Agenda Crossover: The Influence of State Delegations in Congress

186 Pages·2017·3.992 MB·English

by  Sarah A. Treul

AgendaCrossover
Agenda Crossover updates our understanding of state delegations,
exploring how they influence representation and responsiveness in
Congress today. The theory of agenda crossover posits that members
of the House and Senate have much to gain from monitoring the
legislativeagendasofothermembersofthedelegation,especiallythose
in the opposite chamber. Treul clearly demonstrates that individual
membersofdelegationsstillutilizetheirfellowdelegatestohelpthem
respond to constituents and enhance their own electoral success. It
is argued that on certain issues – particularly the ones most relevant
to a state’s economy – Members of Congress are willing to set aside
partisan differences and work across the aisle. In this way, these
bicameral connections between members of a state delegation – even
acrosspartylines–can,attimes,trumpthepowerofpartyinCongress.
Sarah A. Treul is an assistant professor of political science at the
UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,specializinginAmerican
political institutions, with an emphasis on U.S. Congress. She is
the recipient of the Tanner Award for Excellence in Undergraduate
TeachingattheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill.

Agenda Crossover
The Influence of State Delegations in Congress
SARAH A. TREUL
UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
4843/24,2ndFloor,AnsariRoad,Daryaganj,Delhi–110002,India
79AnsonRoad,#06-04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781107183568
DOI:10.1017/9781316871973
©SarahA.Treul2017
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2017
AcatalogrecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
isbn978-1-107-18356-8Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
urlsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Dedicated to Nan Treul

Contents
ListofFigures pageviii
ListofTables x
Acknowledgments xiii
1 StateDelegationsinCongress 1
2 AHistoryofStateDelegations 27
3 StateDelegationsandLegislativeBehaviorintheHouse 51
4 StateDelegationsandLegislativeBehaviorintheSenate 85
5 AgendaCrossoverintheU.S.Congress 112
6 RethinkingStateDelegationsinCongress 141
AppendixAInterviews 153
AppendixBWisconsin’sUnwrittenRule 156
Bibliography 161
Index 167
vii
Figures
1.1 Minnesotacongressionaldelegation“HotDish”
competition page9
1.2 Minnesotadelegation“HotDish”competition 9
1.3 MembersoftheMinnesotacongressionaldelegation 10
1.4 TheMichigandelegation’slettertoEnergySecretaryChu 11
2.1 PercentchangeinstateGDPbyregion 45
3.1 Percentofthetimedelegationsvotetogether,90th–111th
Congresses(1967–2010) 55
3.2 Percentofthetimedelegationsvotetogetheronkeyvotes,
79th–111thCongresses(1945–2010) 56
3.3 Percentofthetimeindividualstatedelegationsvote
together,90th–111thCongresses(1967–2010) 57
3.4 StateDelegationVotingbyState,100th-111thCongresses 58
3.5 PercentofallStateDelegationsVotingTogether 59
3.6 NewHampshireDelegationVoting 60
3.7 PercentofUnifiedStateDelegationsVotingTogether 61
3.8 DelegationVotingandPartisanshipofState 62
3.9 IssueCategoryBillSponsorship 76
3.10 BillSponsorshipbyStateSize 78
4.1 AverageSenateDelegationVoting 91
4.2 SenateDelegationVotingbyState 92
4.3 UnifiedSenateDelegationVoting 92
viii