Legislating at the Intersections: Race, Gender, and Representation
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1065912919858405 |
| Author | Kirsten Widner,Beth Reingold,Rachel Harmon |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2020, Vol. 73(4) 819 –833
Legislating at the Intersections: Race,
© 2019 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Gender, and Representation
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919858405
DOI: 10.1177/1065912919858405
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Beth Reingold1 , Kirsten Widner1, and Rachel Harmon1
Abstract
Record numbers of women, and in particular women of color, are gaining elective office across the country. This article
explores how their presence in legislative bodies might make a difference in policy agendas and legislative advocacy,
especially at the intersections of race and gender. Leveraging original datasets of Democratic lawmakers and the bills
they sponsor in fifteen U.S. state houses in 1997 and 2005, we examine multiple forms of race–gender policy leadership
and how it is tied to legislators’ race–gender identity. Testing theories of intersectional representation, we find that
women of color often are the most likely race–gender policy leaders. Indeed, our measures of race–gender policy
leadership reveal the distinctive representational work of women of color, which traditional, single-axis measures of
legislative activity on behalf of women or racial/ethnic minorities cannot.
Keywords
race, gender, intersectionality, women of color, representation, race–gender policy leadership
In what has been dubbed the second Year of the Woman,
the role of women of color—and men of color, white
record numbers of women ran for and won office in the
men, and white women—we must engage more intersec-
2018 midterm elections.1 As with the first Year of the
tional concepts of descriptive and substantive representa-
Woman in 1992, a substantial portion of these candidates
tion and ask a different set of questions. Rather than
and winners are women of color.2 Indeed, women of color
simply pondering whether women and racial/ethnic
have been a driving force behind the electoral gains of
minorities in office are more likely to advocate on behalf
women and racial/ethnic minorities in the United States
of other women and minorities, respectively, this article
for decades (Hardy-Fanta et al. 2016). If improved
examines the following: to what extent and how do repre-
descriptive representation is a key step toward enhancing
sentatives address both race and gender in their policy-
the substantive representation of marginalized groups
making initiatives? Are policy agendas and legislative
(Mansbridge 1999), what, then, is the likely impact of
advocacy raced-gendered? (Hawkesworth 2003).
these growing numbers of women of color in elected
A growing body of research focused on the representa-
office?
tional behavior of women of color in office has begun
Existing research examining the relationship between
shedding light on these questions. Bratton, Haynie, and
descriptive and substantive representation has clearly
Reingold (2006), for example, find that across ten state
established that policymaking is raced and gendered.
houses, Black women are more likely than their Black
Black legislators are more likely than their white counter-
male or white colleagues to sponsor at least one Black
parts to champion the interests of Black constituents (e.g.,
interest bill and one women’s interest bill. In their analy-
Canon 1999; Grose 2011; Haynie 2001; Minta 2011);
sis of congressional websites, Brown and Gershon (2016,
Latinx legislators are more likely to do the same for their
101) report that, while “all the legislators examined
Latinx constituents (e.g., Bratton 2006; Rouse 2013;
implicitly connected their identity to an advocacy issue, .
Wallace 2014; Wilson 2017); and female legislators are
. . minority congresswomen are most likely to include
more likely to advocate for women (e.g., Osborn 2012;
more than one marginalized identity (such as their race,
Reingold 2000; Swers 2002, 2013).
