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

C H A P T E R S I X Descriptive Representation and Backlash It seems that those who announce their sexual orientation to the world are trying to get all of us to say their relationships are legitimate. . . . I like [lesbian legislator] Sheila [Kuehl]. She’s a nice lady. But I’ll never believe that sort of sexual behavior is acceptable. —California senator Ray Haynes (R-Riverside) I saw where that [gay rights] bill went two years ago, and I would have to say at this point, you know, I’ll fight bad bills, but that’s probably what my best role is right now, to fight bad bills. —Arkansas representative Kathy Webb on her role as an LGBT legislator It’s just been very intense. . . . I spend as much time and energy as I can talking to my colleagues, talking to my community, organizing a larger coalition response, really trying hard to cultivate other kinds of voices to help participate in this whole conversation. . . . Meanwhile, I’m trying to work on quite a few other issues. It really does distract from our creative energy, our time, the work that goes into crafting the kind of solutions I’m working on for other issues. —Openly gay Minnesota state senator Scott Dibble (R) regarding his efforts to block a state constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriages The results analyed in chapters 4 and 5 clearly indicate that increased LGBT descriptive representation is associated with increased substantive representation. This conclusion is consistent with a considerable amount of research on ethnic and racial minorities as well as women in elected office. The other side of this coin is an exploration of the influence of LGBT descriptive representation on anti-LGBT legislative efforts. If LGBT legislators can serve to promote LGBT interests by pursuing pro-LGBT legislation, they can also serve to promote the interests of the community by blocking anti-LGBT legislation. 129 130 CHAPTER SIX However, in considering anti-LGBT legislation we also need to consider that LGBT legislators might indirectly contribute to the amount and success of this type of legislation. A few scholars have explicitly discussed the potentially negative implications of increased descriptive representation for a minority group (Bratton 2002; Kanter 1977, 1994; Preuhs 2002). Many scholars and political observers frequently suggest that as groups that have been traditionally relatively powerless begin to gain political, social, or economic power, they may engender a counterreaction or backlash (Blalock 1967; Faludi 1991; Francisco 1996; Hawkesworth 2003; Lublin and Voss 2000; Yoder 1991), but as Thomas (2008) makes clear, little existing research has systematically explored the notion of backlash in the context of political representation (but see Barrett 1995, 1997; Bratton 2002; Cammisa and Reingold 2004; Haider-Markel 2007; Studlar and McAllister 2002; Thomas 1994). Anecdotally, the notion of a backlash against the successes of the LGBT movement generally seems to be evident. Much of the politics around LGBT issues appears to involve a backlash against the successes of the LGBT movement— beginning with Anita Bryant’s ‘‘Save Our Children Campaign’’ to repeal a Dade County, Florida, ordinance that banned sexual orientation discrimination; running through the late 1980s and early 1990s in Oregon, Colorado, and Idaho ballot measures to repeal and/or block antidiscrimination laws; to the wave of constitutional referenda measures to block same-sex marriage following the Goodridge decision in 2003; to the 2008 direct constitutional repeal of the California’s Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage. However, in this chapter I focus on actions taken within state legislatures with a particular focus on the potential backlash by some legislators against the election of LGBT legislators. Chapter 4 suggests some limited evidence of this phenomenon. Thus, this chapter outlines what is meant by a backlash hypothesis and systematically tests for the phenomenon. Specifically, I examine the influence of openly LGBT elected officials on the number and type of LGBT-related bills introduced in state legislatures, the legislative outcomes 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 both positive and negative policy for the represented group. Second, as I did in chapter 5, 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 potential backlash against descriptive representation...

Share