transcends differences of gender, race, or political affiliation. However, the in-depth qualitative findings revealed that female policymakers viewed sex crimes and sex offender laws more broadly than male legislators noting the multiple contexts in which sexual victimizations occur, and as connected with the larger social problem of violence against women. In comparison, male legislators focused on predatory child molestations as their motivation for sex offender bill sponsorship. Findings suggest that relying only on descriptive statistical analysis to study gender and policymaking, such as voting patterns, is likely to miss subtle, but significant, differences in women’s policymaking.
AckerJ. (1992). Gendered institutions: From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21, 565-569.
2.
BarrettE. J. (1997). Gender and race in the state house: The legislative experience. Social Science Journal, 34, 131-144.
3.
BrattonK. A. (2002). The effect of legislative diversity on agenda-setting: Evidence from six state legislatures. American Politics Research, 30, 115-142.
4.
BrattonK. A. (2005). Critical mass theory revisited: The behavior and success of token women in state legislatures. Politics & Gender, 1, 97-125.
5.
BrattonK. A.HaynieK. L.ReingoldB. (2006). Agenda setting and African American women in state legislatures. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28(3-4), 71-96.
6.
CarrollS. J. (2002). Representing women: Women state legislators as agents of policy-related change. In CarrollS. J. (Ed.), The impact of women in public office (pp. 3-21). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
7.
CarrollS. J.DodsonD.MandelR. B. (1991). The impact of women in public office. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
8.
CarrollS. J.SanbonmatsuK. (2013). More women can run: Gender and pathways to the state legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9.
Center for American Women and Politics. (2014). Women of color in elective office 2014: Congress, statewide, state legislature. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. Retrieved from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/color.pdf
10.
CollinsP. H. (2000). Gender, Black feminism, and Black political economy. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568, 41-53.
11.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139-167.
12.
DahlkemperL. (1996, July/August). Growing accustomed to her face. State Legislatures, 37-45.
13.
DolanK.FordL. E. (1995). Women in the state legislatures: Feminist identity and legislature behavior. American Politics Quarterly, 23, 96-108.
14.
EhrenreichB. (1990, November). The road to equality: Sorry, sisters, this is not the revolution. Time Magazine Special Issue, Women: The Road Ahead, 15.
15.
FordL. E.DolanK. (1995). The politics of women state legislators: A South/Non-South comparison. Southeastern Political Review, 23, 333-348.
16.
FragaL.LopezL.Martinez-Ebers, & RamírezR. (2006). Gender and ethnicity: Patterns of electoral success and legislative advocacy among Latina and Latino state officials in four states. Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, 28, 121-145.
17.
GayC.TateK. (1998). Doubly bound: The impact of gender and race on the politics of Black women. Political Psychology, 19, 169-184.
18.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
GithensM.PrestageJ. (1977). A minority within a majority. In GithensM.PrestageJ. (Eds.), Portraits of marginality: The political behavior of the American woman (pp. 339-345). New York, NY: David McKay.
20.
GreyS. (2002). Does size matter? Critical Mass and New Zealand’s Women’s MPs. Parliamentary Affairs, 55(1), 19-29.
21.
HawkesworthM. (2003). Congressional enactments of race-gender: Toward a theory of race-gendered institutions. American Political Science Review, 97, 529-550.
22.
HawkesworthM.CaseyK. J.JenkinsK.KleemanK. (2001). Legislating by and for women: A comparison of the 103rd and 104th Congresses. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.
23.
HedgeD.ButtonJ.SpearM. (1996). Accounting for the quality of Black legislative life: The view from the states. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 82-98.
24.
hooksb. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press.
25.
hooksb. (1989). Talking back. Boston, MA: South End Press.
26.
JenkinsP. (2004). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions of group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-991.
28.
KathleneL. (1994). Power and influence in state legislative policymaking: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. The American Political Science Review, 88, 560-576.
29.
KathleneL. (1995). Alternative views of crime: Legislative policymaking in gendered terms. Journal of Politics, 57, 696-723.
30.
KathleneL. (2005). In a different voice: Women and the policy process. In ThomasS.WilcoxC. (Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, Present, and Future (2nd ed.) (pp. 213-229). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
KenneyS. (1996). New research on gendered political institutions. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 445-466.
32.
KennyM. (2007). Gender, institutions, and power: A critical review. Politics, 27, 91-100.
33.
KittilsonM.Schwindt-BayerL. (2012). The gendered effects of electoral institutions: Political engagement and participation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
LeaderS. (1977). The policy impact of elected women officials. In MaiselL.CooperJ. (Eds.), The impact of the electoral process (pp. 265-284). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
LittleT. H.DunnD.DeenR. E. (2001). A view from the top. Women & Politics, 22(4), 29-50.
36.
MackayF. (2004). Gender and political representation in the UK: The state of the “discipline.”The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6, 99-120.
37.
MeloyM.CurtisK.BoatwrightJ. (2013a). Policy-makers’ perceptions on their sex offender laws: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 26, 273-288.
38.
MeloyM.CurtisK.BoatwrightJ. (2013b). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up: Policy makers’ perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex offender legislation. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 40, 438-452.
39.
MeloyM. L.MillerS. L.CurtisK. M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 209-222.
40.
MillerS. L.MaierS. L. (2008). Moving beyond numbers: What female judges say about different judicial voices. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 29, 527-559.
ReingoldB. (2000). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
44.
ReingoldB. (2006, May25-27). Women as office holders: Linking descriptive and substantive representation. Paper prepared for presentation at the “Political Women and American Democracy” Conference, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana.
45.
RosenthalC.S. (1998). When women lead: Integrative leadership in State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
RosenthalC. S. (2000). Gender styles in state legislative committees. Women & Politics, 21(2), 21-45.
47.
Saint-GermainM. (1989). Does their difference make a difference? The impact of women on public policy in the Arizona Legislature. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 956-968.
48.
SampleL.KadleckC. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislator’s accounts of the need for policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 40-62.
49.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
50.
SturgesJ.HanrahanK. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4, 117-118.
51.
SutherlandE. (1950). The diffusion of sexual psychopath laws. American Journal of Sociology, 50, 142-148.
52.
SwersM. L. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in Congress. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
53.
SwersM. L.LarsonC. (2005). Women in Congress: Do they act as advocates for women’s issues? In ThomasS.WilcoxC. (Eds.), Women and the elective office: Past, present and future (pp. 110-151). New York, NY: Oxford.
54.
ThomasS. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. Journal of Politics, 53, 958-976.
55.
ThomasS. (1994). How women legislate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
56.
ThomasS. (1998). Introduction: Women and elective office: Past, present, and future. In ThomasS.WilcoxC. (Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, present, and future (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
57.
VegaA.FirestoneJ. M. (1995). The effects of gender on Congressional behavior and substantive representation of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20, 213-222.
58.
WelchS. (1985). Are women more liberal than men in the U.S. Congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 10, 125-134.
59.
WelchS.ThomasS. (1991). Do women in public office make a difference? In DodsonD. L. (Ed.), Gender and policymaking: Studies of women in office (pp. 13-20). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.
60.
WengrafT. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic, narrative, and semi structured methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
WolbrechtC. (2000). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
