DO NOT DELETE
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
2008 RUTH BADER GINSBURG LECTURER
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS
CEILING: INCUMBENCY,
REDISTRICTING, AND THE SUCCESS
OF WOMEN CANDIDATES
Barbara Palmer and Dennis Simon*
INTRODUCTION
On January 5, 2007, after being sworn in as the new
Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative
Nancy Pelosi announced, “[T]oday, we have broken the marble
ceiling.”1 However, she presides over a House that is only
sixteen percent female.2 In the 110th Congress (2008 session),
there are 16 women in the Senate and 71 women in the House,
but there are 448 more men than women.3 Why is it taking so
* Barbara Palmer is Assistant Professor in the Department of Government
and affiliated faculty with the Women and Politics Institute at American
University. Dennis Simon is the Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor
in the Department of Political Science at Southern Methodist University. This
article is an expanded version of the 2008 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lecture given
by Barbara Palmer, February 29, 2008, at the Eighth Annual Women and the
Law Conference at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. While both the
lecture and this article contain new material, they are primarily drawn from
the analysis presented in BARBARA PALMER & DENNIS SIMON, BREAKING THE
POLITICAL GLASS CEILING: WOMEN AND CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS (2d ed.
2008).
1. CNN.com, Pelosi Becomes First Woman House Speaker, Jan. 5, 2007,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/04/congress.rdp/index.html (last visited Oct. 13, 2008).
2. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics,
Rutgers University, Women in Elective Office 2008, Fast Facts,
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf
[hereinafter CAWP] (last visited Oct. 13, 2008).
3. Id. These numbers are accurate as of August 27, 2008 and account for
the death of Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), who died of a
brain aneurysm on August 20, 2008, at the age of 58. See Dennis Hevesi,
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Lawmaker, Dies at 58, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 21, 2008, at
A21.
29
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
long for women to be integrated into Congress? Our analysis
suggests that the political glass ceiling is not simply a function of
incumbency: it is about districts and their receptivity to female
candidates.
Part I of this article provides a history of the earliest women
in Congress and a brief overview of the women who currently
serve. Part II explores the general question of why there are so
few women in the House and Senate. This section discusses the
development of incumbency advantage and provides an analysis
of the role of political geography. We created an “index of
women-friendliness”
based
on
eleven
demographic
characteristics and rate all 435 House districts on their
likelihood of electing a woman. There are thirty-two districts
that scored quite high on our scale, eleven of which are in
California. However, 136 districts—nearly a third—are unlikely
to ever elect a female candidate. Finally, Part III suggests that
redistricting plays an important role in determining the success
of women running for Congress.
I. WHERE WE WERE AND WHERE WE ARE
The very first woman ever to serve in Congress was
Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana who ran for the
House in 1916 at the age of thirty-six.4 Rankin was actively
involved in the suffrage movement and was instrumental in
getting women the right to vote in Montana in 1914.5 A
committed peace activist, she campaigned on social welfare
issues and a pledge to convince Congress to pass a constitutional
amendment granting women’s suffrage.6 Rankin came in
second, winning one of Montana’s two at-large House seats. In
her victory speech, she noted, “I am deeply conscious of the
responsibility resting upon me.”7 When Rankin’s name was
4. U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE OF HISTORY AND
PRESERVATION, WOMEN IN CONGRESS 1917–2006, 37 (2006) [hereinafter
WOMEN IN CONGRESS]. The first woman to ever run for Congress was
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who ran in 1866 in New York as an Independent. See
CAWP, Firsts for Women in U.S. Politics, Fast Facts, http://www.cawp.
rutgers.edu/fast_facts/resources/Firsts.php (last visited Oct. 13, 2008).
5. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 37; see also KAREN FOERSTEL,
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF CONGRESSIONAL WOMEN 225 (1999).
6. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 37.
7. NORMA SMITH, JEANNETTE RANKIN: AMERICA’S CONSCIENCE 104 (2002);
see also WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 37.
30
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
called to take the oath of office, her male House colleagues gave
her a standing ovation. Shortly after her swearing in, she had to
vote on whether the United States should enter World War I.
Rankin voted no with forty-nine others.8 Her vote would cost
her reelection.9 This was not, however, the end of her
congressional career. In 1940, increasingly concerned with the
war in Europe and possible U.S. involvement, she again ran for
the House and won.10 After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, she
remained true to her pacifist convictions and voted against the
United States entering World War II. This time, Rankin was
the only no vote.11 Her male colleagues booed and hissed her.
She chose not to run for reelection in 1942.12
The first woman to serve in the Senate was eighty-sevenyear-old Rebecca Latimer Felton, a Democrat from Georgia.13
She served for one day during a special session of Congress
called in 1922, which also gave her the distinction of having the
shortest Senate career in history.14 Felton, however, was no
stranger to politics.
She managed her husband’s 1874
congressional campaign, and after he won, went with him to
Washington, DC and served as his secretary for six years.15 In
fact, she was often called the “Second Representative” from the
Seventh District of Georgia.16 In 1922, Senator Tom Watson
died four days after the congressional session ended, giving
Governor Thomas Hardwick the opportunity to appoint
someone to fill Watson’s seat.17 Because a special election
8. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 38.
9. FOERSTEL, supra note 5, at 226.
10. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 38–39.
