Texas Voters Research Articles

Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR by Sean P. Cunningham

Reviewed by: Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR by Sean P. Cunningham Keith Volanto Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR. By Sean P. Cunningham. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2022. Pp. 328. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index.) While researching the New Deal’s Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) many years ago, I was intrigued by the extent to which so many traditionally conservative Texas politicians enthusiastically supported Franklin Roosevelt and his domestic agenda. One of these representatives, Marvin Jones of Amarillo, defended the plan to use a system of government subsidies to help the nation’s farmers from critics accusing the administration of promoting dangerous collectivism. While he supported individual liberty as much as the next American, Jones said, he believed the times dictated an interventionist approach by the federal government to facilitate what he termed an “ordered liberty.” I was so struck by the phrase that I used it as the title of the dissertation I was then researching. In this fine book on Texas political culture during the Roosevelt years, Sean P. Cunningham cites Jones’s use of the same phrase while describing the support that the New Deal received from Jones and similar fiscally conservative Democrats from the Lone Star State. [End Page 405] Cunningham also covers FDR’s backing from dedicated liberals such as Maury Maverick, Wright Patman, and Lyndon Johnson, as well as the rabid opposition of hard right-wingers such as the Jeffersonian Democrats and Texas Regulars who, while ineffective at the time, set the stage for future anti-liberal activism. The author’s main focus, however, is clearly on those Texas politicians (and voters) who were conservative at heart but threw their support solidly behind the president. Using a chronological approach, Cunningham analyzes the speeches, writings, and correspondence of such political leaders as Jones, James Buchanan, and George Mahon in order to answer the general question of why most of the state’s politicians and voters embraced the interventionist New Deal so strongly, concluding that a combination of strong messaging coupled with pragmatic economic policies ensured FDR’s loyal following in Texas. Pro-New Deal rhetoric frequently called for Democratic unity in the state, along with consistent portrayals of the rival Republican Party as the tool of Wall Street whose irresponsible policies led to the economic ruin of the country. With respect to the unprecedented interventions of the New Deal, such actions were depicted as necessary, commonsense corrections to the mess that the GOP had created to restore the foundations of the American economy and freedom for the “forgotten man” (for Whites primarily, as the New Deal did not challenge the racial status quo in Texas, yet another reason why FDR maintained the level of support that he enjoyed among most White Texas voters.) Cunningham’s title phrase, “bootstrap liberalism,” explains how most Depression-Era Texans reconciled their traditional beliefs with support for the New Deal. While still buying into the virtue of rugged individualism and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, most Texas Democrats nevertheless realized by the early 1930s that they needed government help to set things right from the Depression that had either broken their bootstraps or taken them away entirely. Rather than being revolutionary, the New Deal would restore life following the proper Jeffersonian American vision in which Texans were raised. Such rhetoric resonated strongly with the Texas public (who supported FDR with at least 71 percent of the vote in his four presidential runs) not to mention so many of the state’s politicians who rode Roosevelt’s coattails into office through their unabashed support for him. This book is recommended for anyone interested in Texas New Deal-era political history, serving as a good complement to Norman Brown’s recently published Biscuits, the Dole, and Nodding Donkeys (University of Texas Press, 2019), which covers state-level politics during these same crucial years. [End Page 406] Keith Volanto Collin College Copyright © 2022 The Texas State Historical Association

Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR by Sean P. Cunningham

Reviewed by: Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR by Sean P. Cunningham Boris Heersink (bio) Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR. By Sean P. Cunningham. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2022. Pp. ix, 312. $37.95 cloth; $28.49 ebook) In Bootstrap Liberalism: Texas Political Culture in the Age of FDR, historian Sean P. Cunningham engages with the puzzle of the massive popularity Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal enjoyed in Texas in the context of the long-standing perception of this state as the center of individualism and conservatism. How did voters with [End Page 205] a seemingly genuine belief in “conservative, rugged individualism, self-help, and limited government” end up supporting FDR in landslide numbers in each election between 1932 and 1944 (p. 2)? Conservatism was a major force in the Texas Democratic Party before, during, and after the New Deal. In 1928, Republican nominee Herbert Hoover won Texas by a small margin, as Democratic nominee Al Smith’s Catholicism and opposition to Prohibition resulted in a good number of Democratic politicians in the state bolting the ticket and openly supporting Hoover. But with the economic crash of 1929 and Hoover’s dramatic drop in popularity, these “Hoovercrats” quickly rejoined the Democratic side and fully backed Roosevelt in 1932. Importantly, Cunningham shows that these conservative Democrats generally were enthusiastic supporters of FDR throughout his first term and reelection effort. With the early New Deal benefitting local farmers and steering clear of racial and civil rights issues, conservatives—like Rep. Marvin Jones—were happy to tie themselves to FDR and celebrate the New Deal as “a new day and a new economic order for the American people” (p. 63). After 1936, however, unity dissolved, and the Texas Democratic Party split into roughly two factions. One consisted of true believers in the New Deal (such as Representatives Maury Maverick and Lyndon B. Johnson), who remained supportive of FDR until his death in 1945. The other faction united conservatives of different kinds, who became increasingly (and vocally) critical of the size and role of the federal government and FDR’s role as president and party leader. Cunningham carefully charts how these two camps battled each other in primaries and at state party conventions. In these clashes, both sides saw defeats and victories. Yet, after the conclusion of a nomination fight, Texas voters consistently voted the Democratic nominee—regardless of faction—into office in landslide victories. While much of this may have been the simple consequence of Texas (and the South in general) representing a de-facto single party system, Bootstrap Liberalism argues convincingly that it was also the product of the similar ways in which both conservatives and liberals presented [End Page 206] their politics to voters. Both sides claimed to represent the forgotten workingman in Texas and argued their policies would help voters achieve their goals. This approach may have allowed self-identified conservative voters to embrace the New Deal and incorporate it into their existing individualistic worldview. At the same time, Cunningham’s account also shows how such similar marketing likely confused voters. For example, Cunningham presents reports that some of rural voters in the 1942 senate primary race supported populist conservative W. Lee “Pappy” O’Daniel—who was increasingly anti-FDR, anti-New Deal, and anti-union—because they believed he would be a pro-labor ally to the president. Bootstrap Liberalism presents a fascinating insight into the workings of Texas politics in the FDR era—charting the clashes between leading Texas politicians of this period such as Maury Maverick, LBJ, “Pappy” O’Daniel, and James “Pa” and Miriam “Ma” Ferguson and spotlighting the importance of how an “individualist” presentation of the New Deal may have played a role in its popularity in Texas and—possibly—other traditionally conservative states as well. Boris Heersink BORIS HEERSINK is an assistant professor in the department of political science at Fordham University. He is the co-author of Republican Party Politics and the American South, 1865–1968 and the author of National Party Organizations and Party Brands in American Politics: The Democratic and Republican National Committees, 1912–2016. Copyright © 2022 Kentucky Historical...

Changes in attitudes, nothing remains quite the same: Absentee voting and public health

AbstractObjectiveThis article examines how the rapid spread of COVID‐19 and political discourse framed absentee ballots as a solution to keep voters safe or a threat to the election's integrity. Did the increased attention to the use of absentee ballots in our elections encourage more people to participate absentee and support changes in Texas's election code to allow no‐excuse absentee voting?MethodsFour surveys of Texas voters were conducted in April, June, September, and October to track voter attitudes about absentee voting during the election.ResultsVoters who were uncomfortable voting in person were more likely to vote absentee and support new reforms. However, voters exposed to messages by elected officials who negatively portrayed the use of absentee voting were less likely to vote absentee during the pandemic and more likely to oppose new reforms.ConclusionDespite the predicted effects of political information, the public's consideration of the health of others create a significant and lasting effect favoring the acceptance of expanding absentee ballots in a state with no‐excuse absentee voting.

Public perceptions of the role of government and nonstate actors in responding to COVID-19.

In this article, we examine public perceptions of the importance of different levels of government and of nongovernmental entities in responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic. By analyzing the case of COVID‐19, we illuminate patterns that may be helpful for understanding public perceptions of the response to a broader range of crises, including the impacts of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, and other hazards. We contribute to the public policy literature on public perceptions of government response to crises and expand it to include consideration of the role of nonstate actors. Drawing on a representative survey of 1200 registered voters in Texas, we find that individuals are more likely to view government as extremely important to respond to the pandemic than nonstate actors. We find that perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors are shaped by risk perception, political ideology and religion, gender, and race/ethnicity. We do not find evidence that direct impacts from the COVID‐19 pandemic consistently shape perceptions of the role of state and nonstate actors.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and His Court: The One Ballot Drop-Off Site Per County Case

In Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League, Common Cause, and Robert Knetsch, the Texas Supreme Court sided with Republican Governor Greg Abbott in a legal challenge to his order reducing the number of drop-off sites for mail ballots during the early voting period of the 2020 general elections to just 1 per county regardless of the county’s population and geographic size. Counties in Texas range in population between a few hundred to several millions.The lower courts had ruled for the plaintiffs and enjoined Abbott's reduction order, but the all-Republican high court reversed and used the occasion to greenlight Abbott’s use of emergency power for non-disaster purposes in denigration of express statutory restrictions.Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League Austin, Southwest, and Texoma Regions, No. 20-0846, 2020 WL 6295076 (Tex. Oct. 27, 2020) (per curiam) (rejecting state constitutional and ultra-vires challenge to proclamation issued pursuant to gubernatorial emergency powers under Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code in interlocutory appeal of temporary injunction against Governor and Secretary of State). It was the third time in the 2020 election season that the all-Republican high court ruled against Texas voters. This time the SCOTX decision came at the expense of vulnerable citizens: older and disabled voters entitled to case absentee ballots. In a prior legal challenge to Abbott’s exercise of pandemic powers under the Texas Disaster Act, one brought by Harris County misdemeanor judges in April against an order that interfered with the judges’ authority to set bail and grant release, the Court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing and vacated a restraining order against the Governor on that basis. See In re Greg Abbott, No. 20-0291, 601 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. Apr. 23, 2020)(orig. proc.). In Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League, by contrast, the Court skipped the question of standing and issued a precedent-setting decision on the merits, through which it blessed an expansionist notion of gubernatorial emergency powers. This article offers a critique encompassing (1) the Texas High Court's procedural handling of the Attorney General's appeal of the injunction against Abbott; (2) the Court's undue reliance on an opinion by a Fifth Circuit panel consisting of three Trump appointees in a similar challenge brought by LULAC and other advocacy organizations based on federal constitutional law, and (3) the Texas Court's cursory treatment of the plaintiffs' ultra-vires challenge to Governor Abbott's use of emergency powers under Texas Disaster Act, and the ominous ramifications of the newly created precedent. CITE for the federal case: Texas League of United Latin American Citizens v. Ruth Hughs, No. 20-50867, 2020 WL 6023310 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2020)(“We agree with the Secretary and grant the stay.”)(Motions panel opinion by Duncan, concurrency by Ho). Defendant Governor Abbott was dismissed from the underlying federal district court cases on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. STATUTORY BASIS for emergency powers in Texas: Tex. Government Code Chapter 418, titled Emergency Management (Texas Disaster Act of 1975).

Election Administration in Times of COVID-19: How the Texas Supreme Court Failed Texas Voters

On May 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) handed down an opinion on mail-in voting in record time, only seven days after oral argument (held via Zoom) and only 14 days after the case arrived in its inbox. The High Court’s haste, however, was to curtail voting by mail (VBM) in times of pandemic--rather than expand it--and they did so upon an emergency mandamus petition filed by Attorney General Paxton, the state’s chief legal officer, rather than in a case brought by advocates for voters. In a glaring disconnect, the members of the SCOTX voted remotely from their respective homes to deny all Texans the ability to vote remotely from their home under the absentee voting provisions of the Texas Election Code. In re State of Texas, No. 20-0394, __ S.W.3d ___, 2020 WL 2759629 (Tex. May 27, 2020). In construing the absentee voting provision as urged by the Attorney General, the Court held that lack of immunity to COVID-19 does not, without more, constitute a “physical condition” that entitles the voter to vote absentee to avoid the risk of infection at the polling place. Part I and II of this article will show how the all-Republican state supreme court went out of its way to interpret the Election Code contrary to the best interest of Texas voters when there was no good reason to do so, and will dispel the notion that the state supreme court was merely giving effect to the Legislature’s will in a nonpartisan fashion. In Part III I will argue that the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling does not have the force of binding precedent because the question of statutory construction was improperly addressed in an unsuccessful mandamus case against election clerks who had done nothing wrong. No writ of mandamus was issued against them. The Court’s interpretation of the “disability” provision to exclude a lack of immunity to COVID-19 as a valid reason to apply for a mail ballot therefore constitutes dictum because it was not essential to the disposition of the case. In Part IV and V I will explore the partisan political dimension of the dispute over absentee voting in Texas, and describe and assess the conduct of the state supreme court and the major players in the legal wrangling over mail-in voting in Texas. Integrating the various strands of analysis, I conclude that the Supreme Court did Texans a disservice by thwarting a remedy for the better management of health risks inherent in election administration under pandemic circumstances; - a remedy that was available within the letter and the spirit of the existing absentee voting provision in the Texas Election Code; that the Court ruled contrariwise for extra-jurisprudential reasons; and that the Court’s disposition of the case leaves voters and others at the risk of being criminally prosecuted for not “correctly” reading and heeding the Supreme Court’s ruling. I also conclude that the proponents of easier access to mail-in voting (most notably, the Texas Democratic Party) pursued a suboptimal litigation strategy, and should not have capitulated to Attorney General Paxton after being bested by him. AG Paxton’s successful gambit consisted of by-passing a pending state-court appeal (in the case in which he had lost at the trial court level and in the first round on appeal) so as to obtain a favorable ruling against the Democrats on an emergency basis in a separate case against different parties; a mandamus case filed directly in the all-GOP Texas Supreme Court while at the same time excluding his political nemesis from that arena. In the wake of the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling, the Texas Democrats abandoned their state-court litigation in favor of their federal strategy centered on an age-discrimination argument under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. That bid for a federal remedy, however, does not look promising, given the current jurisprudential climate and ideological complexion of the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the first salvo, a panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled against the Democrats on the Texas Solicitor General’s motion for stay, and the SCOTUS declined to get involved on an emergency basis so early in the game. Justice Sotomayor noted that the articulated concerns were weighty, and the arguments seemingly novel, but concurred in the denial of extraordinary relief. Texas Dem. Party v. Abbott, 2020, 961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. Jun. 4, 2020) (staying preliminary injunction order) (motion to vacate stay denied by Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 140 S. Ct. 2015 (Jun. 26, 2020)).

