Elections, Public Opinion, & Voting Behavior

Gender, Redistricting, and Other Aspects of Election 2002

Georgia Duerst-Lahti

Beloit College

The most prominent facet of gender and election 2002 is the fact that when it is over, men will still overwhelmingly rule. Best estimates indicate that men will be 43 to 45 of 50 governors, 77 percent of state legislators, 366 to 370 of 435 members of the house, and 85 or 86 of 100 U.S. senators. Women’s gains have been substantial, since the 1960s, but mostly men hold elective office even now. Relative to other countries in the world, the U.S. is losing ground, having slipped to 55^th place among nations for its percentage of elected national leaders.^[i] One thing is clear already, redistricting will not have the positive growth effect in 2002 that it had in 1992 or even 1982.

Redistricting and the House

For the past two decades, the election cycle after redistricting has offered women hope of a bump in electoral gains, in large part because more seats are open. Hence, women need not face the full brunt the incumbent advantage that also serves as men’s advantage given their greater numbers. Women competed for 12 open seats in 1982, women’s largest election cycle of the decade. They won half. In 1992, they competed for 39 open seats and won 22. The number of open seats was roughly twice as many as any other election of the decade. In 2002, 17 women are running for open seats in 15 districts, a far cry short of the last redistricting cycle.^[ii] In terms of open seats generally, 2002 is a relatively average year for the House, with numbers in the low 40s similar to 1972 and 1982, whereas 1992 saw a spike in open seats to 65.^[iii] Hence the opportunity structure presents only ordinary redistricting advantages this cycle. However, redistricting may have had less to do with the 1992 phenomenon than other matters.

Three factors are commonly cited to explain 1992s greater number of open seats and women’s increased numbers as candidates. Most important for open seats was the change in campaign finance laws which allowed incumbents to keep their campaign war chests for personal use if they retired. This golden parachute appears to have tempted many to step aside, creating opportunities. Second, the Hill-Thomas Hearings galvanized the resolve of women to run for office given the all male senate judiciary committee who reviewed the charges of sexual harassment. This resolve was strengthened by media reports about recently released studies that demonstrated substantive and stylistic gender differences in representation.^[iv] Finally, a desire for change and domestic issues and figured prominently as issues in 1992 . With change, women could be cast as the “ultimate outsiders,” a phrase set in motion by Celinda Lake, because so few held office. Women offered change. Health care and social security led the election along with kitchen table economic security issues. These issues easily accorded with women’s perceived expertise. Said another way, such issues are gendered toward women.

In contrast, national security, the war, and the economy dominate the 2002 election. The gendering of these issues weighs heavily toward masculinity. As such, women would neither be granted stereotypic expertise by recruiters of candidates or by voters, nor would most women likely feel especially empowered to run on these issues. Further, the events of September 11 and its aftermath arguably fostered a desire for stability and hence the status quo becomes favored. In 2002, hunkering down, not change by ultimate outsiders, fit the collective mood better. This was especially true during the critical period of announcing one’s candidacy. The issues do not propel women into candidacies in 2002, and may have had a depressive affect during critical time periods. In other words, those who hope for more elected women may have pinned too many hopes on opportunities created by redistricting.

Incumbent v. incumbent redistricting races is one important sidebar. Female incumbents in the House were not disproportionately targeted in these difficult match ups.

The total number of female candidates for the House this cycle was 186, or substantially less than the record of 217 set in 1996. However, a record number of 124 have won their primary elections, up from 122 in 2000. On a closely related point, the yield rate of female candidates to primary election winners has improved over time, and likely will continue this cycle, largely due to more female incumbents. Not as many candidates are needed to improve overall numbers of elected women if the win rate is stronger.

