THE 2004 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

This chapter examines how Congress works as both a representative institution and as a governing institution. The ability and willingness of the members of Congress to meet their complex responsibilities is affected by other government institutions and actors, political linkage institutions (such as interest groups, public opinion, and elections), and structural factors (such as constitutional rules and economic and social change).The authors also look at the question of the democratic character of Congress.

STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE MODERN CONGRESS

The framers intended for the legislative branch to be the center of policymaking. Although they wanted to create an energetic government with a strong legislative branch, they also wanted to limit congressional power in order to prevent tyranny. The framers made Congress a bicameral body-divided into two chambers-so that legislation could occur only after patient deliberation. They added provisions specifically to prohibit bills of attainder, expost facto laws, the granting of titles of nobility and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. They created separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches (separation of powers) and gave each of them some role to play in the activities of the others (checks and balances). This fragmentation of governmental power affects how Congress works and also makes it difficult to fashion coherent and effective public policies. Moreover, some powers and responsibilities are granted to the national government, some are shared, and some are reserved for the states in our federal system. It is inevitable that conflicts will occur between state governments and the national government, and federalism infuses localism into congressional affairs.

REPRESENTATION AND DEMOCRACY

This section of the text asks whether members of Congress carry out the representative responsibility in a way that can be considered democratic. One way to represent is to be similar to that which is being represented, to reflect the basic characteristics of the constituency. In this sense, the U.S. Congress is highly unrepresentative. Nearly all members of Congress have been white males; women and racial minorities are significantly underrepresented, especially in the Senate. Members of Congress also tend to come from wealthy families. They are better educated than the remainder of the population and come from relatively few occupational backgrounds.

Some question whether it matters that Congress is demographically unrepresentative. Some observers suggest that the need to face the electorate forces lawmakers to be attentive to all significant groups in their constituencies, regardless of their own backgrounds. However, many who are not represented (such as women, racial minorities, and the poor) believe that their interests would get a better hearing if their numbers were substantially increased in Congress. The demographic disparity suggests a violation of the norm of political equality, an important element of democracy.

The degree to which the Senate is unrepresentative can also be seen in the fact that a majority of senators in the 104th Congress came from states, which together make up only 20 percent of the American population. Equal representation in the Senate gives extraordinary power in the legislative process to small states. It can substantially distort popular sentiment, and in this way can diminish democracy. Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population, with reapportionment based on the national census every 10 years. State legislatures draw the boundary lines, and the party that controls the state legislature will usually try to draw district lines in a way that will help them win elections. Gerrymandering occurs when boundary lines are drawn to ensure the election of a particular party, group, or person (the term dates to the 1811 redistricting process when Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed a bill that created a district that looked like a salamander to editorial cartoonists).

Congressional districts are now approximately the same size in terms of population, but state legislatures are still relatively free to draw district lines where they choose. The party that controls the state legislature usually tries to draw district lines in a way that will help them win elections, and the resulting districts are often odd-looking and convoluted (rather than compact and contiguous). The Supreme Court has tried to prevent the most flagrant abuses, especially when some identifiable group of voters (like racial minorities) is disadvantaged, but it is a practice that is difficult to regulate.The 1982 amendments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which encouraged the states to create House districts in which racial minorities would be in the majority, resulted in the formation of 24 new majority-minority districts (districts drawn purposely so that a racial minority is the majority). The Supreme Court first encouraged the creation of majority-minority districts, then appeared to have second thoughts about districts that are highly irregular in form, noncontiguous, and unconnected to traditional political jurisdictions (Shaw v. Reno 1993), or that are drawn solely to aid one race (Miller v. Johnson 1995).

This chapter also looks at the relationship between money and congressional elections. Running for a congressional seat is very expensive, and keeps getting more expensive. Although the candidate who spends the most money does not always win, the amount of money spent is related to the probability of winning. Incumbents (who need the funds the least) spend the most in races for both houses. Money to support congressional campaigns comes from four main sources: individuals, parties, the candidates, and political action committees (PACs). Contributions from PACs go primarily to incumbents. This is the fastest growing part of the campaign financing system; PACs are free to spend without limit on general-issue campaigns that are often thinly veiled efforts to help a particular candidate or party. Many people believe that the increased role of PACs also increases the influence of interest groups and business interests.

