Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 7.1: Lapinski, J., Levendusky, M., Winneg, K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2016). What do citizens want from their member of congress? Political Research Quarterly, 69, 535–545.

Abstract: What do citizens want from their members of Congress? Do they expect them to be constituent servants? Do they expect them to work on local problems? Or do they expect them to represent them on the national issues of the day? While citizens expect members of Congress to perform all of these roles, we argue that, in the contemporary political environment, citizens especially value members who represent them on the salient national issues of the day. We also argue that such behavior will be especially pronounced among those who are the most educated and partisan. We show, using several recent nationally representative surveys, that citizens prioritize this sort of issue representation, and that such evaluations shape member approval and vote choice. We conclude by discussing the implications of this pattern for related trends such as elite polarization and the nationalization of elections.

Journal Article 7.2: Lee, J. (March 2013). Contingent party pressure and legislative gridlock. American Politics Research, 41, 175-202.

Abstract: This article examines the contingent party pressures and their effect on gridlock. The authors suggest an alternative contingent party pressure model and find that legislative gridlock is affected by the interactions of issue salience and government types. High issue salience increases legislative gridlock under unified government and decreases under divided government.

Journal Article 7.3: Smith, S. S. & Park, H. M. (September 2013). Americans’ attitudes about the Senate Filibuster. American Politics Research, 41, 735-760.

Abstract: We examine public attitudes about one of the most visible procedural features of Congress, the Senate’s filibuster and cloture practice. We measure the stability of those attitudes during an important legislative episode, relate them to more abstract attitudes about majority rule and minority rights, and draw inferences about the importance of those attitudes for evaluations of the parties and vote intention for the 2010 elections. We find that filibuster attitudes change in ways predicted by respondents’ partisan and policy preferences. Moreover, controlling for party identification, ideology, policy views, and attitudes about majority rule and minority rights in the abstract, filibuster attitudes have modest, asymmetric effects on party evaluations but no effect on vote intention.

Journal Article 7.4: Rocca, M. S. (October 2007). The effect of race and ethnicity on bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship in congress. American Politics Research, 36, 130-152.

Abstract: This article examines Black and Latino legislators' use of bill sponsorship and cosponsorship in Congress. As we explain, sponsoring and cosponsoring legislation are unique in that they are among the few activities outside the roll call arena that have both position taking and policy implications. We hypothesize that given minority legislators' lack of influence in Congress, they sponsor and cosponsor fewer bills than do nonminorities. We find support for our expectation; on average, Black and Latino legislators sponsor and cosponsor significantly fewer bills in Congress than do Whites and non-Latinos, respectively. But we also find the relationship to be contingent on which party controls Congress. Whereas Democratic Congresses encourage minorities' bill sponsorship and cosponsorship, Republican Congresses depress it. Because the concepts of participation and representation in Congress are so intimately tied to one another, these findings have a number of implications for the study of descriptive and substantive representation.