11. Id. at 40.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 54. The first woman to run for Senate was Mary Elizabeth Lease,
who ran in 1893 under the Populist Party label. See MART MARTIN, THE
ALMANAC OF WOMEN & MINORITIES IN AMERICAN POLITICS 2 (1999). Lease
was actively involved in Populist party politics, giving over 150 speeches, and
was a ferocious advocate for farmers. The famous quotation, “farmers should
raise less corn and more hell,” is often attributed to her. Brook Speer Orr,
Mary Elizabeth Lease: Gendered Discourse and Populist Party Politics in the
Gilded Age America, 29 KANSAS HISTORY: A JOURNAL OF THE CENTRAL
PLAINS 246 (2006).
14. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 54–55.
15. Id. at 53.
16. Id.
17. Id at 54.
31
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
would be held before the new session started, the appointee
would not officially be sworn in.18 At the last minute, however,
President Harding called a special session for consideration of a
Ship Subsidy Bill, and Felton was sworn in.19 In her only floor
speech, she said, “[W]hen the women of the country come in
and sit with you, though there may be but very few in the next
few years, you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose,
you will get exalted patriotism, and you will get unstinted
usefulness.”20
Before he appointed Felton, Governor Hardwick had first
asked the widow of Senator Watson if she wanted the seat. She
declined.21 In fact, during much of the twentieth century, “for
women aspiring to serve in Congress, the best husband [was] a
dead husband.”22 Eight of the thirty-five women who have
served in the Senate have been appointed after the death of
their husbands.23 From 1916 to 1970, twenty-eight of the seventy
women who served in the House — forty percent — succeeded
their dead spouses.24
One woman, Katherine Langley,
succeeded her husband while he was still alive; he was in jail.
Katherine was the daughter of Representative James
Gudger (D-NC) and the wife of Representative John “Pork
Barrel” Langley (R-KY). Well-known in Washington society,
Katherine worked as her husband’s secretary and was the clerk
for the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, the
committee John chaired.25 She was also actively involved in
party politics and served as a delegate to the Republican
18. Id. Governor Hardwick had opposed women’s suffrage and decided
that appointing a woman, even for this symbolic term, would “erase this blot
among women voters while giving his own political career a boost.” Id. While
the press lambasted Hardwick for his obvious pandering, they praised Felton.
Id.
19. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 54–55.
20. Id. at 55.
21. Id. at 54.
22. Diane Kincaid, Over His Dead Body: A Positive Perspective on
Widows in the U.S. Congress, 31 POL. RES. Q. 96, 96 (1978).
23. Id. at 98.
24. See Barbara Palmer and Dennis Simon, Political Ambition and Women
in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1916–2000, 56 POL. RES. Q. 127, 128
(2003). While governors have the power to appoint someone to fill a vacant
Senate seat, House seats must be filled by a special election.
25. WOMEN IN CONGRESS, supra note 4, at 76.
32
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
National Convention in 1924.26 After being reelected for his
tenth term, in 1924, John was arrested and convicted of selling
1,400 bottles of whiskey.27 Thinking she could clear her
husband’s name, Katherine ran for his seat, and he campaigned
for her from his jail cell.28 She won the election in 1926 with
58% of the vote.29 Once in Congress, she lobbied hard for her
husband’s pardon, which was granted by President Coolidge
with the agreement that he never run for office again.30 Shortly
after the pardon was granted, back in Kentucky, John formally
announced he would be running for his House seat.31
Unfortunately, he did not discuss this with his wife. In
Washington, Katherine issued a statement proclaiming that she
was not stepping aside “for John or anyone else.”32 Although
John did not challenge her in the primary, she narrowly lost her
general reelection campaign.33
Today, inheriting a congressional career from a dead
husband is rare. Of the eighty-seven women in the 110th
Congress (2008 session), only four are congressional widows.34
While the early women who served may have been considered a
novelty by their male colleagues, women are now an obvious
presence. In addition to Speaker Pelosi, women hold leadership
positions in both chambers. For example, in the House, four
women serve as Democratic Chief Deputy Whips, and two
women chair standing committees.35 In the Senate, Senator
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 78.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 79.
34. CAWP, Women who Succeeded their Husbands in Congress, Fast Facts,
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/widows.pdf
(last visited Oct. 13, 2008). The four congressional widows are JoAnn
Emerson (R-MO), Lois Capps (D-CA), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), and Doris
Matsui (D-CA). Id.
35. CAWP, Women in Congress: Leadership Roles and Committee Chairs,
Fast Facts, http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/
conglead.pdf (last visited Oct. 13, 2008). The four Deputy Whips are
Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), Representative Jan Schakowsky (DIL), Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), and Representative
Maxine Waters (D-CA). Id. Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is chair
of the Rules Committee, and Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) is chair
33
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is the Democratic Chief Deputy and
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is chair of the
Republican Policy Committee,36 and three Senate standing
committees are chaired by women.37 But in spite of these
tremendous gains, the question still remains: why are there so
few women in Congress?
II. WHY SO FEW WOMEN?38
Incumbency is a major obstacle for anyone interested in
running for Congress.39 Today, it seems as if the only thing that
compels an incumbent to leave office is death or jail time.40
There is very little turnover, particularly in the House.41 In
of the Small Business Committee. Id. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones
(D-OH) was chair of the Ethics Committee until her recent death. Id.