class, and/or gender) to illustrate their concern for a
The vast majority of representation research has taken
a “single-axis” or one-at-a-time approach to studying
1Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
race, ethnicity, or gender (Crenshaw 1989). As a conse-
Corresponding Author:
quence, much less is known about the confluence and
Beth Reingold, Department of Political Science, Emory University, 327
intersections of race and gender in the politics of repre-
Tarbutton Hall, 1555 Dickey Dr., Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
sentation and processes of policymaking. To understand
Email: beth.reingold@emory.edu
820
Political Research Quarterly 73(4)
disadvantaged subpopulation.” Similarly, Brown, Minta,
legislators to sponsor (1) both women’s interest bills and
and Banks examine how lawmakers’ race–gender identi-
minority interest bills; (2) bills that address multiple
ties affect their and their institutions’ attention to “joint
group interests simultaneously, such as standard antidis-
issues” that directly or indirectly affect both women and
crimination measures; and (3) bills that address the inter-
racial minorities in the Maryland state legislature and in
ests of multiply disadvantaged subgroups of women or
Congress (Brown and Banks 2014; Minta and Brown
minorities, such as poor women of color (Strolovitch
2014; see also Barrett 1995). Taking a more in-depth case
2007). In contrast, we expect that women of color will not
study approach, Brown (2014) and others have explored
be distinguished from their peers on single-axis measures
the intersectional complexities of how the identities and
of women-only or minority-only policy leadership.
experiences of legislative women of color shape their
We find that intersectionality matters—both as an ana-
representational activities on behalf of women, minori-
lytic approach and as a political phenomenon. Women of
ties, and minority women in particular (García et al. 2008;
color appear to behave very much like other women when
Takash 1997; Williams 2016).
considering single-axis women’s issues and very much
In this article, we build on these and other studies of
like co-ethnic men when considering single-axis Black or
race, gender, and representation to further operationalize
Latinx issues, but they stand out when we take a more
and test theories of intersectionality and legislative
intersectional approach to policy leadership. While few
behavior (Brown 2014; Hancock 2007, 2014; Reingold
legislators engage in race–gender policy leadership,
and Smith 2012; Smooth 2011; Strolovitch 2007). We
either Black women or Latinas are more likely to do so
aim primarily for a deeper and more generalizable under-
than their minority male or white female counterparts,
standing of raced and gendered, or “race–gender” policy-
depending on the measure. Thus, women of color play
making through a unique combination of conceptual
distinctive, leading roles in addressing the policy needs of
innovations and data-gathering advances.
multiple and multiply disadvantaged constituencies. This
The concept of race–gender policy leadership, defined
suggests that the increasing numbers of women of color
here as sponsoring bills that address the interests of both
in legislative bodies have particular significance for the
women and racial/ethnic minorities—or disadvantaged
most marginalized constituencies.
subgroups thereof, offers a more inclusive and complex
understanding of representational policymaking in one of
Theories of Intersectional
its most powerful forms: agenda-setting leadership.
Focusing on patterns of bill sponsorship, our analysis rec-
Representation
ognizes that legislators can approach various group inter-
Theoretically, social identity links descriptive and substan-
ests (Black, Latinx, women’s) as distinct, overlapping, or
tive representation (Brown 2014; Reingold 2000; Swers
intersecting. Thus, we examine not only the likelihood
2002). Above and beyond partisanship, ideology, and even
that legislators advocate for women and minorities at all,
constituency, it is the legislators’ own identities and lived
but also how they choose to do so: sequentially (one
experiences as women, minorities, and minority women
group’s interest at a time), simultaneously, or with greater
that is the primary driver of “acting for” others like them
attention to intersectional disadvantages.
(Pitkin 1967). While all legislators can identify themselves
To maximize generalizability, we distinguish and mea-
in terms of both gender and race/ethnicity and draw on that
sure multiple approaches to race–gender policy leader-
dual identity in their representational decision making,
ship across a wide variety of institutional spaces and
research suggests that women of color are most likely to do
multiple race–gender groups. Leveraging a large original
so (Brown and Gershon 2016). The particular intersections
dataset of bills introduced in fifteen U.S. state houses in
of race, gender, and class and experiences with racism,
1997 and 2005, our sample captures a wider range of
sexism, and economic deprivation that shape the identities
institutional- and individual-level race–gender diversity
and perspectives of legislative women of color enable and
than that of previous studies. By including many of the
empower them to advocate on behalf of multiple constitu-
most racially and/or gender...
To continue reading
Request your trial