Schiller, Wendy J. Partners and Rivals: Representation in
Hardbound, $17.95 softbound.
Gregory
R. Thorson,
Just twenty-five years ago, the amount of research done on the U.S. Senate paled in comparison to that that done on the U.S. House. Fortunately, this trend has changed significantly. During the last few decades, the amount of significant research done on the U.S. Senate has nearly reached parity with that done on the House.
One of the more interesting and innovative contemporary
works on the behavior of
Senators from the same state must distinguish themselves from the other by emphasizing different issues, or in other words, by carving out a distinctive legislative niche. The problem is most pronounced for the junior senator from the state with the same partisanship as their more senior colleague. Junior senators who choose to work on the same issues as the senior senator of a state will consistently be overshadowed by their senior colleagues. They will suffer from less media coverage and enjoy less support from PACs and their associated constituencies than their senior colleague. As a result, Schiller argues that junior senators must seek to establish a unique identifiable governing style that emphasizes different issues than the senior senator from the state.
To test these claims, Schiller examines both systematic empirical data as well as individual case studies. Her data sources are both rich and diverse. She examines bill and amendment introductions and sponsorships, committee assignments, constituent evaluations, and PAC contributions. Her analysis uncovers some strong findings of ideologically similar Senators who nevertheless advance very dissimilar legislative portfolios.
One problem with Schiller’s thesis is identified in the text itself. Undoubtedly part of the reason that Senators develop different legislative portfolios has nothing to do with member preferences. Rather, the rules of each party prohibit members of the same party and state from serving on the same Senate committee. Nevertheless, Schiller points out that it is still possible for one senator of a state to serve on an appropriations subcommittee and the other to serve on the authorizing committee. She finds, however, that the frequency of this occurring is surprisingly rare even among Senators with similar partisan and ideological preferences.
Undoubtedly, Partners and Rivals will spur additional research. The results of the recent elections will present many opportunities. As I read the text, I could not help but think about the difficulties that Senators Allen (v. Warner), Carper (v. Biden), Clinton (v. Schumer), Corzine (v. Toricelli), Dayton (v. Wellstone), Nelson (v. Graham), and Stabenow (v. Levin) will face as they begin to construct their own distinctive legislative portfolios as freshmen in the 107th Congress.
Finally, another promising aspect of Schiller’s research is the blending of her own work with other analyses of multimember districts in Japan and Chile. It is refreshing to see congressional scholars draw on the comparative literature to enrich their research. Schiller does so seamlessly and effectively.
In summary, Partners and Rivals challenges us to think about the differences that might result from having essentially multimember districts in the Senate. Her framing of the question and her empirical tests are novel in this regard. I would recommend this text for undergraduates, graduate students, and congressional scholars alike.