36. CAWP, Women in Congress: Leadership Roles and Committee Chairs,
Fast Facts, http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/
conglead.pdf (last visited Oct. 13, 2008).
37. Id. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is chair of the Environment and
Public Works Committee and the temporary chair of the Ethics Committee.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is chair of the Rules and Administration
Committee. Id.
38. The analysis that is presented in this article is based on data that was
collected by the authors on House and Senate primary and general elections
from 1956 to 2006 from the America Votes series, and includes over 15,000
elections and 35,000 candidates. For a more complete description of the data
and how it was collected, see BARBARA PALMER & DENNIS SIMON, BREAKING
THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING: WOMEN AND CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 15
(2d ed. 2008).
39. See, e.g., MORRIS FIORINA, CONGRESS: KEYSTONE OF THE WASHINGTON
ESTABLISHMENT (2d ed. 1989); PAUL HERRNSON, CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTIONS: CAMPAIGNING AT HOME AND IN WASHINGTON (5th ed. 2007);
GARY JACOBSON, THE POLITICS OF CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS (4th ed.
1997).
40. In a few instances, even jail time has not deterred Members of
Congress. For example, in 2001, Representative Jim Traficant (D-OH) was
indicted on ten counts of bribery, tax evasion, and obstruction of justice.
Steven Patrick, Traficant Refuses to go Quietly Despite Calls for His
Resignation, CQ WEEKLY, Apr. 13, 2002, at 962. After his conviction on all ten
counts, he refused to resign his House seat and ran for reelection as an
Independent, vowing to be the first person elected to Congress from jail. Jack
Torry, From His Cell, Traficant Still a Force in Election, COLUMBUS DISPATCH,
Nov. 2, 2002, at A1. He received 15% of the vote. Id.
41. The 110th Congress (2007 session) is the oldest congress in history. The
average age in the Senate is sixty-two and average age in the House is fifty-six.
Robin Toner, New Congress, Older Look, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 9, 2007,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/us/politics/09pdemos.html (last visited Oct.
13, 2008).
34
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
numerous ways, incumbents have substantial advantages over
challengers which make them electorally invincible.42 For
example, since the First Continental Congress in 1775, Members
have had use of the “frank,” a practice that allows them to send
mail to every household in their district or state for free.43
Originally, the purpose was to facilitate communication with
constituents, but eventually, Members discovered that this also
helped with their reelection campaigns.44 The disparities in
fund-raising are also tremendous. In 2006, House incumbents
raised an average of $1.3 million, while challengers raised a
mere $300,000.45
Incumbents also benefit from name
recognition; at least half of voters recognize an incumbent’s
name on the ballot, while challengers are often virtually
unknown.46 Given all of this, incumbents win at spectacularly
high rates, usually over 95% of the time.47 Even in 2006, when
party control of Congress switched from a Republican to
Democratic majority, 95% of incumbents won.48
In addition, incumbents have increasingly won by larger
margins. During the 1950s, 79% of incumbents were reelected
in “safe seats,” with more than 55% of the two-party vote.
From 2000 to 2006, 92% of incumbents won in safe seats.49 In a
typical election cycle, more than 70% of incumbents have no
opposition in their own party’s primary.50 Since 1956, only 1.2%
of incumbents have ever lost a primary.51 It is also not
uncommon for incumbents to run uncontested in the general
election. For the last fifty years, 10% of incumbents have had
42. See, e.g., ROGER DAVIDSON, WALTER OLESZEK, & FRANCES LEE,
CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS (11th ed. 2008); FIORINA, supra note 39;
JACOBSON, supra note 39.
43. DAVIDSON, OLESZEK, & LEE, supra note 42, at 147.
44. Id.
45. Open Secrets, 2006 Election Overview: Incumbent Advantage,
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.asp?cycle=2006 (last visited Oct.
13, 2008).
46. HERRNSON, supra note 39, at 216.
47. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 39, 40 (Table 2.1).
48. All 191 Democratic incumbents won, while 189 of 211 Republican
incumbents won (calculated by the authors). Our analysis only includes the
two major parties, in other words, competition among Democrats and
Republicans.
49. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 39, 40 (Table 2.1).
50. Id.
51. Id. at 39.
35
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
no opponent in their primary and no opponent in the general
election.52 In essence, these politicians got a “free pass.”53 All
of this suggests that, for the most part, House races are not
particularly competitive.54
A. Incumbency and the Rise of Careerism
It is important to recognize that incumbency advantage is a
recent development historically. For the first 100 years of
Congress, most Members only served for very short periods of
time. As Figure 1 shows, between 1800 and 1860, nearly one
quarter of all Members retired from the House after one or two
terms. Only 6% served more than five terms and made a career
out of serving.
Candidates were nominated by local party conventions, and
in many states, the understanding was that nominations for
political offices would rotate to prevent infighting.55 In addition,
serving in Congress was a dangerous career choice.
Washington, DC was hardly a pleasant place to live, and
“epidemics of fever were chronic.”56 Duels between members
were common.57 Long-term service meant separation from
families and jobs and occasionally led to financial ruin.58
All of this began to change, however, in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.