Texas voters approve second life for state cancer funding agency

Texas voters approve second life for state cancer funding agency

Does information about abortion safety affect Texas voters' opinions about restrictive laws? A randomized study

ObjectiveThe objective was to assess whether information about abortion safety and awareness of abortion laws affect voters' opinions about medically unnecessary abortion regulations. Study designBetween May and June 2016, we randomized 1200 Texas voters to receive or not receive information describing the safety of office-based abortion care during an online survey about abortion laws using simple random assignment. We compared the association between receiving safety information and awareness of recent restrictions and beliefs that ambulatory surgical center (ASC) requirements for abortion facilities and hospital admitting privileges requirements for physicians would make abortion safer. We used Poisson regression, adjusting for political affiliation and views on abortion. ResultsOf 1200 surveyed participants, 1183 had complete data for analysis: 612 in the information group and 571 in the comparison group. Overall, 259 (46%) in the information group and 298 (56%) in the comparison group believed that the ASC requirement would improve abortion safety (p=.008); 230 (41%) in the information group and 285 (54%) in the comparison group believed that admitting privileges would make abortion safer (p<.001). After multivariable adjustment, the information group was less likely to report that the ASC [prevalence ratio (PR): 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72–0.94] and admitting privileges requirements (PR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65–0.88) would improve safety. Participants who identified as conservative Republicans were more likely to report that the ASC (82%) and admitting privileges requirements (83%) would make abortion safer if they had heard of the provisions than if they were unaware of them (ASC: 52%; admitting privileges: 47%; all p<.001). ConclusionsInformational statements reduced perceptions that restrictive laws make abortion safer. Voters' prior awareness of the requirements also was associated with their beliefs. ImplicationsInformational messages can shift scientifically unfounded views about abortion safety and could reduce support for restrictive laws. Because prior awareness of abortion laws does not ensure accurate knowledge about their effects on safety, it is important to reach a broad audience through early dissemination of information about new regulations.

The Bathroom Boogeyman

In 2015, Houston, Texas voters defeated a bill that would have expanded civil rights to previously unprotected groups, including transgender people. Using a critical framing analysis, this paper investigates how the city’s daily newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, covered the debate over the bill. As such, this study found that the newspaper used almost exclusively elite sources, provided almost no in-depth context, and employed four frames—Equality, Bathroom Boogeyman, Bureaucratic Process, and Religious Freedom—in its Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) coverage. Together, these elements aligned to form a daunting challenge to an effort to protect one of society’s most vulnerable groups: the transgender community.

Helping hands: Organizations, institutions work to assist and mentor early career investigators.

Helping hands: Organizations, institutions work to assist and mentor early career investigators.

