What makes an effective legislator?
Most legislators start out in local politics. They may have won election to the city council and then moved from there to the state legislature. Once they have gathered experience, they may try for a seat in the House of Representatives or the Senate. As lawmakers move upward on the legislative path, they serve an ever-widening group of constituents, or people in their home districts and states. To attain any of these positions, however, an individual must first meet certain qualifications.
The Constitution establishes formal qualifications for members of Congress. Members of both the House and the Senate must be residents of the state in which they are elected. They also need to meet minimum age and citizenship requirements. House members must be at least 25 years old and U.S. citizens for at least seven years. Senators must be at least 30 years old and U.S. citizens for at least nine years.
The formal qualifications for lawmakers at the state and local level are often less stringent. Young adults not long out of high school may qualify for election to school boards, town councils, or even state legislatures. In 2012, 21-year-old Justin Chenette of Maine became the youngest state legislator in the country. Chenette believes in the importance of youth involvement in politics. “It is important to get involved in the process,” he told a reporter. “I want to reaffirm to young people why voting is important."
In addition to the formal requirements for office, lawmakers may also need to meet certain informal, or unstated, qualifications. These are essentially the qualities and characteristics that people look for in their public officials.
These informal qualifications have changed somewhat over the years. James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution had in mind a certain set of high-minded and highly educated people to lead the country. Madison described them this way:
For some 200 years, that “chosen body of citizens” was largely made up of lawmakers who were white, male, and middle to upper class.
In the 1960s and 1970s, women and members of minority groups began to challenge the idea that all lawmakers should be successful white men. By the late 1960s, a few hundred women had won election to state legislatures and Congress. By 2012, that number had swelled to about 1,840 women serving as state or national lawmakers.
African Americans, Latinos, and members of other ethnic groups also were elected to legislatures in growing numbers. In 1971, for example, a combined total of 21 African Americans and Latinos held seats in Congress. By 2011, that number had risen to 68.
Beyond race and gender, however, at least two other informal qualifications still exist: education and occupation. Most legislators today have a college degree, and many have advanced degrees. The majority also have a background in business or law.
The U.S. Senate has a total of 100 seats, two for each state. The House of Representatives has 435 seats, with each seat representing one congressional district. The number of seats in the House was fixed by law in 1911 and can be changed by Congress at any time.
House seats are apportioned, or divided, among the states according to each state’s population. Here is how apportionment works: Every ten years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a census to count the nation’s population. The results are used to calculate how House seats should be distributed among the states. If a state’s population has boomed, it may gain one or more additional seats. If its population has dropped or stayed the same, it may lose one or more seats. Each state, however, is guaranteed at least one seat in the House. This map shows how the states fared in the apportionment following the 2010 census.
The constitutional principle behind apportionment is equal representation, also referred to as “one person, one vote.” In practice, this means that each congressional district should have about the same number of people. As of the 2010 census, the number of people represented by each member of the House averaged about 710,700.
The principle of “one person, one vote” also applies to the apportionment of seats in state legislatures and even local governments. The principle does not apply to the U.S. Senate, however, where each state has an equal voice, regardless of its population. As a result, the nation’s least populous state, Wyoming, has as much clout in the Senate as does the most populous state, California. However, the two senators from Wyoming represent just over half a million people, while the two from California represent more than 37 million people.
Legislators often see themselves as fulfilling one of two distinct roles: that of a delegate or that of a trustee. Lawmakers who view themselves as delegates seek to represent their districts by responding directly to the wishes or needs of their constituents. In effect, they act as they think the people who voted them into office want them to act. This role is often embraced most enthusiastically by first-time lawmakers who are fairly new to the legislative process.
Lawmakers who see themselves as trustees, on the other hand, try to represent their districts by exercising their best independent judgment. Often, these are more experienced lawmakers who recognize that their constituents have conflicting needs that cannot always be met. In making decisions, these lawmakers try to serve the larger interests of their districts, assuming that their constituents trust them to do the right thing.
Most legislators combine these two roles. They may act as a delegate on issues clearly linked to the needs of their home districts. But on more general issues, or on issues over which there is much disagreement, they may take on the role of trustee.
Once elected, many legislators stay in office as long as voters keep reelecting them. Other legislators would like to serve longer, but term limits force them to leave office after a certain number of years. Term limits affect only state legislators, however. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms of members of Congress cannot be limited except by a constitutional amendment.
Lawmakers who run for office term after term stand a very good chance of being reelected. Since 1945, representatives running for another term in the House have won reelection approximately 90 percent of the time. Around 80 percent of incumbent senators have won their reelection bids. Clearly, incumbents have a number of advantages over their challengers, including the four listed below.
Name recognition. Voters are familiar with incumbents. They see incumbents in news coverage, looking authoritative and effective. Voters tend to trust them more than unfamiliar challengers.
Office resources. Incumbents can use the benefits of their office – staff, stationery, mailing privileges, and travel allowances – to keep in touch with voters in their districts.
Campaign funds. Individuals and organizations give money in larger amounts to incumbents than to challengers. In the 2012 elections for the House and Senate, for example, incumbents raised roughly $971 million, while their challengers raised about $398 million.
Bragging rights. Incumbents can point to federally funded projects – from roads and bridges to defense contracts – that they have won for their districts. Such projects are known as pork, because the money for them comes from the federal “pork barrel,” or treasury. Legislators who secure large amounts of pork for their home districts are admired for “bringing home the bacon.” Challengers typically lack such bragging rights.
These advantages do not mean that incumbents always win. If voters think that Congress has failed to deal effectively with important issues, they may respond by voting incumbents out of office at the next election.