From 1862 to 1914, the
retirement rate dropped from a high of 31% to a low of 6%.59
In fact, from 1900 to 1910 the proportion of House Members
pursuing long careers increased 14%.60 At the beginning of the
52. Id. at 40, 41 (Table 2.1).
53. Id.
54. Senate seats are generally more competitive than House seats, but
incumbent Senators still enjoy high reelection rates. Id. at 41–43.
55. See, e.g., Robert Struble, Jr., House Turnover and the Principle of
Rotation, 94 POL. SCI. Q. 649, 659–664 (1979).
56. JAMES STERLING YOUNG, THE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY 1800–1828,
42 (1966).
57. ROGER DAVIDSON & WALTER OLESZEK, CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS
32 (5th ed. 1996). One of the most notorious examples was in 1856, when
Representative Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner with his cane on
the Senate floor because of their differing views on slavery. Id.; see also
JOANNE FREEMAN, AFFAIRS OF HONOR: NATIONAL POLITICS IN THE NEW
REPUBLIC 174–176 (2001).
58. YOUNG, supra note 56, at 52–53.
59. Calculated by the authors.
60. Calculated by the authors.
36
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
twentieth century, Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson pushed a
more ambitious national legislative agenda, and as a result,
being a Member of Congress was considered more prestigious.61
Beginning in 1916, nearly one-third of House Members
served more than five terms.62 Individuals retiring after only
one or two terms became a rarity.
Recognizing the timing of the development of careerism in
Congress is essential for understanding the context in which
women emerged as candidates and office holders. Jeannette
Rankin won her House seat in 1916. The movement of women
into the electoral arena began just as careerism and incumbency
rates were reaching historic highs. In effect, Figure 1 documents
the formation of the “political glass ceiling”; it was created as
the first women ran for and won congressional seats. Women
had just begun to enter the electoral arena in an era when
opportunities for success were slipping away.
61. See Samuel Kernell, Toward Understanding 19th Century
Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation, 21 AM. J. POL.
SCI. 669 (1977).
62. Calculated by the authors.
37
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
This figure originally appeared in Barbara Palmer and Dennis
Simon, Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling, 2nd edition, as Figure
2.5, at 49. Reprinted with permission of the publisher and authors.
38
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
B. Incumbency and a Gendered Competitive Environment
Given the tremendous barrier created by incumbency, it
would seem logical that the primary avenue for women into
Congress would be open seats.63 As a result, there has been
little analysis of female incumbents and their success.64 In other
words, it has largely been assumed that a “candidate’s sex does
not affect his or her chances of winning an election.”65 There is
evidence that once women are elected, they are just as
successful at maintaining their seats as their male counterparts.
Female House incumbents are slightly more likely to win than
male House incumbents; since 1956, male House incumbents
have won reelection 95% of the time, and female incumbents
have won 96% of the time.66 In addition, female incumbents
win by slightly higher margins; on average, male incumbents win
with 65% of the two-party vote, while female incumbents win
with 67% of the two-party vote.67 This shows that once women
become Members of Congress, they are as successful as men in
maintaining their seats. In fact, they do slightly better.
However, looking at overall success rates in general
elections does not provide the whole story. As it turns out, male
incumbents are more likely to run uncontested in their own
primary than female incumbents; 71% of male incumbents,
while 68% of female incumbents, have no one from their own
party challenge them.68 There is, however, a much more
pronounced trend in general elections. While 16% of male
incumbents have no opponent in the general election, only 10%
63. Barbara Burrell, Women Candidates in Open-Seat Primaries for the U.S.
House: 1968–1990, 17 LEG. STUD. Q. 493, 499–503 (1992); Kim Hoffman,
Carrie Palmer, and Ronald Keith Gaddie, Candidate Sex and Congressional
Elections: Open Seats Before, During, and After the Year of the Woman, in
WOMEN AND CONGRESS: RUNNING, WINNING, AND RULING 38–42 (Karen
O’Connor ed., 2001).
64. But see Neil Berch, Women Incumbents, Elite Bias, and Voter Response
in the 1996 and 1998 U.S. House Elections, 26 WOMEN & POL. 21 (2004)
(finding that female incumbents faced better funded challengers than male
incumbents).
65. RICHARD SELTZER, JODY NEWMAN, & MELISSA VOORHEES LEIGHTON,
SEX AS A POLITICAL VARIABLE: WOMEN AS CANDIDATES & VOTERS IN U.S.
ELECTIONS 79 (1997).
66. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 133, 134 (Table 5.2).
67. Id.
68. Id. at 149, 150 (Table 5.3).
39
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
of female incumbents have no opponent in the general.69 In
fact, nearly twice as many male incumbents get a “free pass”
and face no opposition at all: 12% of male incumbents ran
uncontested in their own party’s primary and ran uncontested in
the general election, while only 7% of female incumbents have
this luxury.70 Ultimately, the presence of a female incumbent
stimulates more competition in the opposition party. It is not
uncommon that in districts with female incumbents, opponents
seem to “come out of the woodwork” to run against her.71
The career of Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from
Maryland, is an example of these trends. In 1986, after serving
five terms in the House, Mikulski won an open Senate seat with
61% of the vote.72 Despite her large margin of victory, in her
reelection campaign of 1992, fifteen Republicans ran in the
opposition primary.73 Even more astonishing, six candidates
challenged her in the Democratic primary. She easily won her
primary with 77% of the vote, and then trounced Republican
Alan Keyes in the general election with 71% of the vote.74 But
even that performance was not sufficient to scare off
competition.