Rehabilitation in a Red State

Research SummaryBased on a 2013 survey of 1,001 likely voters in Texas, public support for correctional reform in a “red state” was examined. Four major conclusions were revealed. First, the respondents displayed strong support for rehabilitation. Second, at least for nonviolent and/or drug offenders, the sample members showed a clear preference for the use of alternatives to incarceration as opposed to imprisonment. Third, when asked about a specific policy reform that used treatment rather than prison for nonviolent drug offenders, more than eight in ten Texans approved of the measure, and strong majorities endorsed various rationales for it. Fourth, with some minor variation, the respondents revealed substantial consensus across demographic groups in their embrace of rehabilitation and correctional reform.Policy ImplicationsWith the growth of mass imprisonment arguably at its end, the existence of strong public support for correctional reform even in the major red state of Texas, suggests that a new “sensibility” about crime control has taken hold. There is now an emergent national consensus that the overuse of incarceration is unsustainable and that low‐risk offenders no longer should be sanctioned with a prison sentence. The American public, in Texas and beyond, is willing to support a policy agenda that includes offender treatment, prison downsizing, and alternatives to incarceration. The challenge for elected officials is to take advantage of this ideological space and to pursue this agenda. Notably, politicians in Texas and in other red states are using this opportunity to implement correctional policy reforms. The data in this study indicate that they will face no public backlash and, if anything, will gain political capital for their efforts.

¿Por Quién Votará? Experimental evidence about language, ethnicity and vote choice (among Republicans)

In the summer of 2012, two candidates faced off for the Republican nomination to the US Senate from Texas: a Cuban-American with limited Spanish-language skills and a bilingual Anglo. How important were these counter-stereotypical language skills? Does fluency in Spanish (or the lack thereof) matter to voters? Does the degree to which language ability matters depend on the ethnicity of the candidates, or of the voters? We explore these questions with a series of randomized survey experiments: one with Republican voters in Texas just prior to the primary election, and later with three Internet experiments. We find that language ability matters. Latino voters, including Republican Latinos in Texas, reward bilingual ability. In contrast, Anglo Republican voters punish it, but not in Texas.

Investigating How Voters Weigh Issues and Partisanship in Judicial Elections

Drawing on a 2009 statewide telephone poll of registered voters in Texas, this study investigates how voters react to politicized campaigning, judicial experience and partisan cues when voting for judge. We analyze individual-level data by employing an experimental design in which respondents were provided information about a hypothetical judicial candidate (varying in both campaign theme and in partisanship) and then asked about the likelihood of voting for that candidate. We found that in a partisan election state such as Texas, individuals rely heavily on party as a shortcut when evaluating judicial candidates, even when accounting for judicial experience. We also found that respondents with greater levels of political sophistication were more likely to be influenced by a candidate’s issue position on frivolous lawsuits.

Fighting Stock: “Rip” Ford of Texas (review)

Reviewed by: Fighting Stock: “Rip” Ford of Texas James Smallwood, Emeritus Fighting Stock: “Rip” Ford of Texas. By Richard B. McCaslin. (Fort Worth: TCU Press, 2011. Pp. 408. Illustrations, map, notes, bibliography, index. ISBN 9780875654218, $29.95 cloth). Many historians with a passing acquaintance with Texas history remember “Rip” Ford (1815–97) as a Texas Ranger, but few non-specialists know that he was a man of many talents, a Renaissance man—Texas-style. Originally from South Carolina, he moved to Texas in 1836, just missing the battle of San Jacinto by about ten weeks. Even so, he joined Texas’s revolutionary army and served from 1836 and [End Page 310] 1838 under John Coffee “Jack” Hays. After his military service, he moved to San Augustine where he practiced medicine. Later he also practiced law. In 1844, he won political office and served a term in the Republic House of Representatives. He had the honor of being the man who introduced a resolution to accept the United States’ terms of annexation. In 1845, Ford moved to Austin where with a partner he bought and became editor of the Austin Texas Democrat. When the Mexican-American War (1846–48) broke out, he immediately joined the Texas Rangers and served under Jack Hays again. By 1849 high command promoted him to captain of the Rangers. He served in South Texas from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande. In 1852 South Texas voters sent him to the Texas State Senate. When he moved to Austin, again with a partner he founded a new paper, the State Times, which lasted until 1857. In 1858 Ford sought and won a commission to lead a contingent of the Texas State Troops, a command that sent him to South Texas again. He and his men campaigned against Indians, as well as Juan Cortina when he raided north of the Rio Grande. Later, he was elected to the Secession Convention and voted with the majority. Once the Civil War became a reality, Ford volunteered for service by joining the Second Texas Cavalry whose men elected him as its colonel. In May 1865 he gained a type of immortality by fighting and winning the last battle of the Civil War at Palmito Ranch. After the war, Ford returned to the newspaper business when he moved to Brownsville in 1868. He bought and became editor of the Brownsville Sentinel. He continued his interest in politics, and voters made him a delegate to the National Democratic Convention in 1872 and in 1875 to the Texas Constitutional Convention. From 1876 to 1879, he returned to the Texas Senate. In 1879, state leaders appointed him to his last public position, superintendent of the state’s Deaf and Dumb School (later called the Texas School of the Deaf). In his sunset days, Ford became something of a historian and wrote his memoirs. He became a charter member of the newly founded Texas State Historical Association and supported the new association’s journal. Indeed, he penned one of the first articles to appear in the new journal. He died in San Antonio on November 3, 1897. In the running theme of the narrative, McCaslin notes several times that both of Ford’s grandfathers fought in the American Revolution and did their part to secure American independence. As a youngster and later as a mature adult, Rip Ford became determined to emulate both of them, with locations like Lexington and Concord replaced by the broad expanse of Texas. McCaslin has produced a meaningful volume and has done an excellent job. And, yes, when I use the words “McCaslin” and “excellent” in the same sentence, I know that I am being redundant. James Smallwood, Emeritus Oklahoma State University Copyright © 2012 The Texas State Historical Association

