Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States

by Kira Sanbonmatsu

Overview

Why don’t more women run for office? Why are certain states more likely to have female candidates and representatives? Would strengthening political parties narrow the national gender gap? Where Women Run addresses these important questions through a rare and incisive look at how candidates are recruited. Drawing on surveys and case studies of party leaders and legislators in six states, political scientist Kira Sanbonmatsu analyzes the links between parties and representation, exposing the mechanism by which parties’ informal recruitment practices shape who runs—or doesn’t run—for political office in America.
 
“Kira Sanbonmatsu has done a masterful job of linking the representation of women in elective office to the activities of party organizations in the states. She combines qualitative and quantitative data to show how women are navigating the campaign process to become elected leaders and the changing role of party organizations in their recruitment and election. It is a significant contribution to the study of representative democracy.”
--Barbara Burrell, Northern Illinois University
 
“Sanbonmatsu has produced an excellent study that will invigorate research on the role of political parties and the recruitment of women candidates. Using a variety of methods and data sources, she has crafted a tightly constructed, clearly argued, and exceedingly well-written study. A commendable and convincing job.”
--Gary Moncrief, Boise State University
 
“Sanbonmatsu offers important insights in two neglected areas of American politics: the role of political parties in recruiting candidates and the continued under-representation of women in elected office. Connecting the two subjects through careful qualitative and statistical methods, insightful interpretation of the literature and interesting findings, the book is a significant new addition to scholarship on parties, gender, and political recruitment.”
--Linda Fowler, Dartmouth College
 
Kira Sanbonmatsu is Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and Senior Scholar at the Eagleton Institute of Politics’ Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). She was previously associate professor at Ohio State University. She is the author of Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women’s Place.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780472025657
Publisher:	University of Michigan Press
Publication date:	02/09/2010
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	264
File size:	2 MB

About the Author

Kira Sanbonmatsu is Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and Senior Scholar at the Eagleton Institute of Politics' Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). She was previously associate professor at Ohio State University. She is the author of Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place, and co-editor with Susan J. Carroll of the CAWP Series in Gender and American Politics.

Read an Excerpt

Where Women Run

Gender and Party in the American States

---

By Kira Sanbonmatsu

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS

Copyright © 2006 University of Michigan
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-472-09934-4

---

Chapter One

Gender and Representation

The presence of women officeholders in local, state, and federal government has increased dramatically since the early 1970s. Nevertheless, men continue to outnumber women in elective office. In 2005, as we approach the one hundredth anniversary of women's suffrage, women comprise 15 percent of members of Congress and 22.5 percent of state legislators while men are 85 percent and 77.5 percent of those institutions respectively (CAWP 2005b). The scarcity of women candidates, rather than a failure of women to win their races, is the primary reason for the dearth of women in public office; election results reveal that women candidates typically win their races at rates similar to those of men. This gender parity in electoral success has given rise to an oft-repeated slogan, "When women run, women win." With continuing changes in women's role in society and the adoption of term limits in many states, women are expected to seek office in even greater numbers. However, the percentage of women serving in the legislatures has leveled off in recent years after trending upward for several decades. This unexpected plateau in the presence of women statelegislators is cause to revisit the question of why more women do not run for public office.

In this book, I examine the relationship between political parties and women's representation. What role do the major political parties play in shaping who runs for the legislature? How do party practices affect women candidates? Do party activities facilitate women's election to public office? Or do parties make women's representation less likely?

It is commonly expected that women's representation will necessarily increase in the future. As women's role in society continues to evolve, more women are positioned to run for office. Thus, over time, more women are expected to achieve elective office. But the presence of women in the state legislatures is not a foregone conclusion; rather, the likelihood that women will run for office is shaped by politics. Who runs for office is partly determined by idiosyncratic factors such as personal interest, timing, and family. But there is more to the story of who runs for office. In particular, I focus on the institution of the political party.

Much current debate concerns the condition of the political parties in the United States-whether they are weak or strong, resurging or declining. Scholars often argue that parties are peripheral to contemporary elections because primary voters-not party organizations-select candidates. Understanding who runs for office may therefore have little to do with parties. However, other scholars argue that party organizations have grown stronger as the Democratic and Republican parties have become more competitive.

I will argue that political parties are, indeed, consequential for who runs for and wins office. Parties often use candidate recruitment as a political strategy, inserting themselves in what might seem to be a purely personal decision. First, parties can encourage office seeking by individuals who might not have otherwise done so. Second, parties can discourage candidates from entering a race. Finally, parties support candidates in the primary. Therefore, understanding who runs for office-including whether women run for office-may have much to do with party. Few scholars have examined what parties seek in candidates and whether gender factors into the parties' electoral strategies. But attention to political parties is critical for understanding women's candidacies. By focusing on parties, I enter an existing debate about how parties connect to women's opportunities for office.

