The Impact of Constituency On the Process of Legislating

Abstract

OBVIOUSLY legislators in a democratic system ought to be representative. Just how the representative should stand for his district in the legislative body is far from clear-cut. Historically the two dominant theories of representation have counselled the legislator to act in diametrically opposing ways. Adherents to the Burkean school prescribe an ear to the voice of conscience rather than to the polls and correspondence. On the other hand, followers of the mandate 'theory of representation expect the legislator to mirror the wishes of his constituents rather than the dictates of the inner self. Actually, individual legislators have more complicated and various perceptions of their roles vis-a-vis the people at home.' And, on any particular issue, the concern with being representative is just one of the things on the legislator's mind. In a roll-call vote, the legislator is likely to answer not just to his constituents, but to a whole web of influences including party, administration preferences, congressional norms and values, and personal predispositions. The ordering of such factors varies considerably from one vote to another. For instance, Turner provides evidence that different issues have quite different consequences for party cohesion.2 Jones found that the salience of constituency preferences as an operating principal for congressmen even varied from one step of the legislative process to another, that is, from the committee stage to the floor debate.' This article focuses on the relevance of constituency to particular congressmen, the activists, on a particular issue, housing. A detailed analysis of the legislative histories of seven major housing bills passed between 1934 and 1964 revealed that some few representatives and senators had the largest part in shaping the content and determining the course of each housing act. I have called these legislators activists. One of the distinguishing features of activists is their investment of time and energy on housing bills. They are highly motivated on matters of housing. Their position is not likely to be a matter of following a bellwether or exchanging a favor as may be the case for some less-committed legislators. The concern here is for the connection of constituency to the activist not just in his roll-call vote but in the entire legislative process in which he acts to affect the content of legislation and build a majority for his view. The impact of the activist upon legislation varies. Given that a clear commitment is common to all activists, there are differences in their interest in subject matter and in the part they have in building a majority for a bill. An activist's concern may be broad or narrow in scope. He may care passionately, or housing may be of marginal concern to him.