Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:49:38.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conference Committee Structure and Majority Party Bias in U.S. States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2022

Colin Emrich*
Affiliation:
Gwynedd Mercy University, Gwynedd Valley, PA, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How representative are conference delegations in state legislative chambers? I argue that differing conference rules across state legislative chambers influence majority party control over conference delegations. With an original data set encompassing all state-level conference committees from 2005 to 2016, I compare the observed policy preferences between conference delegation and majority party medians when the majority party unilaterally appoints and when the minority party has influence over conferee selection. My results show that in state legislative chambers where the minority can influence conference appointments, delegations are ideologically biased away from the majority party. These findings underscore how majority parties are limited when minorities have procedural rights.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press and State Politics & Policy Quarterly

Introduction

In every bicameral state in the United States, both chambers must agree on legislation before sending the bill to the executive. If passed bills differ between chambers, either one chamber can concur with the other’s amendments, or they can form a conference committee. Conference committees are ad hoc joint committees composed of members from both legislative chambers tasked with unifying differences. They routinely handle the most politically contentious and salient legislation and are expeditious when passing comprehensive legislation by preventing bills from moving back-and-forth between chambers.Footnote 1 They are often the last actors to substantively modify bills, with conferees having the substantial latitude to alter legislation toward their preferences (Oleszek et al. Reference Oleszek, Oleszek, Rybicki and Heniff2015; Sinclair Reference Sinclair2016). Conferences’ powers are amplified due to the fact that their choices cannot be modified; adoption of the conference report is subject to a single yay-or-nay vote.Footnote 2 The unamendable nature of the conference report has led some scholars to remark that conferees’ influence is so great that many laws are actually written in conference (Clapp Reference Clapp1963; Van Beek Reference Van Beek1995).

Conference committees’ last-mover advantage allows conferees to not only change legislation but also alter the behavior of other actors in the legislative process. This independent influence conflicts with contemporary party-dominated theories of legislative organization. Partisan models view conference conferees as agents of the majority leadership, pursuing goals valuable to the majority party (e.g., Cox and McCubbins Reference Cox and McCubbins2005; Cox and McCubbins Reference Cox and McCubbins1993; Kiewiet and McCubbins Reference Kiewiet and McCubbins1991; Rohde Reference Rohde1991). Conferees appointed by the majority leadership are expected to serve majority party priorities, lest they risk losing credit-claiming opportunities associated with the conference (Mayhew Reference Mayhew1974). Nagler (Reference Nagler1989) summarizes the situation accordingly: “The conference does indeed convey influence to the conferees. However, there is reason to believe that the conferee… represent[s] only what is acceptable to a majority of the majority party on the floor” (76).

To date, most of the conference committee literature has focused solely on the U.S. Congress. In this context, conference committees serve as a vehicle for majority party agenda control as the majority leadership unilaterally appoints conferees. However, Congress’ lack of institutional variation inhibits the theoretical testing of conditions when conferees may deviate from majority party goals. I overcome this static condition by switching the unit of analysis from the national legislature to state legislatures. Conference rules vary substantially on the sub-national level, yet few scholars have explored how differences in conference rules affect state-level legislatures (Emrich Reference Emrich2022a; Ryan Reference Ryan2014). Overall, scholars’ understanding of conference committees in state legislatures is largely speculative, despite nearly every state using conference committees to resolve bicameral differences (Gross Reference Gross1980).Footnote 3 This article advances our understanding by exploring how differing conference appointers influence majority party control over conference delegations. Given legislative scholars relative lack of knowledge surrounding conference committee behavior (Longley and Oleszek Reference Longley and Oleszek1989), analyzing how varying conference rules influence majority party power over has substantive importance in explaining how policies are modified when minorities have procedural rights in resolving bicameral differences (Clark and Linzer Reference Clark and Linzer2015).

Conference appointer rules differ across states and within state legislative chambers, providing important variation to investigate how majority leaderships may be limited by institutional features. In contrast to earlier work (Gross Reference Gross1980; Reference Gross1983; Lauth Reference Lauth1990; Ryan Reference Ryan2014) that focuses on a few states or a single year, I use an original data set encompassing all state-level conference delegations from 2005 to 2016 across 41 states to analyze the degree to which conference delegations reflect systematic majority party bias.Footnote 4 I find that on average, conference delegations do not exhibit a pro-majority slant. Instead, their ideological distribution resembles the chamber’s, in line with the predictions of Krehbiel (Reference Krehbiel1991; Reference Krehbiel1993).

