Graduate Seminar in the Legislative Process POL SCI 926 University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Fall 2010

Graduate Seminar in the Legislative Process POL SCI 926 University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Fall 2010 Michael Tofias http://www.uwm.edu/~tofias Seminars Wednesday 4:30 7pm B64 Bolton Hall Office hours Monday 2 4pm 636 Bolton Hall Syllabus This course is a graduate level survey of literature on the US Congress. Congress has almost certainly received more attention from political scientists than any other single institution. In many ways, the contemporary study of Congress has become a laboratory (or perhaps a playground?) for the most advanced theoretical and methodological approaches in the discipline. This is a literature that is inherently quantitative and has become bound up in rational choice theory and formal models in political science. Familiarity with advanced concepts and tools is more or less a prerequisite to engage this rich literature. There will only be occasional lecturing. The best way to understand the difficult concepts in the congressional literature is by careful reading, writing summaries, and replication of findings. Seminars will be led and conducted by student discussants. All students will be responsible for the weekly readings, but discussants will be required to circulate summaries of the material including a critique of the the topic area. Discussants will lead class by presenting the articles and the key findings and then start the discussion with an assessment of strengths and weaknesses. At the end of the semester each student should feel well-prepared for questions about the US Congress that might appear on a prelim exam. Course Website http://www.uwm.edu/~tofias/teach/gradcongresss Texts Reccomended for Purchase Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. Yale University Press. Cox, Gary and Mathew McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda. Cambridge University Press. Jacobson, Gary. 2008. The Politics of Congressional Elections (7th ed.). Longman. Krehbiel, Keith. 1999. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. University of Chicago Press. Mayhew, David W. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Transaction Publishers. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 2010. Analyzing Politics (2nd ed.). Norton. Additional Suggestions Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties? University of Chicago Press. Cox and McCubbins. 2007. Legislative Leviathan 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press. Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style. HarperCollins. Fiorina, Morris. 1977. Congress. Yale University Press. 1

Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. University of Michigan Press. Kingdon, John L. 1989. Congressmens Voting Decisions. University of Michigan Press. Price, David E. 2004. The Congressional Experience. Boulder: Westview Press. Rohde, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post Reform House. University of Chicago Press. Grading & Expectations Seminar Papers 25% Each student will serve as a discussant five times. The schedule will be coordinated by a lottery and draft at the first meeting. The seminar papers should assess the state of the literature. Discussants will likely need to seek out additional references, at least glancing at the also recommended readings as a jumping off point to present a well-rounded evaluation. Discussants will then lead the presentation of material in-class. It is important for all of the discussants scheduled for a weekly session to coordinate and compose a somewhat coherent order to the seminar. An overhead and/or laptop with projector can be made available. Seminar papers from each discussant are due Mondays at 10:45am emailed as PDF files. Papers will be distributed by discussants to the class as hard copies at the beginning of the seminar. Do not distribute PDF files to the rest of the class until after the weekly seminar meeting. Discussants are especially encouraged to drop by the Monday office hours after submitting their papers in order to discuss the upcoming seminar. Seminar Participation 15% The best grades will be given to students who are the most active participants and come to class every week fully prepared to take part in the discussion. Research Paper 30% An original research paper related to an element of the course. You must use data. Sophistication and expectations will be based on each individual student s standing in the graduate program. Research findings will also be featured during a short conference style presentation in class. Short proposals will be required. Additional details will be discussed during the semester. Exam 30% The final exam will be comprehensive and resemble a prelim exam question or three. Following the UWM Final Exam Schedule, the final exam will be December 22nd. Schedule & Readings 1 An Introduction First Meeting, no readings. Recommended Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek and Frances E. Lee. 2008. Congress and Its Members. Washington, DC: CQ Press. 2

