Abstract
Ninety-six percent of state legislative incumbents who appeared on the November 2022 ballot reclaimed their seats in the state legislature, the highest percentage since at least the 2010 elections. Such electoral success would suggest that these state legislators enjoyed a healthy incumbency advantage. However, prior work (e.g. Jacobson, G. C. 2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 861–73.) indicates that the incumbency advantage has diminished in recent elections, at least in the US House. I find similar – but smaller – declines in the magnitude of the incumbency advantage in state house elections in the last two decades. Instead of being attributable to the traditional incumbency advantage, state legislative incumbents’ success in the 2022 elections is more likely a consequence of the increasing number of partisan state house districts and the continued nationalization of state politics.
Incumbency advantage in US house elections.
| 2000 | 2002 | 2004 | 2008 | 2010 | 2012 | 2014 | 2016 | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incumbent | 8.613* | 8.516* | 6.780* | 6.438* | 7.134* | 4.774* | 2.474* | 3.677* | 2.854* | 1.372* | 1.520* |
| (1.164) | (1.220) | (0.987) | (1.071) | (1.026) | (0.811) | (0.709) | (0.771) | (0.661) | (0.470) | (0.373) | |
| Presidential vote | 0.608* | 0.547* | 0.602* | 0.566* | 0.631* | 0.844* | 0.843* | 0.802* | 0.731* | 0.834* | 0.930* |
| (0.029) | (0.032) | (0.027) | (0.031) | (0.027) | (0.021) | (0.020) | (0.027) | (0.020) | (0.017) | (0.012) | |
| Party seat | 3.670* | 4.348* | 4.735* | 3.849* | 2.596* | 1.665* | 2.551* | 1.585* | 3.371* | 1.360* | 0.880* |
| (1.133) | (1.188) | (0.955) | (1.077) | (0.992) | (0.772) | (0.671) | (0.766) | (0.668) | (0.465) | (0.378) | |
| Constant | 20.461* | 22.172* | 21.834* | 27.618* | 20.528* | 1.344 | 8.334* | 6.609* | 13.293* | 11.399* | 2.482* |
| (1.557) | (1.648) | (1.352) | (1.579) | (1.465) | (1.152) | (1.085) | (1.419) | (1.104) | (0.903) | (0.615) | |
| Observations | 369 | 349 | 363 | 375 | 378 | 406 | 384 | 358 | 367 | 391 | 404 |
-
This table reports the results of linear regressions in which the dependent variable is the Democratic vote share in contested US House elections. Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.05.
Incumbency advantage in state house elections.
| 2000 | 2002 | 2004 | 2008 | 2010 | 2012 | 2014 | 2016 | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incumbent | 4.667* | 6.328* | 4.708* | 3.334* | 4.310* | 2.895* | 3.533* | 2.793* | 2.197* | 1.598* | 1.397* |
| (0.354) | (0.396) | (0.327) | (0.324) | (0.316) | (0.321) | (0.284) | (0.344) | (0.298) | (0.211) | (0.213) | |
| Presidential vote | 0.546* | 0.520* | 0.607* | 0.546* | 0.571* | 0.634* | 0.645* | 0.628* | 0.590* | 0.701* | 0.772* |
| (0.012) | (0.015) | (0.011) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.012) | (0.009) | (0.008) | (0.008) | |
| Party seat | 5.674* | 3.585* | 3.908* | 5.587* | 4.498* | 5.119* | 3.288* | 4.015* | 5.061* | 3.636* | 3.082* |
| (0.326) | (0.330) | (0.294) | (0.298) | (0.287) | (0.289) | (0.247) | (0.324) | (0.274) | (0.202) | (0.209) | |
| Constant | 24.667* | 24.838* | 22.211* | 28.201* | 22.808* | 13.090* | 19.509* | 16.429* | 21.027* | 17.875* | 10.494* |
| (0.631) | (0.747) | (0.571) | (0.601) | (0.620) | (0.611) | (0.552) | (0.636) | (0.475) | (0.385) | (0.399) | |
| Observations | 2146 | 2094 | 2224 | 2266 | 2195 | 2442 | 2220 | 2074 | 2148 | 2569 | 2420 |
-
This table reports the results of linear regressions in which the dependent variable is the Democratic vote share in contested state house elections. Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.05.