In 1998, ten Republicans fought for the
nomination, and two Democrats challenged her.75 Mikulski won
her primary and general election with 84% and 71% of the vote,
respectively.76 In 2004, “her electoral strength [was] finally
beginning to sink in.”77 Mikulski ran uncontested in her own
primary, and only one Republican, a little-known state senator,
threw his hat in the ring to challenge her.78
Female incumbents also have an effect on the gender
distribution of female opponents. The proportion of female
incumbents challenged by female candidates in their own party’s
primary, 15%, exceeds the proportion of male incumbents who
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. Id. at 151.
72. Id. at 158.
73. Id.
74. Id.
75. Id.
76. Id.
77. Allison Stevens, The Strength of These Women Shows in Their
Numbers, CQ WEEKLY, Oct. 25, 2003, at 2626.
78. Id.; PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 158.
40
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
are challenged by female candidates, 11%.79 Even more
significant is the impact on the opposition party. In districts
with a female incumbent seeking reelection, female challengers
are almost twice as likely to seek the nomination in the
opposition party primary than in districts with male
incumbents.80 These female challengers are also twice as likely
to win the nomination than male challengers.81 Thus, the
likelihood of seeing additional female candidates is substantially
greater in districts where female incumbents are seeking
reelection.
This suggests that while female incumbents may ultimately
win slightly more often than male incumbents, they actually
have to work harder to keep their seats. Incumbency is not
gender neutral. The question remains, of course, as to why this
occurs. Is it perceived vulnerability? Is there a role-model
effect? The impact, however, is clear. If women are more likely
to run against other women, the overall number of women in
Congress will not increase. From 1956 to 2006, there have been
seventy-nine House elections with a female incumbent and a
female challenger in the general election.82 Female incumbents
have lost only four of these races (5%).83 Even in these contests,
incumbency maintains its supremacy.
Ironically, because
women are more likely to run against other women, the power
of female incumbents also contributes to the maintenance of the
“political glass ceiling.”
C. All Open Seats Are Not Created Equal
If female incumbents are more likely to face competition
from female challengers, this suggests that female candidates
tend to cluster in certain districts. The women who serve in
Congress are not randomly distributed across the country; onethird of the women currently in the House are from California
and New York.84 In fact, twenty of the seventy-one women in
79. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 153 (Table 5.5).
80. Id.
81. Id. at 154 (Table 5.6).
82. Id. at 131 (Table 5.1).
83. Id.
84. CAWP, Women Serving in the 110th Congress 2007–2009, Fast Facts,
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/FF-LevelofOfficeCongress.php (last visited Oct. 14, 2008).
41
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
the 110th Congress (2008 session) are from California.
California’s House delegation is 38% female, the highest
proportion of any state with more than two House Members.85
Both of California’s Senators are also women.86 In contrast,
Texas, the state with the second largest House delegation after
California, has only three female House members; only 9% of
its thirty-two House seats are occupied by women.87 This
suggests that there are patterns in the political geography of
women’s success.
1. The Political Geography of Women’s Success
Candidates, political consultants, and political scientists all
understand that there are certain demographic characteristics
associated with the partisanship of a congressional district.
Democratic districts are more urban and have high proportions
of people with lower-than-average incomes, more blue-collar
workers, and more people of color.88 Republican districts are
more suburban and rural, have higher proportions of whitecollar workers, have higher-than-average incomes, and are less
diverse racially and ethnically.89 There are certain demographic
configurations that make a district more or less “friendly” to a
particular party; in fact, the demographic profile of a district
predicts, with a great deal of certainty, whether a Democrat or
Republican will win the seat.90
Accordingly, demographics can be used to predict whether
85. Id. Hawaii has two House seats, with one occupied by a woman, Mazie
Hirono, a Democrat. Id. New Hampshire has two House seats, with one
occupied by a woman, Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat. Id. South Dakota has
one at-large House seat, which is occupied by a woman, Stephanie HersethSandlin, a Democrat. Id. Wyoming also has one at-large House seat, which is
occupied by a woman, Barbara Cubin, a Republican. Id.
86. CAWP, Women Serving in the 110th Congress 2007–2009, Fast Facts,
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/FF-LevelofOfficeCongress.php (last visited Oct. 14, 2008).
87. Id.
88. William Koetzle, The Impact of Constituency Diversity upon the
Competitiveness of U.S. House Elections, 1962–96, 23 LEG. STUD. Q. 561, 562
(1998).
89. Id.
90. See generally Jon Bond, The Influence of Constituency Diversity on
Electoral Competition in Voting for Congress, 1974–1978, 8 LEG. STUD. Q. 201
(1983); Phillip Ardoin and James Garand, Measuring Constituency Ideology in
U.S. House Districts: A Top-Down Simulation, 65 J. OF POL. 1165 (2003).