Stewart, Charles III. 2001. Analyzing Congress. W. W. Norton & Company. Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press. Price, David E. 2004. The Congressional Experience. Boulder: Westview Press. 2 Theoretical Foundations Shepsle, Kenneth A. 2010. Analyzing Politics (2nd ed.). Norton. Chapters 1 7. Mayhew, David W. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press. Aldrich, John. 1994. Rational Choice Theory and the Study of American Politics. In Dodd and Jillson, eds., The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations. Boulder: Westview Press. Cox, Gary. 2000. On the Effects of Legislative Rules. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 169-192. Hinich, Melvin J. and Michael C. Munger. 1997. Analytical Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gamm, Gerald and John Huber. 2002. Legislatures as Political Institutions: Beyond the Contemporary Congress, in Political Science: State of the Discipline. New York: W.W. Norton. Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. HaperCollins. Krehbiel, Keith. 1988. Spatial Models of Legislative Choice. Legislative Studies Quarterly 13: 259-319. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1989. Studying Institutions: Some Lessons from the Rational Choice Approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1:131-147. 3 Legislative Organization and Majorities Shepsle, Kenneth and Barry Weingast. 1994. Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19:149-179. Weingast, Barry and William J. Marshall. 1988. The Industrial Organization of Congress. Journal of Political Economy 96(1):132-63. Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapters 1 3. Evans, Diana. 1994. Policy and Pork: The Use of Pork Barrel Projects to Build Policy Coalitions in the House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 38:894-917. Schickler, Eric and Andrew Rich. 2000. Controlling the Floor: Parties as Procedural Coalitions in the House. American Journal of Political Science 41:1340-1375. Read debate also. Gimpel, James G., Frances E. Lee, and Rebecca U. Thorpe. 2010. The Distributive Politics of 3

the Federal Stimulus: The Geography of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2-5. Aldrich, John H., Calvin C, Jillson, and Rick K. Wilson. 2002. Why Congress? What the Failure of the Confederation Congress and the Survival of the Federal Congress Tell Us About the New Institutionalism in Brady, David W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford University Press. Cox, Gary W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1994. Bonding, Structure, and the Stability of Political Parties: Party Government in the House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19: 215-31. Gilligan, Thomas W. and Keith Krehbiel. 1987. Collective Decisionmaking and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3:287 335. Krehbiel, Keith. 1999. The Party Effect from A to Z and Beyond. The Journal of Politics 61(3):832-840. Krehbiel, Kieth. 1993. Where s the Party? British Journal of Political Science 23:235-66. Lee, Frances E. 1998. Representation and Public Policy: The Consequences of Senate Apportionment for the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds. The Journal of Politics 60:34-62. Lee, Frances E. 2000. Senate Representation and Coalition Building in Distributive Politics. American Political Science Review 94:59-72. 4 Legislative Organization and Party Aldrich, John H. and David W. Rohde. 2000. The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government. In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, eds. Jon Bond and Richard Fleisher. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Cox, Gary and Mathew McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda. New York City: Cambridge University Press. Krehbiel, Keith. 1999. Paradoxes of Parties in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 24:31-64. Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. University of Chicago Press. Aldrich, John H. and David W. Rohde. 1997 98. The Transition to Republican Rule in the House: Implications for Theories of Congressional Politics. Political Science Quarterly 112(4):541-567. Aldrich, John H. and David W. Rohde. 2001. The Logic of Conditional Party Government. In Congress Reconsidered, 7th edition, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Binder, Sarah A., Eric D. Lawrence, and Forrest Maltzman. 1999. Uncovering the Hidden Effect 4

of Party. Journal of Politics 61: 815-831. Cox, Gary W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2007. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. Pearson, Kathryn and Eric Schickler. 2009. The Transition to Democratic Leadership in a Polarized House. in Congress Reconsidered, edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Smith, Steven S. 2000. Positive Theories of Congressional Parties. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:193-215. Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. Cambridge University Press. Schickler, Eric. 2000. Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867-1988: A Test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models. American Political Science Review 94:269-80. Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed pluralism: Institutional Innovation and Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton University Press. Wright, Gerald C. and Brian F. Schafner. 2002. The Influence of Party: Evidence from State Legislatures. American Political Science Review 96:367-380. Cox, Gary W., Thad Kousser, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2010. Party Power or Preferences? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from American State Legislatures. The Journal of Politics 72(3): 799 811. 5 The Committee System Fenno, Richard. 1962. The House Appropriations Committee as a Political System: The Problem of Integration. American Political Science Review 56:310-324. Polsby, Nelson. 1968. The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives. American Political Science Review 62(1):144-68. Smith, Steven S. 1986. The Central Concepts in Fennos Committee Studies. Legislative Studies Quarterly 11:5-18. Hall, Richard L. and Bernard Grofman. 1990. The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias. American Political Science Review 84(4):1149-65. King, David C. 1994. The Nature of Congressional Committee Jurisdictions, American Political Science Review 88(1):48-62. Aldrich, John H. and David W. Rohde. 2000. The Republican Revolution and the House Appropriations Committee. The Journal of Politics 62:1 33. Adler, E. Scott and John S. Lapinski. 1997. Demand-Side Theory and Congressional Committee Composition: A Constituency Characteristics Approach. American Journal of Political Science 41(3):895-918. Katz, Johnathan and Brian Sala. 1996. Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection. American Political Science Review 90:21-33. 5