The number of competitive districts across the nation has declined, and incumbents win at higher rates today than in the past. However, there are signs of potential changes: elections are becoming increasingly competitive, with fewer incumbents winning by more than 60 percent of the vote; and we see evidence of high turnover if we look at the percentage of incumbents who actually return to Congress after an election, rather than at the incumbent reelection rate. Open-seat election races, in which no incumbent is involved, also attract and use lots of money.

The textbook points to a number of advantages that incumbents enjoy over challengers. PACs and interest groups want access to key decision makers, and the flow of money is particularly heavy for those who sit on key committees or hold important leadership posts. Incumbents use congressional resources to advertise their accomplishments and keep their names before the public (although there are some restrictions designed to limit abuse). The franking privilege allows members to mail newsletters, legislative updates, surveys, and other self-promoting literature free of charge. Travel budgets permit lawmakers to make frequent visits back to their state or district. Incumbents also use their offices to service the district. In this way, casework involves helping constituents solve red-tape problems with the federal bureaucracy, and pork (a derogatory term for district benefits from federal programs) is used to provide federal dollars in the form of contracts, facilities, and subsidies.

Members of Congress may be doing a relatively good job of representing their constituents: research shows that members vote in conformity with majority opinion in their districts about two-thirds of the time. Nevertheless, the incumbency factor should not be exaggerated: turnover in Congress is significant due to voluntary retirements, redistricting changes, and some electoral defeats.

HOW CONGRESS WORKS

Congress plays an important part in making policy; it remains the most powerful legislature among Western democratic nations. Congress is fragmented and decentralized by the electoral needs of lawmakers and the organization of Congress along committee and subcommittee lines. However, there are also a number of forces that help foster cooperation and coordination, including political parties, congressional leadership, and ideology. At the opening of each new Congress, the two houses organize their legislative business along party lines. Each party caucus meets to select party committees and officers. Party labels are important cues for members of Congress as they decide how to vote. Party affiliation is the best predictor of the voting behavior of members of Congress (although not nearly as important as in parliamentary systems like that of Great Britain). It is not entirely clear whether party voting differences are caused directly by party affiliation or indirectly by the character of the constituencies. American parties have little power to compel compliance with party positions or to discipline recalcitrant members. Party caucuses have no authority to expel lawmakers from the party, even if they consistently vote with the opposition party, and the principle of seniority generally prevails in the appointment of committee and subcommittee chairs.

The political parties also work through the leadership structure of Congress because the leaders of the majority political party are also the leaders of the House and Senate. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is treated as the spokesperson for the House and also for the majority party. Other powers of the Speaker include referral of bills to committee, control of the House agenda, appointment of select committees, and direction of floor debate. The majority party in the House also selects a majority floor leader to help the Speaker plan strategy and manage the legislative business of the House. The minority party elects a minority floor leader, who serves as the chief spokesperson and legislative strategist for the opposition. Each party has party whips who act as liaisons between the leaders and the rank and file, count heads on important bills, explain leadership positions, try to persuade members to vote with the party, gather legislative intelligence, and ensure that supporters get to the floor to cast their votes.

Leadership in the Senate is less visible than in the House, and those with formal leadership titles exercise little influence. The Vice-President of the United States serves as the presiding officer (President of the Senate). The office is designated by the U.S. Constitution, not elected by the House as are the other leadership positions. The President of the Senate is seldom in attendance because this is essentially a ceremonial office with no power other than the right to vote to break a tie. The majority leader is the dominant figure in the Senate but has less substantial powers than those of Speaker of the House. The majority leader has influence in committee assignments, assignment of office space, control of access to the floor of the Senate, and scheduling of Senate business. The power of the position is personal and not institutional: the degree of actual influence is based less on formal powers than on skills such as personal persuasion. The minority leader exercises less power than the Majority Leader, but a skilled politician can use the position to articulate the minority legislative program and force concessions from the majority.

Most of the work of Congress takes place in its committees and subcommittees. They serve as screening devices, allowing only a small percentage of bills to take up the time of the parent legislative bodies, and thereby allow Congress to rationally process the huge flow of business that comes before it. They permit specialization because members of staff develop expertise to handle complex issues and to face executive branch experts on equal terms. They are useful to members of Congress who use their committee positions to enhance their chances for reelection; legislators usually try to secure committee assignments that will permit efficient servicing of his or her constituency. Getting on the right committee is important for reelection and for achieving the policy goals of members of Congress.