42
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
a district is “friendly” to female candidates. Districts where
women have been successful have higher proportions of college
graduates, lower proportions of school-age children, lower
proportions of blue-collar workers, and are less likely to be in
the South.91 Women of both parties also come from the
wealthiest districts in the nation.92 The median income of House
districts where female candidates have been successful is 10%
higher ($3,500) than the median income of House districts that
have never elected a woman.93 While this is not particularly
surprising for Republican women, it is unexpected for
Democratic women, given the conventional wisdom that
Democrats tend to come from districts with lower average
incomes.94
Women are also more likely to win in districts that are
smaller and, as a result, more urban; districts that have elected
women are typically less than half the size of the districts that
have elected only men.95 For example, the smallest House
district in the nation, New York’s 11th district in Brooklyn, is
only twelve square miles.96 It is represented by a woman, Yvette
Clark, an African-American Democrat, elected to her first term
in 2006.97 Leaving out the states that have one at-large House
seat, the largest district is the 2nd District of Nevada at 105,635
square miles.98 This district is represented by Republican Dean
Heller, also elected for the first time in 2006.99 Districts that
have elected women are mostly urban, while districts that have
elected only men are more suburban and rural.100 Districts
electing women are also more racially and ethnically diverse.101
While these findings confirm what would be expected for
Democratic women, these are not the characteristics typical of
districts that elect Republicans.
91. For a complete description of this analysis, see PALMER & SIMON, supra
note 38, at 177–213.
92. Id. at 197–98.
93. Id. at 197.
94. Koetzle, supra note 88, at 562.
95. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 196.
96. Id. at 183.
97. Id.
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. Id. at 183–84, 195–96 (Table 7.2).
101. Id. 196–97.
43
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
In terms of ideology and partisanship, districts that have
elected female Democrats are the most liberal in the nation,
substantially more liberal than those electing male Democrats.102
Districts that have elected female Republicans are much more
moderate (less conservative) than districts that have elected
only male Republicans.103 In fact, the districts that elect
Republican women are strikingly similar to districts that elect
Democratic men. Districts grow friendlier toward Republican
women as the partisanship becomes more moderate, as the
ideology moves to the left, as racial and ethnic diversity
increases, and as the school-age population declines.104 In effect,
as districts become friendlier to Republican women, they
simultaneously grow more characteristic of districts more likely
to elect Democrats. Thus, Republican women often face a
catch-22. They tend to run in districts where their gender is an
advantage, but their party is a disadvantage.105
2. The Best and the Worst Districts
What all of this suggests is that districts that elect women
are different from those that elect men. To further explore this
thesis, we created an “index of women-friendliness” for each
party based on eleven demographic characteristics typically used
to predict whether a Democrat or Republican would win.106 All
435 House districts were rated on two 11-point scales to predict
the likelihood that a Democratic woman or Republican woman
would win.107
As Table 1 shows, there are currently thirty-two districts
that score an eight or higher on both the Democratic and
102. Id. at 196.
103. Id. at 197.
104. Id. at 197, 211.
105. Id. at 211.
106. See id. at 204–13. The demographic characteristics are: Republican
share of the presidential vote (as a measure of partisanship), district size in
square miles, whether the district was located in the South, median income,
proportion of urban residents, African American residents, Hispanic residents,
foreign-born residents, blue-collar workers, school-age children, and residents
with college degrees. In our original analysis, we had a measure of district
ideology, but it was unavailable for all the years we created the indices for. Id.
at 203 (Table 7.4).
107. For a detailed explanation of how the indices were created, see
PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 204–205.
44
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
Republican women-friendliness indices. Representative Nancy
Pelosi, a Democrat from California, represents the district that
scored the highest on both indices. In fact, more than one-third
of the women-friendliest districts are in California. Only twelve
of California’s fifty-three House districts rate low (between zero
and three) on the Democratic women-friendliness index. None
of California’s House districts rate low on the Republican
index.108
As Table 1 shows, not all of these women-friendly seats are
held by women. Nineteen seats, nearly 60%, are occupied by
men. These are districts, however, where women have a good
chance of winning. California’s 12th District, for example,
clearly demonstrates this point. Since 1980, this district was
represented by Democrat Tom Lantos.109 In January of 2008, he
had announced his plans to retire.110 One month later, he died
of cancer at the age of eighty.111 In the special election held in
April, former state representative Jackie Speier defeated four
other candidates, including another woman, with 72% of the
vote.112
108. A list of all of California’s districts and their ratings on both indices is
available in the Appendix.
109. David Herszenhorn, Tom Lantos, 80, is Dead; Longtime Congressman,
N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 12, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/
12lantos.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnl
x=1212035369-P4e0PLTumUpHSJs4+tgq/Q (last visited Oct. 14, 2008).
110. Id.
111. Id.
112. California Secretary of State, Special Election Results, U.S. House of
Representatives, District 12, Apr. 8, 2008, http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/
Special/cd12/officialcanvass_cd12.pdf (last visited Oct. 14, 2008).