Adler, E. Scott. 2000. Constituency Characteristics and the Guardian Model of Appropriations Subcomittees American Journal of Political Science 44:104-114. Gamm, Gerald and Kenneth Shepsle. 1989. Emergence of Legislative Institutions: Standing Committees in the House and Senate, 1810-1825. Legislative Studies Quarterly 14(1): 39-66. Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry R. Weingast. 1979. Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science 23:27 59. Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power. American Political Science Review 81(1):85 104. Stewart, Charles III and Tim Groseclose. 1998. The Value of Committee Seats in the House, 1947-1991. American Journal of Political Science 42(2):453-74. Krehbiel, Keith. Kenneth A. Shepsle and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Why are Congressional Committees Powerful? American Political Science Review 81(3):929-45. Collie, Melissa P. 1988. Universalism and the Parties in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1921-80. American Journal of Political Science 32(4):865 883. Polsby, Nelson W., Miriam Gallaher, and Barry Spencer Rundquist. 1969. The Growth of the Seniority System in the U. S. House of Representatives. American Political Science Review 63 (3): 787-807. Binder, Sarah A. 1996. The Partisan Basis of Procedural Choice: Allocating Parliamentary Rights in the House, 1789-1990. American Political Science Review 90:8-20. Jenkins, Jeffery A. 1998. Property Rights and the Emergence of Standing Committee Dominance in the Nineteenth-Century House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23: 493-519. Jenkins and Stewart. 2002. Order from Chaos: The Transformation of the Committee System in the House, 1816 1822 in Brady, David W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2002. Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 6 Casting Roll Call Votes Arnold, Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapters 1 6. Wilkerson, John. 1999. Killer Amendments in Congress. American Political Science Review 93: 535-552. Lapinski, Daniel. 2001. The Effect of Messages Communicated by Members of Congress: The Impact of Publicizing Votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26:81-100. Masket Seth, E. 2007. It Takes an Outsider: Extralegislative Organization and Partisanship in the California Assembly, 1849 2006. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 482 97. Stratmann, Thomas. 2000. Congressional Voting Over Legislative Careers: Shifting Positions and Changing Constraints. American Political Science Review 94: 665-676. Margolies, Marjorie. 2010. Democrats: Vote your conscience on health care. Washington Post. 6

Thursday, March 18, 2010; A19. http://bit.ly/marjmarg10. Clausen, Aage. 1973. How Congressmen Decide. St. Martin s Press. Kingdon, John L. 1989. Congressmens Voting Decisions. University of Michigan Press. Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rothenberg, Lawrence S. and Mitchell S. Sanders. 2000. Severing the Electoral Connection: Shirking in the Contemporary Congress. American Journal of Political Science 44:316 25. Carson, Jamie L. et al. 2004. Shirking in the Contemporary Congress: A Reappraisal. Political Analysis 12: 176 9. Ansolabehere, Stephen. and Phillip E. Jones. 2010. Constituents Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 583 97. Fowler, James H. 2006. Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks. Political Analysis 14:456 87. Poole, Keith T. 2007. Changing minds? Not in Congress! Public Choice 131(3-4): 435 51. Nokken, Timothy P. and Keith T. Poole. 2004. Congressional Party Defection in American History. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29(4): 545 68. 7 Measuring Roll Call Votes Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Transaction Publishers. Snyder, James M., Jr. and Tim Groseclose. 2000. Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting. American Journal of Political Science 44: 193-211. Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship. American Journal of Political Science. 44: 212-227. McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2001. The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95: 673-687. Burden, Barry C., Gregory A. Caldeira and Tim Groseclose. 2000. Measuring the Ideologies of U. S. Senators: The Song Remains the Same. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:237-258. Groseclose, Tim., Steven D. Levitt and James M. Snyder, Jr. 1999. Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review 93(1):33-50. Aldrich, John H., David W. Rohde and Michael W. Tofias. 2007. One D is Not Enough: Measuring Conditional Party Government in 1887 2002 in Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress Volume 2: Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress. David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, editors Poole, Keith and Howard Rosenthal. 1985. A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis. 7

