Socializing California Freshmen Assemblymen: the Role of Individua and Legislative Sub-Groups

• Author: Charles M. Price,Charles G. Bell
• DOI: 10.1177/106591297002300110
• Published date: 01 March 1970
• Date: 01 March 1970
• Subject Matter: Articles

SOCIALIZING CALIFORNIA FRESHMEN
ASSEMBLYMEN: THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUA
AND LEGISLATIVE SUB-GROUPS
CHARLES M. PRICE, California State College at Chico
AND
CHARLES G. BELL, California State College at Fullerton
HE
SOCIALIZATION process which transforms private citizens into legis-
lators is as complicated as it is critical. Unlike most groups, legislatures have
-JL almost no control over the composition of their membership. There is no
blackballing of candidates, no matter how obnoxious a particular individual might
be. If one wins election, he becomes a member. Therefore legislatures, if they are
to function, must socialize their new members, educating them not just to the rules
of the game but instilling in them a feeling of belonging.
BACKGROUND
Several decades ago Garland Routt observed, &dquo;The esprit de corps displayed
by legislative bodies, especially the smaller ones, is probably not rivaled by any other
formally organized self-governing body Certainly, what Routt described gener-
ally about legislatures can be said in particular about the California Assembly. It
has only 80 members, and these members have common interests, loyalties, and a
sense of union. They are proud that they have been elected to serve in the legis-
lature and are aware of the considerable responsibilities this entails.
The pride, loyalty, and sense of union which are characteristics of legislators
in general, and of California Assemblymen in particular, are generated by several
factors. In California the 80 legislators of the Assembly are the final winners in a
contest that once numbered hundreds of candidates and potential candidates and
thousands of voters. Each of the 80 has gone through the rigors of campaigning for
office, getting nominated, and finally winning election. It is not surprising that a
certain pride and camaradarie should develop among the 80 successful assembly-
men. In addition, their pride is derived from the fact that California legislators
have considerable prestige and influence. The decisions reached in the legislature
have far-reaching consequences for the entire state’s population.
Legislators in the California Assembly also take particular pride in pointing
out that many of the reforms pioneered in the California state legislature are just
now being considered for adoption in other states’ legislatures. In California,
Speaker of the Assembly Jesse Unruh and a bipartisan group of senior legislators
led the way in proposing a number of state legislative reforms. Since the passage
of Proposition 1A the California legislature, and particularly the Assembly, has
become an even more professionalized legislature much on the order of Congress.
Salaries are $16,000 yearly, and in addition, legislators receive $25.00 per diem
NOTE: The authors would like to thank the California State Colleges at Chico and Fuller-
ton, and the National Science Foundation, Grant #1870, for their financial assistance.
1
Garland Routt, "Interpersonal Relationships and the Legislative Process," Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 195 (1938), 130.
166

