In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T E R F I V E Translating Descriptive Representation into Substantive Representation There has been notice statewide that some of the LGBT representatives in Sacramento are terming out and being replaced by straight representatives who in many cases are very strong allies. The fact they are strong allies makes it certainly more palatable. At the same time there is no substitute for having a seat at the table. When you are talking about marriage equality, I think having LGBT representatives telling their own stories to other representatives must be very powerful. You could only achieve that by putting LGBT representatives into office. —Stephen Whitburn, president of the San Diego Democratic Club (Bajko 2006) It was a big thrill to stand in the state reception room with the governor and my colleagues in the gay caucus and a lot of our colleagues in the Legislature and see that signed into law. . . . It’s very satisfying to make some forward progress on that issue. —Washington representative Jamie Pedersen, following the passage of his domestic partner bill (McGann 2007b). In this chapter I build on the analysis presented in chapter 4 by systematically exploring whether the presence of LGBT state legislators produces substantive representation in state legislatures. The evidence from chapter 4 suggests that even though LGBT legislators hold a small percentage of state legislative seats, their presence has the potential to increase substantive representation in the state policymaking process. However, the cases explored may not fully represent the patterns in all states and may overstate the substantive representation observed. Recall that, based on my count, more than 200 LGBT state legislators have served since 1974. As of 2009 there were 78 sitting LGBT members of state legislatures out of 7,382 total seats, for 1.06 percent of all seats. Although this number is small, descriptive LGBT representation in state legislatures has been dramatically increasing since 1996, as have the number of LGBT-related issues on state political agendas 118 TRANSLATING DESCRIPTIVE REPRESENTATION INTO SUBSTANTIVE REPRESENTATION 119 (Smith and Haider-Markel 2002). Thus we can begin to systematically explore empirical questions relating to LGBT representation in the states. I examine the influence of openly LGBT elected officials on the number and type of LGBT-related bills introduced in state legislatures, the legislative outcome of these bills, and the adoption of specific LGBT-related policies in the states. The analysis proceeds in two parts. First, I revisit theoretical arguments concerning political representation and outline the processes by which descriptive representation might engender positive outcomes in the policy process for the represented group. Second, I make use of a broader theory of state policy consideration and adoption in quantitative models of legislative bill introduction and policy adoption to examine the impact of descriptive representation. The findings from the quantitative analyses support the findings from chapter 4 and suggest that LGBT representation in state legislatures is more than simply descriptive. Even when accounting for the state legislature ideology, interest group strength, and public opinion, among other factors, the presence of LGBT state legislators influences the number and type of LGBT-related bills introduced in state legislatures, the legislative outcome of these bills, and the adoption of specific LGBT-related policies in the states. For those who argue that a seat at the table is important for achieving policy goals, the evidence here is quite supportive. However , the influence of other factors, such as legislature ideology and interest groups, also makes it clear that descriptive representation is simply part of the story. Political Representation: A Multivariate Analysis My review of the literature on female and minority political representation in chapter 1 suggests that increased descriptive representation often leads to increased substantive representation in the policy process. When groups such as African Americans have achieved greater levels of political incorporation, especially at the local and state levels, policy benefits for the black community have followed. Similar patterns have been uncovered for women and ethnic minorities, such as Latinos. However, there are limitations to much of this research—including the fact that identifying policies that are of central importance to a particular community is not always straightforward because some of the purported policy goals of the community may not be universally shared. For the LGBT community this problem does not loom nearly so large. For one thing, there is considerable agreement in the community regarding policy goals (Haider-Markel, Querze, and Lindaman 2007; Schaffner and Senic 2006). In addition, it...

Share