American Journal of Political Science 29(2):357-384. Jackson, John and John Kingdon. 1992. Ideology, Interest Group Scores, and Legislative Votes. American Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 805-823. Clinton, Joshua. Simon Jackman and Douglas Rivers. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review 98(2):355-70. Lebo, Matthew J., Adam J. McGlynn, and Gregory Koger. 2007. Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress, 17892000. 51(3): 464 81. Shor, Boris, Christopher Berry, and Nolan McCarty. 2010. A Bridge to Somewhere: Mapping State and Congressional Ideology On a Cross-institutional Common Space. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(3):417-448. 8 Elections with Candidates and Voters Jacobson, Gary C. 2008. The Politics of Congressional Elections (7th ed.). New York: Longman. Fenno, Richard J. 1977. U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review 71(3):883-917. Ansolabehere, Stephen., James Snyder, and Charles Stewart. 2001. Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):136-59. Desposato, Scott W. and John R. Petrocik. 2003. The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote. American Journal of Political Science 47:18-32. Jacobson, Gary C. and Samuel Kernell. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jacobson, Gary C. 1986. Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections. American Political Science Review. Woon, Jonathan. and Jeremy C. Pope. 2008. Made in Congress? Testing the Electoral Implications of Party Ideological Brand Names. The Journal of Politics 70(3): 823 36. Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congressional Election: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals. Polity 6(3):295 317. Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It. American Political Science Review 71(1):177-181. Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the United States House of Representatives, 1952-82. American Journal of Political Science 126-141. Ansolabehere, Stephen., David Brady and Morris Fiorina. 1992. The Vanishing Marginals and Electoral Responsiveness. British Journal of Political Science 22(1):21 38. Stone, Walter J. and L. Sandy Maisel. 2003. The Not-So-Simple Calculus of Winning Potential U.S. House Candidates Nominations and General Election Chances. The Journal of Politics 8

951-77. Carson, Jamie L., Erik Engstrom and Jason Roberts. 2007. Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress. American Political Science Review 101:289-301. Ensley, Michael J., Michael W. Tofias, and Scott de Marchi. 2009. District Complexity as an Advantage in Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 534 990 1005. 9 Districting & Money Cox, Gary and Jonathan Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge University Press. Carson, Jamie L., Erik J. Engstrom, and Jason M. Roberts. 2006. Redistricting, Candidate Entry, and the Politics of Nineteenth Century U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 50(2):283-93. Cox, Gary W. and Eric Magar. 1999. How Much is Majority Status in the U.S. Congress Worth? American Political Science Review 93:299-309. Hall, Richard L. and Wayman, Frank W. Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees. American Political Science Review 84:3 (September, 1990): 797-820. Grier, Kevin B. and Michael C. Munger. 1993. Comparing Interest Group PAC Contributions to House and Senate Incumbents, 1980-1986. The Journal of Politics 55:615-43. Cann, Damon M. 2008. Sharing the Wealth: Member Contributions and the Exchange Theory of Party Inuence in the U.S. House of Representatives. Albany: SUNY Press. Cameron, Charles M., David Epstein and Sharyn O Halloran. 1996. Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? American Political Science Review 90(4):794-812. Engstrom, Erik J. 2006. Stacking the States, Stacking the House: Partisan Consequences of Congressional Redistricting in the 19th Century. American Political Science Review 100(3):419-28. Lublin, David. 1999. Racial Redistricting and African-American Representation: A Critique of Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? American Political Science Review 93(1):183-86. Epstein, David and Sharyn OHalloran. 1999. A Social Science Approach to Race, Redistricting, and Representation. American Political Science Review 93(1):187-1991. McCarty, Nolan., Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 2009. Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?. American Political Science Review 53(3): 666 80. Stratmann, Thomas. 2005. Some Talk: Money in Politics. A (Partial) Review of the Literature. Public Choice 124:135 156. Green, Donald P. and Jonathan S. Krasno. 1988. Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: 9

Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 32(4):884-907. Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. American Journal of Political Science 34(2):334-362. 10 Careers & Leaders Hibbing, John R. 1991. Contours of the Modern Congressional Career. American Political Science Review 85(2):405-28. Carson, Jamie. 2005. Strategy, Selection, and Candidate Competition in U.S. House and Senate Elections. The Journal of Politics 67:1-28. Maestas, Caherie D., Sarah Fulton, L. Sandy Maisel, and Walter J. Stone. 2006. When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the House. American Political Science Review 100(2):195-208. Fox, Richard L. and Jennifer Lawless. 2010. If Only Theyd Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition. The Journal of Politics 72(2): 310 26. Cooper, Joseph and David W. Brady. 1981. Institutional context and leadership style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn. American Political Science Review 75:411 425. Herrick, Rebekah and David L. Nixon. 1996. Is There Life after Congress? Patterns and Determinants of Post-Congressional Careers. Legislative Studies Quarterly 21:489-499. Heberlig, Eric, Marc Hetherington, and Bruce Larson. 2006. The Price of Leadership: Campaign Money and the Polarization of Congressional Parties. The Journal of Politics 68(4): 992-1005. Jessee, Stephen and Neil Malhotra. 2010. Are Congressional Leaders Middlepersons or Extremists? Yes. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(3):361-392. Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Post Reform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. and Ronald M. Peters, Jr. 2008. Who is Nancy Pelosi? PS: Political Science & Politics 41(1): 57 62. Schlesinger, Joseph. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Rand McNally. Hibbing, John. 1991. Congressional Careers: Contours of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: UNC Press. Hall, Richard L. and Robert P. van Houweling. 1995. Avarice and Ambition in Congress: Representatives Decisions to Run or Retire from the U.S. House, American Political Science Review 89(1):121-136. Sinclair, Barbara. 1992. The Emergence of Strong Leadership in the 1980 s House of Representatives. The Journal of Politics 54(3):657-684. 10

Sinclair, Barbara. 1995. Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking: The U.S. House of Representatives in the Postreform Era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Lawrence, Eric, Forrest Maltzman, and Paul Wahlbeck. 2001. The Politics of Speaker Cannons Committee Assignments. American Journal of Political Science 45(3):551-62. Strahan, Randall. 2002. Leadership and Institutional Change in the Nineteenth Century House. in Brady, David W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford University Press. Garrison Nelson. 1977. Partisan patterns of House Leadership Change, 1789 1977. American Political Science Review. 71:918 939. Krehbiel, Keith, and Alan Wiseman. 2001. Joseph G. Cannon: Majoritarian from Illinois. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(3):357-90. Kanthak, Kristin. 2007. Representatives Contributions and Leadership Races in the U.S. House of Crystal Elephants and Committee Chairs: Campaign. American Politics Research 35: 389-406. 11 Representation & Responsiveness Miller, Warren E. and Donald Stokes. 1963. Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57(1):45-56. Erikson, Robert C. 1978. Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data. American Journal of Political Science 22(3):511-35. Brandice Canes-Wrone, David W. Brady, and John F. Cogan. 2002. Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members Voting. American Political Science Review 96(2): 127-40 Griffin, John. 2006. Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis. The Journal of Politics 68(4):909-919. Griffin, John D. and Newman, Brian. 2007. The Unequal Representation of Latinos and Whites. The Journal of Politics 69:1032-1046. Tate, Katherine. 2001. The Political Representation of Blacks in Congress: Does Race Matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly 26:623-638. Gailmard, Sean. and Jeffery A. Jenkins. 2009. Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):324 42. Goff, Brian L. and Kevin B. Grier On the (mis)measurement of legislator ideology and shirking. Public Choice 76(1-2):5-20. Butler, Daniel M. and David W. Nickerson. 2010. Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect how Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2-5. Eulau et al. 1959. The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory 11