The conventional wisdom is that stronger parties and greater party control over the nomination can increase women's representation, while candidate-centered elections and weak political parties put women at a disadvantage. Because politics remains a predominantly male profession, parties can increase the presence of women candidates through their candidate recruitment efforts. They can also help women win election by acting as gatekeepers and restricting the party nomination, easing women's access to the general election. Because women have fewer personal resources than do men, women stand to benefit from party efforts to play a more significant role in choosing the party nominee.

Both recruitment (party attempts to encourage candidates to run) and gatekeeping (party efforts to influence the nomination) arguably serve as indicators of party organizational strength. However, I find that stronger party organizations have a negative effect on women's representation: fewer women run for and hold state legislative office where parties are more likely to engage in gatekeeping activities. I argue that more restrictive candidate selection processes and gendered social networks reduce the likelihood that women will be recruited. Moreover, party leader doubts about women's electability make it is less likely that women will be handpicked for important races. Greater party involvement in the recruitment of candidates has no consistent positive or negative effect on women's representation. Thus, different aspects of party organizational strength have different implications for women's candidacies.

The similar success rates of men and women candidates have led some to conclude that candidate gender plays a small role-if any-in who wins elections. By these accounts, the dearth of women in office has little to do with gender. Yet my research suggests that the level of women's representation has much to do with gender. Because women have been so much less likely to seek public office than men, gender remains consequential for candidate recruitment. Party leader beliefs about women's electability vary a great deal by state. In most states, the viability of women candidates is thought to depend on the district. Thus, the view that "When women run, women win" is not universally held across states and parties.

We cannot assume that potential women candidates will become candidates. Gender continues to structure social life-and political life-in important ways. Much research suggests that men and women take somewhat different paths to public office. As a result, the presence of women legislators depends on the condition of those mechanisms that facilitate women's path to office. Women are much less likely than men to hold leadership roles within their parties, a fact that has implications for candidate recruitment. Just as party decisions about whom to contact and mobilize have consequences for which citizens participate in American politics, party decisions about who should be encouraged to run for office have consequences for which citizens serve as legislators.

DEMOCRACY AND REPRESENTATION

The numerical presence of women in elective office merits investigation for a number of reasons. On one hand, legislators are more likely to vote with their political party than their gender group. On the other hand, however, the presence of women in office has consequences for representation. The "descriptive representation" of women, or standing for women, in Hanna Pitkin's framework, is related to the "substantive representation" of women, or acting for women (e.g., Thomas 1994; Dodson and Carroll 1991; Mandel and Dodson 1992; Swers 1998; Bratton and Haynie 1999; Carroll 2001; Bratton 2002b; Swers 2002; C. Rosenthal 2002; Dodson forthcoming). Gender is an independent and significant predictor of legislative behavior, even when powerful explanatory variables such as district characteristics and ideology are taken into account (Swers 2002). Gender differences in agenda setting are particularly prevalent: women legislators are much more likely than men to work on legislation that is important to women as a group and more likely to make that legislation a priority.

Whether women are represented in legislative institutions also contributes to the legitimacy of the political system (Darcy, Welch, and Clark 1994). The shortage of women in elite politics can be described as "women's underrepresentation" in elective office, given that women constitute a majority of the population. As Phillips (1991) notes, women's underrepresentation itself provides evidence that gender is a relevant feature of the social structure and that women's experiences must differ from men's. Gender differences in social position appear to necessitate the representation of "women's interests" (Sapiro 1981). As descriptive representatives of women as a group, women legislators can improve the substantive representation of women's interests by improving the quality of deliberation; according to Mansbridge (1999), representatives of disadvantaged groups can enhance communication within legislative bodies as well as between representatives and constituents. In short, the presence of women in deliberative bodies provides an opportunity for more fair and effective representation (Phillips 1995).

In addition to the many ways in which gender influences men's and women's daily lives, gender differences in legislative behavior may reflect the different paths that men and women take to elective office. The work of women legislators across party lines is also often the product of conscious effort and strategy: women legislators meet together informally as well as formally through women's caucuses in many state legislatures and in Congress (CAWP 2001c).

How institutional factors affect the ability of women legislators to substantively represent women motivates a growing body of research (e.g., Bratton 2002a; Beckwith 2002). A critical mass of women may be needed before women can act for women. As women approach parity in the legislature and move beyond token status, they may be less constrained and better able to act for women (Kanter 1977; Thomas 1994; Thomas and Welch 2001). Yet even a small number of women can have an impact on women's substantive representation (Crowley 2004).

