Presidential Mandates and the Dynamics of Senate Advice and Consent, 1885-1996

• Date: 01 January 2005
• Published date: 01 January 2005
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04264308
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1532673X04264308ARTICLEAMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH / January 2005DeRouen et al. / PRESIDENTIAL MANDATES AND THE SENATE

PRESIDENTIAL MANDATES AND THE DYNAMICS

OF SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT, 1885-1996

KARL DEROUEN JR.

University of Alabama

JEFFREY S. PEAKE

Bowling Green State University

KENNETH WARD

Texas State University

Weexamine the dynamics of Senate advice and consent for executive branch nominationsfrom

1885to 1996 using multinomiallogit and hazard analysis.We add to the literature by considering

the importance of elections on the process. In particular, we assess how presidential mandates

might influence the duration and success of nominations to the executivebranch. The analysis

capturespolitical nuances previously unconsidered that follow from the different ways that nom-

inations terminate, whether through confirmation, rejection or withdrawal by the president, or

expiration.As shownpreviously, divided government matters, especially during periods of ideo-

logicalpolarization in the Senate. Nominations fail more often and take longer. However,percep-

tions of electoral mandatestrengthen the president’s position vis-à-vis the Senate, smoothing the

president’s path to a more effective transition and staffing of the federal bureaucracy.

Keywords: executive branch nominations; presidential transitions; electoral mandates;

presidential-congressional relations

Staffing the political appointees of an administration is critical for

effective presidential transitions and assumptions of power. Success-

fully organizing the administration is vitally important for the new

chief executive’s policy success (Burke, 2000; Jones, 1994), as appoint-

Authors’Note: The authors especially thank B. Dan Wood for his contributionsto an earlierver

-

sion of the manuscript and Nolan McCarty for providingthe nominations data used in the analy-

sis. They also thank TexasState University and the University of Canterburyfor additional grant

funding.Rayana Gonzales, Ariana Olldashi, and Reymundo Chapa provided invaluableresearch

assistance. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meetingof the Southern

Political Science Association in Savannah, Georgia, November 2002. Authors’ names are listed

alphabetically indicating equal contribution.

AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH, Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2005 106-131

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04264308

© 2005 Sage Publications

106

ees can have important effects on the implementation of policy (Wood

& Waterman,1994). A more fully staffed administration allows presi-

dents to “hit the ground running,” an important element of legislative

success (Edwards, 1989; Pfiffner, 1988).

Despite the importance of elections in structuring the political con-

text of presidential transitions, of which the confirmation process is an

important part, the literature does not take adequate account of the role

that elections might play in this process. Indeed, scholars have focused

on the strategic positions of the Senate and the president without con-

sidering how elections define and influence those positions. Using

data from McCarty and Razaghian (1999), we consider the effects of

variables related to perceptions of presidential mandate (Conley,

2001; Edwards, 1989) on the outcome and duration of executive

branch nominations for the historical period of 1885-1996. Moreover,

we consider how these effects, as well as effectsrelated to the partisan

and ideological context, affect differing categoriesof nomination out-

come: success, withdrawal/rejection, and expiration.

THE POLITICS OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS

The Senate has the power to impede a president’s assumption of

power. Constitutionally, the Senate plays an important role in giving

its advice and consent to presidential nominations. However,scholars

have noted the overwhelming success rates of executive nominations

(Mackenzie, 1981; McCarty & Razaghian, 1999), where a “presump-

tion of success” tends to dominate (Krutz, Fleisher, & Bond, 1998).

Even so, interesting patterns emerge when scholars examine the poli-

tics of the nomination process, both in terms of the success or failure

of nominations and the length of the process. Despite the high success

rates, significant hurdles exist in the confirmation process.

Unsurprisingly, nominees to the executive branch tend to run into

greater trouble during periods when the Senate majority party differs

from the president’s party (Krutz et al., 1998), especially during peri-

ods of ideological polarization (McCarty & Razaghian, 1999; see

Binder & Maltzman, 2002, and Shipan & Shannon, 2003, for similar

findings on court nominations). Delay in the Senate can occur irre-

spective of majority party status due to rules that favorthe minority in

DeRouen et al. / PRESIDENTIAL MANDATES AND THE SENATE 107