of Edmund Burke. American Political Science Review. 53(3)742 56. Achen, Christopher H. 1978. Measuring Representation. American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475-510. Ansolabehere, Stephen. David Brady and Morris Fiorina. 1992. The Vanishing Marginals and Electoral Responsiveness. British Journal of Political Science 22(1):21-38 Denzau, Arthur T. and Michael C. Munger. 1986. Legislators and Interest-Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented. American Political Science Review. 89-106. Griffin, John. 2006. Senate Apportionment as a Source of Political Inequality. Legislative Studies Quarterly 31:405-32. Huddy, Leonine and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 119-147. Matland, Richard E. 1998. Women s Representation in National Legislatures: Developed and Developing Countries. Legislative Studies Quarterly pp. 109-125. Carol M. Swain. 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jane Mansbridge. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent Yes. Journal of Politics 61: 628-57. Bishin, Benjamin G. 2000. Constituency Influence in Congress: Does Subconstituency Matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 389-415. Fowler, James. 2005. Dynamic Responsivenes in the US Senate. American Journal of Political Science 49:299-312. 12 Lawmaking, the Senate, and Bicameralism Krehbiel, Keith. 1999. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. University of Chicago Press. McCubbins, Mathew D. and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science. Gamm and Smith. 2002. Policy Leadership and the Development of the Modern Senate in Brady, David W. and Mathew D. McCubbins. Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford University Press. Mayhew, David. 2003. Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate PS. 31-36. Binder, Sarah A. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge University Press. Binder, Sarah A., and Forrest Maltzman. 2002. Senatorial Delay in Confirming Federal Judges, 1947-1998. American Journal of Political Science 46: 190-199. Bernhard, William and Brian Sala. 2006. The Remaking of an American Senate: The 17th 12

Amendment and Ideological Responsiveness. The Journal of Politics 68:345-357. Schickler, Eric and Gregory Wawro. 2004. Wheres The Pivot? Obstruction and Lawmaking in the Pre-Cloture Senate American Journal of Political Science 48(4):758-774. Schiller, Wendy J. 1995. Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas. American Journal of Political Science 39:186 203. Terry M. Moe. 1987. An Assessment of the Positive Theory of Congressional Dominance. Legislative Studies Quarterly 12(4):475-520. Sarah Binder. 1999. The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947 96. American Political Science Review 93(3)519-533. Segal, Jeffrey A. 1997. Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts. American Political Science Review 91(1):28-44. See also the correction 92(4):923-926. Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. Cambridge University Press. McCubbins, Mathew D. Roger G. Noll and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 3(2):243 277. Mayhew, David. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking and Investigations, 1946 2002. Second Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Broz, J. Lawrence. 2005. Congressional Politics of International Financial Rescues. American Journal of Political Science 49(3): 479 96. Berry, Christopher R., Barry C. Burden, and William G. Howell. 2010. After Enactment: The Lives and Deaths of Federal Programs. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 1 17. Bartels, Larry M. 1991. Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Build Up. American Political Science Review 85(2): 457 74. Kiewiet, D. Roderick and Mathew McCubbins. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. University of Chicago Press. Hausegger, Lori. and Lawrence Baum. 1999. Inviting Congressional Action: A Study of Supreme Court Motivations in Statutory Interpretation American Journal of Political Science 43(1):162-185. Peterson, David A. M., Lawrence J. Grossback, James A. Stimson, and Amy Gangl. 2003. Congressional Response to Mandate Elections. American Journal of Political Science 47(3): 411 26. Binder, Sarah A., and Steven S. Smith. 1998. Political Goals and Procedural Choice in the Senate. Journal of Politics 398-416. Gronke, Paul. 2000. The Electorate, the Campaign, and the Office: A Unified Approach to Senate and House Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Koger, Gregory. 2010. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. University of Chicago Press. 13

13 Research Presentations Polsby, Nelson W. and Eric Schickler. 2002. Landmarks in the Study of Congress since 1945. Annual Review of Political Science 5:333 67. University Policies & Resources More information about university policies relating to academic issues can be found online: http://www.uwm.edu/dept/secu/syllabuslinks.pdf. UWM has a writing center. Take advantage of it: http://www.writingcenter.uwm.edu. Syllabus Version: September 8, 2010. 14