45
DO NOT DELETE
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 31:29
Table 1113
State &
District
The Districts Most Likely to Elect a Woman in 2008
Dem
Rep
Index
Index 2007 Occupant
Party Sex
CA-8
CA-9
CA-12
CA-14
CA-15
CA-30
CA-33
CA-36
CA-46
11
9
9
8
8
8
8
9
8
10
9
11
11
11
10
8
11
10
CA-48
CA-53
CO-1
FL-20
8
8
8
8
10
9
9
8
IL-5
IL-9
MD-8
MA-7
MA-8
MN-5
NJ-8
NJ-9
NY-4
NY-5
NY-8
NY-9
9
9
8
8
10
8
8
8
8
10
9
8
11
10
10
10
9
8
10
10
9
10
10
10
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Lee
Jackie Speier*
Anna Eshoo
Mike Honda
Henry Waxman
Diane Watson
Jane Harman
Dana
Rohrabacher
John Campbell
Susan Davis
Diana DeGette
Debbie
Wasserman
Schultz
Rahm Emanuel
Jan Schakowsky
Chris Van Hollen
Edward Markey
Michael Capuano
Keith Ellison
Bill Pascrell
Steven Rothman
Carolyn McCarthy
Gary Ackerman
Jerrold Nadler
Anthony Weiner
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
R
D
D
D
Male
Female
Female
Female
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
113. This table originally appeared as Table 8.3 in BARBARA PALMER &
DENNIS SIMON, BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING 231 (2d ed, 2008).
Reprinted with permission of the publisher and authors.
* A special election was held on April 8, 2008 to fill the vacancy left by the
death of Representative Tom Lantos.
46
DO NOT DELETE
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
2008]
State &
District
NY-14
NY-17
NY-18
TX-7
TX-32
VA-8
WA-7
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
Dem
Index
9
8
8
9
9
9
8
Rep
Index
10
8
10
8
8
9
9
2007 Occupant
Carolyn Maloney
Eliot Engel
Nita Lowey
John Culberson
Pete Sessions
Jim Moran
Jim McDermott
Party
D
D
D
R
R
D
D
Sex
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
One of the most striking patterns among these districts is
the partisanship of the occupants. Democrats hold twenty-eight
of the thirty-two districts, or 88%. Thus, the challenges
Republican women face are all too clear. The districts that are
friendliest to Republican women are Democratic districts.
These are the districts where a Republican woman is most likely
to win the primary because of her gender, but will have trouble
winning the general election because of her party. This may
provide at least a partial explanation for the tremendous party
gap among the women in the 110th Congress (2008 session). Of
the seventy-one women in the House, fifty-one are Democrats
and twenty are Republicans; Democratic women outnumber
Republican women by two to one.114
As suggested earlier, given the power of incumbency, open
seats are generally viewed as the primary source of
opportunities for female candidates. However, this analysis
suggests that open seats will vary in their friendliness to women.
The districts listed in Table 1 would be the most receptive to
female candidates if an incumbent retired. It is worth noting
that seven of the men listed are over sixty years old.115
Moreover, these are districts where male incumbents might be
more vulnerable if female challengers ran against them. These
districts may offer opportunities for women, opportunities that
114. CAWP, Women Serving in the 110th Congress 2007–2009, Fast Facts,
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/FF-LevelofOfficeCongress.php (last visited Oct. 14, 2008).
115. Gary Ackerman, Mike Honda, Edward Markey, Jim McDermott, Jim
Moran, Bill Pascrell, and Henry Waxman.
47
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
have largely been overlooked. While there are thirty-two
districts that scored high on both indices of women-friendliness,
there are 136 districts that scored a three or lower. In other
words, 31% of current House districts are unlikely to be
receptive to female candidates through 2010 and the next round
of redistricting.116
Table 2 shows the “lowest of the low,” the twenty districts
that scored a zero or a one on both indices. Only one of these
twenty districts is represented by a woman. Republican Virginia
Foxx was first elected to the 5th District of North Carolina in a
particularly nasty race in 2004. During the primary, one of her
opponents, Vernon Robinson, ran television ads comparing
Foxx, a former state senator with a clearly conservative record,
to Hillary Clinton: “Hillary Clinton voted for racial quotas,
higher taxes, gay rights, and the abortion bills. So did Virginia
Foxx.”117 His tactics backfired, and Foxx went on to win the
general election by a wide margin.118 There are several other
clear patterns among these twenty districts. Republicans
represent all but two of the districts, and all of them are in the
South.119
116. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 232.
117. Rob Christensen, Candidate’s Zeal Divides, THE NEWS & OBSERVER,
Aug. 13, 2004, at A1.
118. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 233.
119. While we do not wish to suggest that women should not run in these
districts, the demographic profiles of these districts are generally unfavorable
to female candidates. In the 2008 election cycle, several women have run in
the districts listed in Table 2. For example, in Representative Foxx’s district,
Diane Hamby, a former county commissioner, ran in the Democratic primary.
She was out-spent five-to-one by her opponent, Roy Carter, but lost by only
500 votes, less than 1%. POSTCRESENT.COM, North Carolina—Summary Vote
Results, THE APPLETON POST-CRESCENT, May 7, 2008 http://hosted.ap.org/
dynamic/files/elections/2008/by_state/NC_Page_0506.html?SITE=WIAPPELN
&SECTION =POLITICS (last visited Oct. 14, 2008). In Alabama’s 2d
District, Representative Terry Everett retired after serving eight terms, and
three women, Republican Harri Anne Smith, and Democrats Cendie Crawley
and Cheryl Sable, ran in their respective primaries on June 3, 2008. Crawley
and Sable both lost. NEWSCENTER 11, Alabama Primary Election Results, June
4, 2008, http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/ 19527719.html (last visited Oct.