---

167
expenses with additional opportunity to earn more serving on various interim com-
mittees between legislative sessions. The average California legislator earns approxi-
mately $22,000 annually serving in the legislature.2
2
Besides their substantial pay, California Assemblymen have a number of other
perquisites of office including handsome office suites, personal secretaries, adminis-
trative assistants, district offices, state cars, secretarial pools, committee secretaries
and travel allowances. There is also an extensive panoply of specialized support
agencies including a legislative counsel, legislative reference bureau, legislative
analyst, and legislative research office. Standing committees have regular staffs
including consultants who also facilitate the chores of the legislators. To sum,
though there are improvements which could be made, the California Assembly
has most of the accoutrements of a modern, professional legislature. Thus in addi-
tion to the normal institutional pride characteristic of most legislators, California
assemblymen take considerable pride in the fact that this chamber has become a
model for other state legislatures. In fact, when one compares the considerable
support facilities enjoyed by California legislators with those available (and not
available) in other states it is clear that the California legislator is probably a part
of the most professionalized state legislature in the United States.3
The leaders of the Assembly were so concerned with conveying the proper
professional image to the public that they instituted a number of reforms in the
1967 session. No longer were reporters given the run of the floor to conduct inter-
views with members. All assemblymen and particularly freshmen were apprised
of the importance of punctually attending sessions, not reading newspapers at their
desks, and not leaving until adjournment. Off the floor in committee hearings,
attendance of members was kept carefully by the Speaker Pro Tempore. In fact,
the emphasis on decorum was so severe that most of the traditional floor hazing of
freshmen was discontinued
4
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
An opportunity accurately to identify potential freshman legislators prior to
their election recently occurred in California. Historically, in California incum-
bency had been the most important single factor determining election victory or
defeat. The 1966 elections were different; in a chamber of 80 members only 51
sought reelection. Thus, at least one-third of the assemblymen destined to be
2
However, it should be noted that the legislator’s expenses are considerably greater than
average — two homes, frequent trips back "home" to the district, and entertaining con-
stituents are all part of the job.
3
For a useful summarization of factual information dealing with state legislators’ compensa-
tion, office and secretarial facilities, and various support agencies see, American State
Legislatures: Their Structure and Procedure (Chicago: The Council of State Govern-
ments, 1967). California either heads the list or is very near the top on virtually every
one of the criteria listed.
4
In one instance during the first few weeks, William Ketchum, a freshman from San Luis
Obispo County, had brought up a resolution to ratify several charter amendments
approved by the people in one of the cities of his district. As the barrage of complicated
and contrived questions by senior members of the legislature began, it was cut short
by several veteran leaders of the legislature who called for a halt to the game. They
suggested that valuable time was being wasted and that a harmful image was being con-
veyed to the public by this display.

---

168
elected in 1966 would have to be freshmen. Reduction in the number of incum-
bents seeking reelection occurred because of a series of United States Supreme
Court decisions forcing state legislatures to apportion themselves on the basis of
&dquo;one man, one vote.&dquo; These reapportionment decisions of the courts brought about
a massive geographic relocation of California’s legislative districts. For example,
Los Angeles County increased its representation in the upper house from one sena-
tor out of 40 in 1965 to 14 senators out of 40 in 1967. Opportunity to run in one
of the newly created senatorial districts induced a number of incumbent assembly-
men to abandon their safe Assembly seats for a Senate try. This sizable shift of
assemblymen running for Senate seats along with normal attrition meant that 29
Assembly districts were completely &dquo;open,&dquo; i.e., there was no incumbent seeking
reelection. In addition, several incumbents running for reelection faced constituen-
cies substantially altered by reapportionment. Several of these incumbent legisla-
tors were subsequently defeated.5 So, though the election of such a large number
of freshmen was hardly typical, it did provide us with a sizable body of freshman
data. Barring unforeseen circumstances, it is unlikely that the legislature will soon
again have to absorb and socialize such a predictably large number of freshmen.
By judicious selection, hour-long interviews were obtained from 31 of the
33 freshmen-elect legislators prior to their service in the legislature. A second
interview conducted after the first session was obtained with all but one of the
freshmen. In addition, interviews were conducted with a number of veteran legis-
lators, thus providing benchmarks for our freshmen data. Data for this article are
based primarily upon the second freshman interview and the veterans’ interview.
SOCIALIZATION - FORMAL ASPECTS
In order to quickly assimilate and adequately socialize their new members, the
California Assembly, like many other states’ legislative bodies, makes an early effort
to familiarize freshmen with the legislative process. Socialization of the freshman
legislator proceeded along both formal and informal lines. At the formal level some
weeks prior to the beginning of the 1967 session, Operation Viewpoint was arranged
by a bipartisan group of senior legislators and financed by a number of key lobby-
ists. Southern California newcomers to the legislature spent a week touring some
of the important sites in northern California, and a week later northern freshmen
received a similar tour of southern California. For the first time freshmen members
got together as a group, established friendship discussed...