From Personal to Partisan: Abortion, Party, and Religion Among California State Legislators

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Studies in American Political Development Pub Date : 2020-03-10 DOI:10.1017/S0898588X19000166
David Karol, Chloe N. Thurston
{"title":"From Personal to Partisan: Abortion, Party, and Religion Among California State Legislators","authors":"David Karol, Chloe N. Thurston","doi":"10.1017/S0898588X19000166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The parties’ polarization on abortion is a signal development. Yet while the issue has been much discussed, scholars have said less about how it reveals the unstable relationship between legislators’ personal backgrounds and their issue positions. We argue that the importance of personal characteristics may wane as links between parties and interest groups develop. We focus on the case of abortion in the California State Assembly—one of the first legislative bodies to wrestle with the issue in modern times. Drawing from newly collected evidence on legislator and district religion and Assembly voting, we show that divisions on abortion were chiefly religious in the 1960s—with Catholics in both parties opposing reform—but later became highly partisan. This shift was distinct from overall polarization and was not a result of district-level factors or “sorting” of legislators by religion into parties. Instead, growing ties between new movements and parties—feminists for Democrats and the Christian Right for the Republicans—made party affiliation supplant religion as the leading cue for legislators on abortion, impelling many incumbents to revise their positions. Archival and secondary evidence further show that activists sent new cues to legislators about the importance of their positions on these issues. Showing how personal characteristics became outweighed by partisan considerations contributes to understanding of party position change and polarization, as well as processes of representation and abortion politics.","PeriodicalId":45195,"journal":{"name":"Studies in American Political Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0898588X19000166","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in American Political Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X19000166","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

The parties’ polarization on abortion is a signal development. Yet while the issue has been much discussed, scholars have said less about how it reveals the unstable relationship between legislators’ personal backgrounds and their issue positions. We argue that the importance of personal characteristics may wane as links between parties and interest groups develop. We focus on the case of abortion in the California State Assembly—one of the first legislative bodies to wrestle with the issue in modern times. Drawing from newly collected evidence on legislator and district religion and Assembly voting, we show that divisions on abortion were chiefly religious in the 1960s—with Catholics in both parties opposing reform—but later became highly partisan. This shift was distinct from overall polarization and was not a result of district-level factors or “sorting” of legislators by religion into parties. Instead, growing ties between new movements and parties—feminists for Democrats and the Christian Right for the Republicans—made party affiliation supplant religion as the leading cue for legislators on abortion, impelling many incumbents to revise their positions. Archival and secondary evidence further show that activists sent new cues to legislators about the importance of their positions on these issues. Showing how personal characteristics became outweighed by partisan considerations contributes to understanding of party position change and polarization, as well as processes of representation and abortion politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从个人到党派:加州立法委员的堕胎、党派和宗教
两党在堕胎问题上的两极分化是一个明显的进展。然而,尽管这个问题被讨论得很多,学者们却很少谈到它如何揭示了立法者的个人背景与他们在问题上的立场之间不稳定的关系。我们认为,随着政党和利益集团之间联系的发展,个人特征的重要性可能会减弱。我们关注的是加州议会的堕胎案,这是现代最早处理这个问题的立法机构之一。根据最新收集的关于立法者和地区宗教信仰以及议会投票的证据,我们表明,在20世纪60年代,堕胎问题上的分歧主要是宗教上的——两党的天主教徒都反对改革——但后来却变得高度党派化。这种转变不同于整体的两极分化,也不是地区层面因素或按宗教将议员“分类”成政党的结果。相反,新运动和政党之间日益增长的联系——民主党的女权主义者和共和党的基督教右翼——使得党派关系取代了宗教,成为立法者在堕胎问题上的主要线索,迫使许多现任者修改他们的立场。档案和二手证据进一步表明,活动人士向立法者发出了新的暗示,表明他们在这些问题上立场的重要性。展示个人特征如何被党派考虑所压倒,有助于理解政党立场的变化和两极分化,以及代表和堕胎政治的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Studies in American Political Development (SAPD) publishes scholarship on political change and institutional development in the United States from a variety of theoretical viewpoints. Articles focus on governmental institutions over time and on their social, economic and cultural setting. In-depth presentation in a longer format allows contributors to elaborate on the complex patterns of state-society relations. SAPD encourages an interdisciplinary approach and recognizes the value of comparative perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Old Patronage during the New Deal: Did Urban Machines Use Work Relief Programs to Benefit the National Democratic Party? Old Patronage during the New Deal: Did Urban Machines Use Work Relief Programs to Benefit the National Democratic Party? “100,000 Unarmed Men in Washington”: Public Opinion and the 1876 Election Compromise The March on Washington Movement, the Fair Employment Practices Committee, and the Long Quest for Racial Justice Immigration Clashes, Party Polarization, and Republican Radicalization: Tracking Shifts in State and National Party Platforms since 1980
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1