Second, I compare the observed policy preferences between conference delegation and majority party medians when the majority party unilaterally appoints and when the minority party has influence over conferee selection. My findings indicate that the presence of minority appointer rights in the chamber widens the difference between conference delegation and majority party medians, pushing the average conference delegation away from the majority party towards the chamber median. These results highlight how majority parties are limited when institutional designs favor the minority party (Ryan Reference Ryan2014).

Conference Committees and Conference Appointers

Prior work has examined the independent influence that conference committees have on legislative outcomes, finding that conferences maximize their policy benefits when receiving majority support in both chambers (Tsebelis and Money Reference Tsebelis and Money1997; Vander Wielen Reference Vander Wielen2010). Conferees commonly receive support from their chambers due to the quality of information they use to construct stable outcomes and reduce the likelihood of stalemate (Rogers Reference Rogers2001; Rybicki Reference Rybicki2003). Conference committees broker deals on legislation, bargaining across chambers to limit the risk of failure, elucidating why the parent chambers delegate authority to conferees (Vander Wielen Reference Vander Wielen2013).

The unamendable nature of conference reports aligns prima facie with partisan models of legislative organization, which suggest that institutional characteristics are an important source of party power (Cox and McCubbins Reference Cox and McCubbins2005). Spatially, party leaders can utilize conference reports to promote extreme legislative policies if the conferee proposal is preferable to the median than the status quo. In Congress, the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader control conferee appointments, and can therefore select party loyalists to broker a deal ideologically consistent with their preferences (Lazarus and Monroe Reference Lazarus and Monroe2007).Footnote 5 Accordingly, congressional conferees largely abide by majority party preferences (Vander Wielen and Smith Reference Wielen, Ryan and Smith2011). In state legislatures, the majority party in every chamber holds a numerical advantage in conference appointments. This serves the majority party in seeking their favored policy outcome, which in a unidimensional setting is the majority party median. Unless the state legislative chamber is perfectly homogeneous ideologically (which is unlikely e.g., Shor and McCarty Reference Shor and McCarty2011), the majority party median will differ from both the chamber and minority party medians. Like congressional conference delegations, I expect a baseline level of majority party influence over state legislative conference delegations (Nagler Reference Nagler1989; Vander Wielen and Smith Reference Wielen, Ryan and Smith2011). This unconditional effect should lead to conference delegations ideologically resembling the majority party median, resulting in delegation compositions favoring the majority party:

Hypothesis 1: Ideological medians of conference delegations reflect the majority party median in state legislative chambers.

Hypothesis 1 runs counter to Krehbiel (Reference Krehbiel1991; Reference Krehbiel1993), who challenges the partisan nature of conference committees. In an informational context (Krehbiel Reference Krehbiel1991), partisanship has no bearing on the composition of conference delegations. Instead, policy expertise derived from expert members of relevant standing committees dominates bicameral negotiations. Consider Massachusetts’ appointment of Republican State Representative Kimberly Ferguson to a conference delegation in 2019 tasked with coalescing various proposed funding increases for education.Footnote 6 With experiences as Ranking Minority Member on the Education Joint Committee, Ferguson indicated upon appointment to the delegation the existing “bipartisan commitment to education” (Sentinel and Enterprise 2019). Other legislators echoed similar sentiments, with House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones noting that “As a member of the Foundation Budget Review Commission whose 2015 report provided the impetus to revisit the state’s education funding formula, Representative Ferguson understands the key issues that need to be addressed… to ensure that all Massachusetts students have access to a quality education” (Massachusetts House Republican Caucus 2019). Broadly, informational conditions suggest that conferees selected are more representative of the chamber’s median voter (cf. Hall and Wayman Reference Hall and Wayman1990). This leads to my second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Ideological medians of conference delegations reflect the chamber median in state legislative chambers.

Following Krehbiel, the conditions under which state legislative conferees follow the majority party’s preferences are unclear. First, while party leaders may instruct conferees when they go to conference, these instructions are not binding in any chamber. Second, although congressional conferees mostly follow majority party desires, this may be a result of the majority party leadership having total discretion over who serves on the conference committee. Most state legislatures follow Congress by unilaterally bestowing the majority leadership conference appointing rights.Footnote 7 That said, several chambers’ legislative rules endow the lieutenant governor or minority party leadership with appointing rights whereby these actors can assign a single or multiple legislators to the conference delegation.Footnote 8 For example, Illinois’ House of Representatives Rule 73 stipulates that “Each conference committee shall be comprised of five members of the House, three appointed by the Speaker and two appointed by the Minority Leader…” (Illinois House of Representatives 2015, 46). Figure 1a, b provide visualizations of conference appointing rules by state legislative chamber across the United States. In total, 14 (4 lower and 10 upper) state chambers have minority appointing rights. These rules were coded from the National Conference of State Legislatures (National Conference of State Legislatures 1998) and further confirmed by examining chamber rules. Appendix B provides a detailed listing of state conference committee appointer rules.

