cal culture, its utility as an explanatory variable in state politics has varied depending upon the structure or process under examination. Nevertheless, it is widely viewed as an important factor helping us to understand differences across the states in the way politics is carried out. Yet, an important caveat was offered by Lowery and Sigelman (1982). After failing to uncover strong relationships between mass attitudes about political participation and political culture, they were puzzled over the numerous studies indicating a linkage between political culture and state public policies (pp. 382-83). As a possible explanation for the discrepancy, these authors proposed that while mass publics may not differ significantly in their fundamental political values, publics might. Since elites are the key policy-makers in the states, Lowery and Sigelman argued that this might be the missing link between political culture and policy outcomes (p. 383). Drawing upon this notion of elite cultures, and in answer to the call by Kincaid (1980) for further research that examines political culture's effects on institutional structures, this paper explores the usefulness of political culture as an explanation of variations in the occupational status and diversity of state legislators at two points in time. If Elazar's initial propositions, and Lowery and Sigelman's arguments, are correct, the underlying premise here is that chambers in the more traditionalistic states will reflect higher occupational status among their members than those in the other two of Elazar's three cultures. However, it is also assumed that this relationship was stronger prior to the professionalization of state legislatures that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s.