U.S. Senate and Gender

Women’s slow encroachment on the gentleman’s club of the senate should continue this year despite an enormously tough battle because control of the chamber is at stake. With none of the incumbent’s retiring, the advantages go with Susan Collins and Mary Landrieu. Jean Carnahan’s more precarious widow’s incumbency leaves her as a primary target. Like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Dole should succeed in transforming her candidate stature–gained as the wife of a prominent politician–into a senatorial seat. While of course both women are extremely talented in their own right, no female candidates starting from the credential of wife, rather than widow, had succeeded prior to Senator Clinton. Dole’s success may mark the beginning of a new base for female candidates, opening the candidate pool to more talented women.

State Legislatures and the Redistricting Bump

The notion that redistricting gives female candidates a positive growth is not borne out in the aggregate, even if particular states can find such a pattern. In looking at the increased number of women in state legislatures, one finds an increase of 80 female legislators 1971-73, 83 for 1981-83, and 156 or nearly double for 1991-93. In point of fact, several election cycles since 1970 yielded more female legislators than redistricting cycles.

Further, when we consider female winners by decade, the growth of 1992 washes out, and reveals a troubling pattern. By decade, number of female legislators increased as follows: 1971-81 +564, 1981-91 +460, 1991-2001 +298. In other words, the rate of growth is slowing dramatically, and with it gains in the pace of growth of sheer number of elected state legislative women. The gains of 1992 certainly were not sustained.

While the aggregate number of candidates is not yet available for the 2002 election, the recent pattern has been very flat. Do not expect much increase in the number of female state legislators from the 2002 election. Given that state legislatures serve as training grounds for higher office, this trend is troubling. Growth in elected women seems to have topped out

Other Gender Factors in 2002 Elections

First, all should note the way Mit Romney, candidate for governor of Massachusetts, has explicitly featured his sex appeal in commercials. While one certainly can find examples of male candidates understanding that female voters might find them attractive, the extent to which this advertising campaign is exploiting sex appeals stands as noteworthy. What this means for masculinity in campaigns remains to be seen. Perhaps the standards of attractiveness long applied to women will begin to figure prominently for men as well.

Second, female candidates have apparently become more strategic in a variety of ways. Clearly the qualifications of female candidates continues to improve, and fewer appear to run as sacrificial lambs. Further, the increased propensity to match a woman against a woman in races is one key pattern to note. For the House, the pattern peaked in 1998 with 15 such match ups, and held at 11 in 1994, 2000, and 2002. This year, two House open seats pair women. And, we have the second ever woman v. woman match up in a governor’s race. Strategically, recruiting a woman to run against a female incumbent makes sense because it neutralizes gender factors in male-female races. These races have the advantage of guaranteeing that a woman will emerge victorious. Additionally, equality dictates that pairs of female candidates become as ordinary as pairs of male candidates. However, such races may also squander resources on a more narrow range of races. It may also constrict women’s advancement to certain places because female-paired races most often occur in districts in which a woman has served previously.

In the end, 2002 will not go down as a banner year for female candidates or elected officials. The pipeline from the state house level upward appears to trickle more candidates. Those who step up win at higher rates, because incrementally more female incumbents hold office, but it is time to take a serious look at women’s progress in our democracy. Men still overwhelmingly rule in elected office.

[i].The White House Project, ”Why Women Matter: Lessons About Women’s Political Leadership from Home and Abroad,” Project paper, 2002.

[ii].This, and most data, is derived from the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers. Two female candidates from Louisiana are challenging incumbents. Because of the state’s unique runoff system, if either wins, she will be in an open seat for the run off election. Special thanks to Gilda Morales for her help.

[iii].The final count awaits the Louisiana races. In Hawaii, recently deceased Representative Patsy Mink stays on the ballot so technically the race is not open, especially if a replacement is appointed who can run as an incumbent in the December special election.

[iv].Debra Dodson, editor, Gender and Policy Making: Studies of Women in Office, (Rutgers: Center for the American Woman and Politics, 1991). See Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Dayna Verstegen, “Making Something of Absence: the ‘Year of the Woman’ and Women’s Representation,” in Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995).