One of the most striking findings from this body of research is women legislators' strong belief that they have an obligation to represent the interests of women as a group (CAWP 2001c; Reingold 2000; Carroll 2002). Men legislators are much less likely to feel this obligation. This gender difference may be fueled by life experience, the expectations of voters and other political actors, and the electoral connection between women legislators and women's organizations and women voters. According to Carroll (2003a: 22), women's organizations-both within legislative institutions and external to the legislature-act as linkage mechanisms, "connecting women officeholders to other women and to a more collective vision of women's interests." Moreover, "in the absence of close ties to women's organizations, it seems likely that fewer women legislators would be active advocates on behalf of women."

Women voters are more likely than men to want to see more women in public office (Cook 1994), and some evidence indicates that women voters are more likely than men to vote for women candidates (e.g., Zipp and Plutzer 1985; Plutzer and Zipp 1996; Seltzer, Newman, and Leighton 1997; Dolan 1998). In turn, the presence of women as candidates and officeholders can increase women's civic engagement (Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001). Once elected, women are uniquely positioned to enhance the ties between women in the mass public and policy-making.

Thus, normative concerns about democracy and equality and growing evidence of gender differences in legislative behavior make the question of women's underrepresentation a compelling one. I focus on a critical stage of the representation process: candidacy. As Fowler argues, much about our political life turns on who runs for office:

Politics in the United States depends on candidates to provide leadership, to foster vigorous competition, to ensure that a wide range of interests in society has access to political power, to uphold the principles of popular sovereignty and individual rights, and to give expression to citizen demands for policy change. (1993: 37)

The presence-or absence-of women candidates has implications for what interests are heard in American politics. Indeed, the descriptive representation of women can give rise to the content of women's interests (Mansbridge 1999). Descriptive representation also conveys social meaning to the citizenry as a whole about the political equality of women as a class and the appropriateness of women's participation in the public sphere (Sapiro 1981; Phillips 1995; Mansbridge 1999).

GENDER AND STATE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE

The focus of my investigation of women's representation is the state legislature, where political careers often begin. In his landmark study of political ambition, Schlesinger (1966: 72) identified the state legislature as a base office and "a natural breeding ground for political ambition." His analysis of the backgrounds of statewide leaders in the first half of the twentieth century revealed that the legislature was the single most common prior office-holding experience. Today, the legislature remains a stepping-stone to statewide and congressional positions. Meanwhile, for the majority of state legislators, the legislature is their first elective office (Pew Center 2003). Thus, understanding why more women do not run for the legislature and understanding where women run has long-term consequences for women's officeholding at higher levels. How women fare in state politics is also increasingly important given the devolution of policy-making responsibilities to the states.

At first glance, that men outnumber women as political candidates may seem unremarkable: women have always been less likely than men to run for office. Yet looking across the United States, it is evident that the relationship between gender and officeholding is anything but fixed. The percentage of state legislative candidates and state legislators who are women ranges widely across the American states. In South Carolina, for example, only about 9 percent of legislators are women (see table 1.1). But women comprise 34 percent of legislators in Maryland (CAWP 2005d).

One might expect women to be least well represented in those regions of the country where traditional gender role arrangements are more common. Such an account might explain why women are fewer in number in southern states than in other states. But the low representation of women in Wyoming and Pennsylvania is inconsistent with such an explanation. Moreover, the states with the highest proportion of women legislators represent a range of geographic regions and ideological views. And though an overall increase has occurred in the proportion of women serving in the legislatures, the American states have experienced change at different rates (E. Cox 1996). Indeed, in nearly one-third of states, women constitute a smaller proportion of legislators in 2005 than they did in the wake of the 1992 elections-the "Year of the Woman" in which a record number of women won seats in Congress.

In most areas of political participation, women participate less than men (Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001). Yet women outparticipate men in politics in one respect: women are more likely than men to vote (CAWP 2004). This evidence suggests that gender does not inherently constrict women to a lesser role than men in politics. Furthermore, changes over time and variation across states mean that the current relationship between gender and officeholding is not a permanent feature of our political life. Instead, the dearth of women candidates requires explanation. My focus on women's representation therefore concerns women's descriptive representation. I investigate a neglected aspect of women's representation: the relationship between parties and women's candidacies.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Where Women Run by Kira Sanbonmatsu Copyright © 2006 by University of Michigan . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

\rrhp\ \lrrh: Contents\ \1h\ Contents \xt\ List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgments Chapter 1. Gender and Representation Chapter 2. Gender and Candidacy: Supply, Demand, and Political Parties Chapter 3. The Recruitment and Nomination Practices of the Political Parties Chapter 4. Candidate Gender and Electoral Politics Chapter 5. Barriers, Opportunities, and the Gendered Path to Office Chapter 6. The Pattern of Women's Representation across States Chapter 7. Conclusion Appendix References Index \to come\