Figure 1. (a) State lower chamber conference committee appointers. (b) State upper chamber conference committee appointers.

When majority party leaderships decide to engage in post-passage bargaining in legislative chambers where the minority party influences conferee selection, they are likely aware that minority appointers will pursue their preferences. As a result, the majority leadership likely cedes some control over conference delegation composition when forced to collaborate with minority leaders. This expectation is similar to how relevant majority party standing committee members can interfere with majority leadership goals in conference, as common practice is to appoint members from the standing committees or subcommittees with jurisdiction over the bill (Longley and Oleszek Reference Longley and Oleszek1989; Smith Reference Smith1988).Footnote 9 Once in conference, standing committee conferees can use their agenda-setting abilities to shift legislation towards their preferences (Vander Wielen Reference Vander Wielen2010), while also utilizing their “ex post veto” rights to revert changes made on the chamber floor (Shepsle and Weingast Reference Shepsle and Weingast1987). Often, rogue standing committee conferees are high-demanding legislators seeking to modify legislation to better satisfy their (and their constituencies’) preferences for electoral gain (Weingast and Marshall Reference Weingast and Marshall1988).

For minority party leaders, they likely share similar goals to individualist majority legislators, seeking to have their ideological preferences satisfied for electoral purposes. Additionally, minority leaders possess a collective political incentive when obstructing the majority party leadership’s goals in conference (Lee Reference Lee2009). The minority party’s linked electoral fate encourages its members to cooperate against the majority to discredit the majority leadership’s agenda by being less willing to collaborate with the majority party in pursuit of partisan collective gain (Koger and Lebo Reference Koger and Lebo2017; Lee Reference Lee2016). Mainly, compromise on average is a negative outcome for the minority party, because if they cooperate with the majority, they undercut their future electability (Gilmour Reference Gilmour1995). Even if they receive concessions from the majority in conference to form the winning coalition, the majority still executes its mandate and receives the lion’s share of the rewards (Balla et al. Reference Balla, Lawrence, Maltzman and Sigelman2002; Groseclose and Snyder Reference Groseclose and Snyder1996). Because of this, I expect minority leaders to appoint conferees who are ideologically dissimilar from the majority leadership’s preferences.Footnote 10 Substantively, I anticipate that in legislatures where the minority has the ability to influence conference appointments, conference delegations resemble the chamber median more so than the majority party median:

Hypothesis 3: If chamber rules permit the minority party to appoint its own members to conference committees, the ideological median of conference delegations will be closer to the chamber median than the majority party median.

Data and Methods

To analyze how variation in conference appointer affects majority party control over delegation composition, I created a new time-series cross-sectional data set on conference delegations from 2005 to 2016. The data collection starts in 2005; however, several states only report conference committee actions in recent years. For example, Florida and West Virginia only maintains conference delegation information from 2011 to present, whereas Kentucky starts in 2008.Footnote 11 Iowa, Louisiana, and Oregon all report from 2007 onward. Conference delegation information was scraped from state legislature web archives, as most states provide detailed bill histories of when conferences and conferees were appointed. For those which did not, web archives were searched for written and audio documentation of conference committees. Conference delegation information was then transcribed from these materials.Footnote 12

This data set contains all conference delegations for both lower and upper chambers. In situations where one chamber appoints conferees and the other does not, no conference committee convenes. However, given that I am focused on the appointing rights of majority parties, these cases are retained for analytical leverage in testing how varying institutional features impact majority control over legislative outcomes.Footnote 13

Despite most states using conference committees, several do not. Most known is Nebraska’s unicameral legislature. Additionally, New Jersey and Rhode Island do not have conference committees to prevent legislative gridlock. Other states have codified conference committees or similar institutions, but they serve specific purposes or are seldom utilized. For example, Delaware only uses a joint appropriations committee for budget bills, whereas Arkansas, Connecticut, and New York have rarely used conference committees in the past century, with none occurring throughout the scope of my analysis.Footnote 14

Maine and Ohio have bill histories with insufficient documentation to discern who served on the conference committee.Footnote 15 Additionally, Oklahoma’s legislature uses conference committees, but is idiosyncratic in its use of permanent standing conference committees for legislation.Footnote 16 Broadly, I exclude from the analysis those delegations where I was unable to recover conference membership. The resulting data comes from 41 states and 82 legislative chambers across 942 chamber-years. In total, I tally 16,541 lower and 16,783 upper chamber conference delegations, resulting in 33,324 total groupings.