Texas Voters Asked to Approve $3 Billion Cancer Initiative

The state of Texas is planning a 10-year, $3 billion biomedical research initiative, funded through state bonds, for its scientists to wage war against cancer.

A Cartographic Analysis of Water Development Referenda in Texas, 1957‐85

ABSTRACT State‐level financial assistance programs for water projects are expected to become more important as federal funding levels drop and mechanisms change. In some western states such as Texas and California, constitutional restrictions are placed on tax and spending limits and the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance projects is subject to voter approval through a referendum process. Seven water‐related referenda have been held in Texas between 1957 and 1985. Election results indicate that through 1968 voters from across the state supported the concept of state‐level financial assistance for water projects and ratified three consecutive referenda, thus establishing the Water Development Fund and its $400 million authorization limit. Between 1969 and 1981, three amendments intended to increase authorization and expand the Fund's scope were defeated in elections that exhibited a regionalized voting pattern between East and West Texas voters. In 1985, this cleavage was not evident and the Water Development Fund was increased by an additional $980 million. These shifts reflect changes in voter perceptions of the state's water development policy and coincide with release of the 1968 and 1984 versions of the Texas Water Plan. The Texas experience, which is particularly relevant to California, could also be useful to other states considering similar state‐level financial programs that would require voter approval.

Reply to Adams and Ferber

IN A RECENT RESEARCH NOTE in the Journal of Politics, Adams and Ferber present data bearing on my earlier analysis of responsiveness to perceived constituency opinion by Texas legislators. They compared legislative votes on two constitutional amendments submitted to Texas voters as referenda liquor by the drink and a provision for annual legislative sessions. They conclude, Public referenda as an empirical indicator of constituency opinion reveal a quite different portrait of the representativeness of the Texas House than that of Jones' research. ' In particular, Adams and Ferber suggest that more responsiveness exists than I found. I would like to comment on several aspects of their analysis that weaken the conclusions they would like to make. Three issues stand out: the issue of comparing comparables, the issue of a baseline measure for assessing congruence, and the issue of generalizability from referenda issues to a more general legislator-constituency linkage. The Issue of Comparing Comparables. As Adams and Ferber themselves note, congruence between the legislative vote and constituency opinion is not the same as deliberate responsiveness to perceived constituency opinion. In my JP article, I did not attempt to assess congruence. Rather, I was primarily interested in the linkage between legislative attitudes, perceptions, and roll call

BOOK NOTES

Book review in this Article Politics, Economics and Welfare By Robert A. Dahl and Charles E. Lindblom. A Handbook for Texas Voters Texas Presidential Politics in 1952 By O. Douglas Weeks. Selecting the Man for the Job Ministry of Labour and National Service, 1954. Middlesex (New Edition) By Sir Clifford Radcliffe. Commodity Trade and Economic Development National Council of Social Service: Annual Report National Corporation for the Care of Old People: Sixth Annual Report European Political Systems Edited by Taylor Cole. Outlines of Local Government of the United Kingdom By John J. Clarke. Housing Finance and Accounts By W. L. Abernethy and A. R. Holmes. American State Legislatures Edited by Belle Zeller. The American System of Government By Ernest S. Griffith. Social Welfare By John J. Clarke. The Sociological Review (Vol. 1 No. 2) L'Administration Régionale et Locale de la France BY Hervea Detton.