14, 2008). After coming in second place, Smith lost her primary run-off. In
Texas’ 4th District, Representative Ralph Hall, the oldest House Member at
age 85, was challenged in the Republican primary by four candidates, including
one woman, Kathy Seei, a former mayor. Hall won easily with 71% of the
vote. Seei came in second with 10%. Texas Secretary of State, 2008
Republican Party Primary Election, Mar. 4, 2008, http://elections.
48
DO NOT DELETE
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
2008]
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
Table 2
The Districts Least Likely to Elect a Woman in 2008
State &
District
AL-1
AL-2
AL-4
GA-1
GA-10
KY-1
KY-2
KY-4
LA-4
LA-5
LA-7
MS-1
MS-3
MS-4
NC-5
OK-3
OK-4
SC-5
TX-4
VA-4
Dem
Index
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
Rep
Index
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2007 Occupant
Josiah Bonner
Terry Everett
Robert Aderholt
Jack Kingston
Nathan Deal
Ed Whitfield
Ron Lewis
Geoff Davis
Jim McCrery
Rodney Alexander
Charles Boustany
Roger Wicker
Charles Pickering
Gene Taylor
Virginia Foxx
Frank Lucas
Tom Cole
John Spratt
Ralph Hall
Randy Forbes
Party
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
R
Sex
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe (last visited Oct. 14, 2008). In the Democratic
primary, one of the two candidates was also a woman, Valinda Hathcox, who
lost with 43%. Texas Secretary of State, 2008 Democratic Party Primary
Election, Mar. 4, 2008, http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe (last visited
Oct. 14, 2008). The fact that all these women lost their primaries confirms our
analysis that these are districts where women are going to face the biggest
challenges.
49
DO NOT DELETE
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
[Vol. 31:29
III. CONCLUSION
This analysis demonstrates that the success of female
candidates is tied to the demographics of the district. As it turns
out, current demographic trends are making the U.S. population
more women-friendly. For example, the Hispanic and foreignborn population is increasing, education levels are increasing,
and the number of blue-collar workers is declining.120 As the
United States becomes more diverse and educated, women are
increasingly likely to be successful as candidates.121
The implication is that the success of women candidates is
also tied to the manipulation of demographics in the process of
redistricting. Women’s groups are beginning to recognize the
importance of getting involved in the redistricting process. For
example, in 2001, the Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund
(“MWCF”) filed an amicus brief to the state’s special
redistricting panel, arguing that several proposed redistricting
plans disproportionately affected incumbent female state
legislators.122 They argued that “[R]edistricting plans may
render it more difficult for women to run for public office,
unless they are examined for their effect on female legislators
. . . ensuring that the final redistricting plan does not create
unnecessary barriers to female incumbents is within the interest
of female voters in this state.”123 In their Final Order, the
redistricting panel recognized the MWCF’s brief and actually
took into account part of their argument.124 As a result, while
some female incumbents saw substantial changes in their
districts, the MWCF was pleased that the final court-ordered
120. PALMER & SIMON, supra note 38, at 210.
121. Id.
122. Brief of Amicus Curiae Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund,
Zachman, et al v. Kiffmeyer, No. CO-01-160 (Minn. Spec. Redis. Panel Jan. 11,
2001).
123. Id. at 4–5.
124. Zachman et. al. v. Kiffmeyer, No. CO-01-160 (Minn. Spec. Redist.
Panel, Mar. 19, 2002). The MWCT’s brief raised three questions for the
redistricting panel to consider. Brief of Amicus Curiae, supra note 122, at 1617. Two of the questions addressed whether female incumbents were more
likely than male incumbents to gain more new territory or have a
disproportionately higher number of opposition party voters added to their
districts. Id. at 17. The question that the redistricting panel acknowledged was
whether female incumbents were “more likely than men to be paired in the
same district to run against another incumbent for re-election.” Id. at 16.
50
DO NOT DELETE
2008]
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
BREAKING THE POLITICAL GLASS CEILING
plan “achieved a measure of gender neutrality.”125
Recognizing the power of incumbency is crucial to
understanding American congressional elections. Incumbency
advantages, however, are not gender neutral. While female
incumbents win at slightly higher rates than their male
counterparts, they face more competition and have to work
harder to maintain their seats. Open seats are rare, and as we
have suggested, not all open seats are equally as likely to elect a
women. Women are more likely to run and win in districts that
have unique demographic characteristics. There are a number
of House seats currently occupied by male Democrats that,
under the right circumstances, would elect women of either
party. The political glass ceiling is not simply a function of
incumbency: it is about districts and their receptivity to female
candidates.
125. Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund, Opportunity for Women in
Newly Drawn Districts, JANE’S JOURNAL, Spring 2002, at 3.
51
DO NOT DELETE
2/3/2009 9:22 PM
THOMAS JEFFERSON LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 31:29
APPENDIX
The Women-Friendliness Index Ratings of California’s House
Districts
District
Dem Rep
District
Dem
Rep
Index Index
Index Index
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
52
2
1
3
3
7
7
8
10
9
7
4
9
8
7
8
7
5
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
5
7
7
6
4
9
7
8
11
8
9
8
10
11
11
10
10
10
9
8
6
6
6
6
5
9
8
6
11
11
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
6
7
8
6
6
8
7
7
8
7
6
6
6
2
7
8
4
3
7
6
7
2
7
6
3
7
8
8
10
7
7
8
8
6
11
7
7
6
9
4
9
7
7
6
9
8
9
6
9
6
10
8