References
Algara, C., and B. Bae. 2023. “Do Quality Challengers and Incumbents Still Matter in the Partisan World? Comparing Trends & Relationship Between Candidate Quality and Congressional Election Outcomes, 1900-2022.” ms, Claremont Graduate University.Suche in Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., J. M. SnyderJr., and C. StewartIII. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669290.Suche in Google Scholar
Ballotpedia. 2023. State Legislative Elections, 2022. Ballotpedia https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2022 (accessed January 20, 2023).Suche in Google Scholar
Berman, R. 2023. Why Kevin McCarthy Can’t Lose George Santos. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/01/george-santos-resign-kevin-mccarthy-nassau-county/672786/ (accessed January 20, 2023).Suche in Google Scholar
Berry, W. D., M. B. Berkman, and S. Schneiderman. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94 (4): 859–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586212.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., and R. D. Enos. 2021. “The Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million Voters.” Nature Human Behaviour 5: 998–1008, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01066-z.Suche in Google Scholar
Burden, B. C., and R. Snyder. 2021. “Explaining Uncontested Seats in Congress and State Legislatures.” American Politics Research 49 (3): 247–58.10.1177/1532673X20960565Suche in Google Scholar
Carson, J. L., J. Sievert, and R. Williamson. 2019. “Nationalization and the Incumbency Advantage.” Political Research Quarterly 73 (1): 156–68.10.1177/1065912919883696Suche in Google Scholar
Caughey, D., and C. Warshaw. 2022. Dynamic Democracy: Public Opinion, Elections, and Policymaking in the American States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Chubb, J. E. 1988. “Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamics of State Elections.” American Political Science Review 82 (1): 133–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958062.Suche in Google Scholar
Cox, G. W., and J. N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511606212Suche in Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. 1977. “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did it.” American Political Science Review 71 (1): 177–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400259376.Suche in Google Scholar
Fowler, A. 2016. “What Explains Incumbent Success? Disentangling Selection on Party, Selection on Candidate Characteristics, and Office-Holding Benefits.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (3): 313–38. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015108.Suche in Google Scholar
Gelman, A., and G. King. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1142–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111475.Suche in Google Scholar
Goidel, R. K., and T. G. Shields. 1994. “The Vanishing Marginals, the Bandwagon, and the Mass Media.” The Journal of Politics 56 (3): 802–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2132194.Suche in Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. J. 2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226530406.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobson, G. C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–82.” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1): 126–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111327.Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobson, G. C. 2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 861–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/681670.Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobson, G. C. 2021. “The Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2020: A National Referendum on the Trump Presidency.” Political Science Quarterly 136 (1): 11–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.13133.Suche in Google Scholar
King, G. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage.” British Journal of Political Science 21 (1): 119–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400006062.Suche in Google Scholar
King, G., and A. Gelman. 1991. “Systemic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 110–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111440.Suche in Google Scholar
Klarner, C. E. 2021. State Legislative Election Returns, 1967 - 2020 [Data set].Suche in Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6 (3): 295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233931.Suche in Google Scholar
Rogers, S. 2016. “National Forces in State Legislative Elections.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667 (1): 207–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662454.Suche in Google Scholar
Rogers, S. 2023. Accountability in State Legislatures. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226827230.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Shor, B., and N. McCarty. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 530–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000153.Suche in Google Scholar
Stephanopoulos, N., and E. McGhee. 2015. “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap.” University of Chicago Law Review 82 (2): 831–900.Suche in Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, C., and C. Warshaw. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” The Journal of Politics 75 (2): 330–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000042.Suche in Google Scholar
Warshaw, C., E. McGhee, and M. Migurski. 2022. “Districts for a New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 52 (3): 428–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjac020.Suche in Google Scholar
Weber, R. E., H. J. Tucker, and P. Brace. 1991. “Vanishing Marginals in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (1): 29–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/439965.Suche in Google Scholar
Zingher, J. N., and J. Richman. 2019. “Polarization and the Nationalization of State Legislative Elections.” American Politics Research 47 (5): 1036–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18788050.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