There are several kinds of committees, each of which serves a special function in the legislative process. Standing committees are permanent and are the first stop for potential new laws. Bills referred to subcommittees are subject to hearings, negotiations, and markup. The majority of the legislative work takes place in these committees. Temporary committees created by congressional leaders to conduct studies or investigations are called select committees. They exist to resolve issues that standing committees cannot or do not wish to handle. To speed up the flow of legislation, the congress has created joint committees with members from both chambers serving on the committees. Before a bill can be sent to the president for signature, it must pass in identical form. Congress has established conference committees to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions.

Congress is guided by both formal rules and informal norms of behavior. Norms are generally accepted expectations about how people ought to behave and how business ought to proceed, while rules specify how things should be done and what is not allowed. The House is much more rule-bound than the Senate because of its large size. The House tends to be more organized and hierarchical, and debate on the floor is limited. Leaders have more power, procedures are more structured, and individual members have a harder time making a name for themselves. The atmosphere in the Senate is more relaxed and informal than in the House; each senator is more independent than House counterparts. Senate rules provide for unrestricted floor debate unless it is shortened by unanimous consent (which means that business can be blocked by a single dissenter) or ended by cloture. Senators may try to talk a bill to death through the filibuster.

LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITES: HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW

Although bills can be introduced only by a member of Congress, the president and the executive branch are important in shaping the legislative agenda. Many bills originate in the executive branch, and much of what Congress does is in response to the legislative program of the president. Legislation takes the form of bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and resolutions. Most legislative proposals are in the form of a bill, which requires the approval of both houses and the president's signature to be enacted into law. Public bills deal with general questions, while private bills deal with individual matters such as immigration and naturalization cases.

The presiding officer in the Senate and the Speaker of the House refer the bill to the appropriate standing committee. Committee chairs will normally pass the bill to the appropriate subcommittee. Most bills die at this stage, when either the subcommittee or the full committee declines to consider it further. Only bills that receive a favorable report from the committee are likely to be heard by the parent body. Only a small percentage will be favorably reported back to the floor. A discharge petition signed by a majority of House members can force a committee to relinquish control over a bill, but this procedure is rarely successful. Congressional leaders schedule a bill for floor debate if it is favorably reported from committee. In the House of Representatives, a bill will normally go to the Rules Committee for a rule (the terms under which the bill will be considered), such as the time for debate and the number - if any - of amendments allowed). The Rules Committee may choose not to issue a rule, to drag its feet, or to grant a closed rule that does not permit amendments. Floor debate is more important in the Senate, where committees are less influential than in the House. By contrast, rules in the Senate do not limit debate. Conflicting versions of a bill must be rewritten by a conference committee so that a single bill gains the approval of both houses. Only about six percent of all bills that are introduced in Congress are enacted into law.

CONGRESS, PUBLIC POLICY, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The way Congress is organized and operates greatly influences the kind of public policies we have and how Americans view the institution. Arguably, Congress's focus on the individual political and electoral needs of its members, connection to special interests, and decentralization of power and procedure within the institution lead to fragmentation and an inability to craft coherent policy benefiting the nation as a whole. According to this argument, Congress is responsive to needs of members and their constituents, but irresponsible in tackling national problems. While some of this critique has merit, Congress can effectively act as national policymaker, but usually and especially under the direction of strong presidential leadership.

The American people have a paradoxical view toward Congress: they strongly approve of (and reelect) their individual members, but have a low opinion of Congress as a whole. This view, too, may be related to the operation and organization of Congress: individual members go to great lengths to ingratiate themselves with, and bring benefits to, their district, while the institution as a whole struggles to deal with difficult national problems. Gridlock and in-fighting seem to have increased in recent years. Further, some scholars argue Americans' dislike of Congress as an institution is related to unrealistic expectations about how a deliberative, legislative body works - Americans may favor democracy in the abstract, but despise the partisan conflict, compromising, and inevitable deal-making of the legislative process in practice.

Copyright © 1995-2008, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman Legal and Privacy Terms