Multiple Sponsorship and Bill Success in U. S. State Legislatures

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Comparative Legislative Research Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Legislative Studies Quarterly. This research tests how increasing the numbers of sponsors affects the success of legislation. A total of 1,943 bills and resolutions on the elderly, introduced in four U.S. state legislatures in a 23-year period, were analyzed. The results indicate that large numbers of sponsors, eight or more, more than double the success rate for these bills and resolutions. The support scores for these "multiple-sponsor bills" is higher than for legislation sponsored by majority-party members or legislative specialists. Political scientists have done little research on legislative sponsorship (but seeMatthews, 1960; Olson and Nonidez, 1972; Campbell, 1982; Browne and Ringquist, 1984). As a result there is a paucity of empirical data on who sponsors legislation, why they do so, and what-if any-implications there are to patterns of sponsorships. This research note suggests that in state legislatures the number of sponsors may well be an important factor in predicting the likelihood of a bill's success. Methods and Purpose of This Study This study uses data collected over a 23-year period, 1956-1978, from the state legislatures of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, and New Jersey.1 The data base includes each separate item of legislation which specifically addresses the elderly residents of those states. The following variables are analyzed: bills and resolutions proposed, bills and resolutions enacted, committee assignment of bill or resolution, number of sponsors, identity of sponsors, partisan affiliation of sponsors, committee assignment of sponsors, and committee and house leadership positions of sponsors. Included are 1,943 proposed bills and resolutions, 256 enacted legislative items, 921 different legislative sponsors,2 and 14 types of committees.3Each of the data collectors and analysts involved in the study was struck by the variety in numbers of sponsors; there is no obvious explanation for that variety in the literature. Indeed, Campbell (1982, p. 420) has called for specific research on whether bills with many cosponsors or particularly influential sponsors gain greater support. There certainly is reason to expect LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, X, 4, November 1985 483

Determinants of legislative success in House committees

“…Our empirical results on Congress can be compared with those of Browne's (1985) on state legislatures. Browne finds the following variables of importance: the sponsor's party affiliation, whether or not the sponsor sits on the committee that considers the bill, whether or not the sponsor chairs the committee that considers the bill, and the number of cosponsors.…”

“…For this reason we did not feel it necessary to include this variable. Browne (1985) finds three variables, other than those we consider, to be important: the party affiliation of the sponsor, whether or not the sponsor sits on the committee that considers the bill, and the number of cosponsors. We tested the importance of the first two variables by including them in our regression model.…”

“…We build on the earlier work of Browne (1985) and Crain, Leavens, and Tollison (1986). Our dependent variable will be a binary variable: whether or not a bill passes the committee stage of the U.S. Congress.…”

Policymaking in Parochial Legislatures: What Laws Pass the Colombian Legislature?

“…Wilson and Young (1997) find that in the US Congress, co‐sponsorship increases the chances a bill passes, although only at the margins. Using data from the state legislatures of Florida, Michigan, Iowa and New Jersey between 1956 and 1978, Browne (1985) finds that bills with eight or more sponsors are about three times as likely as other bills to become law.…”

"Stamps of Power and Conflict: Imprinting and Influence in the U.S. Senate, 1973-2009"

“…Although these studies have tended to focus on the short-term effects of experiencing power in laboratory settings, Winter and colleagues (1988;1985) have demonstrated that socialization experiences at earlier stages in life can influence how people orient and respond to changes in power much later in their lives. Thus, extrapolating these arguments to the domain of imprinting, we posit that the imprints acquired at the time of entry to a new institutional setting will be activated and expressed when a person later gains or loses structural power within that setting.…”