Figure 2 shows the within-chamber changes in conference delegation trends for noncommemorative bills for all states which appointed named conference delegations between 2005 and 2016.Footnote 17 Notably, states have employed conference committees at consistent rates over time.Footnote 18 As expected, conferencing trends for lower and upper chambers within a state are quite similar over time. In most circumstances, the opposite chamber appoints a conference delegation when the originating chamber does. Additionally, states have employed conference delegations at consistent rates over time, with few states appointing conference delegations regularly. Hawaii employs conference delegations most often, with over 86% of their passed legislation going to conference.Footnote 19 Hawaiian legislators regularly serve on several conference committees concurrently, overwhelming legislators who have been quoted as needing “to be at four different places right now” during an ordinary legislative day (Blair Reference Blair2011). In contrast, most states appoint conference delegations for less than 10% of passed bills. Appendix B offers information on the number of conference delegations appointed for each chamber.

Figure 2. Percentage of conference delegation bills in state legislatures by chamber, 2005–2016.

Note. Figure 2 slightly underrepresents the total number of conference delegations, as a single bill can have multiple conference committees. Oklahoma’s House of Representatives trendline stops at 2010 to match Oklahoma’s Senate trendline. Additionally, states that have no bills in a given year are dropped from Figure 2. Those states with biennial legislatures are connected by every two years (e.g., Montana 2005 and 2007).

To examine the relationship between conference committee appointment rights and chamber ideology for evidence of majority party bias, I focus on the median legislator in each delegation. However, standard difference-of-median tests for conference delegations are an insufficient method given that most delegations have small memberships (typically between three and five per state legislative chamber), inhibiting non-parametric difference-of-median tests (Freidlin and Gastwirth Reference Freidlin and Gastwirth2000). To circumvent this complication, I follow the empirical strategy of Vander Wielen and Smith (Reference Wielen, Ryan and Smith2011). They note that “if the number of conference delegations included in the analysis is large, it follows that the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians… would have a mean of zero if conferees are indeed representative of the parent chamber” (279). By constructing a distribution of differences across medians, I can aggregate the delegations and plot them for a descriptive visualization of majority party influence in conference delegation composition. The resulting visualizations permit an analysis of whether the distribution of conference delegations deviates in a statistically significant manner from the expectations of my hypotheses. There would be support for hypothesis 1 if the mean of the delegation distribution equals the majority party median; evidence for hypothesis 2 would exist if the mean equals the chamber median.Footnote 20

Similarly, I plot the distribution of differences between majority leadership appointed conferees and minority party influenced conferees to illustrate variation in majority party control conditional on conference appointer. To reiterate hypothesis 3, I expect conference delegations appointed solely by the majority party to be closer ideologically to the majority party median than minority influenced delegations. That is, minority party appointments limit majority party control over conference committees by widening the ideological distance between the conference delegation and majority party medians. Twelve state legislative chambers possess minority appointing rights throughout my data set, totaling 3,056 conference delegations across 127 chamber-years. These chambers are Alabama’s Senate (in 2011 when the lieutenant governor and Senate majority were of differing parties), Illinois’ House and Senate, Iowa’s House and Senate, Kansas’ House, Massachusetts’ House and Senate, Mississippi’s Senate (from 2005 to 2010), New Mexico’s Senate, South Carolina’s Senate, and Washington’s Senate.Footnote 21

I facilitate comparisons of lower and upper chamber delegations cross-state, cross-chamber, and over-time by measuring ideology on the dominant Left–Right unidimensional spectrum most specific to interparty conflict (e.g., Poole Reference Poole2007; Poole and Rosenthal Reference Poole and Rosenthal1985). Mapping state legislators onto a single dimension allows for clear comparisons of the conference delegations relative to both the majority party and chamber medians. Additionally, higher order dimensions commonly pertain to parochial interests as opposed to partisan conflict (Miller and Schofield Reference Miller and Schofield2003). My analysis uses Shor and McCarty’s (Reference Shor and McCarty2011) common-space scores for state legislatures and legislators. These ideal points are generated from the fusion state-level roll call voting data and surveys of state legislative candidates, allowing scholars to make comparisons of interparty heterogeneity. For ease of interpretation, I rescale the Shor-McCarty scores so that the majority party’s ideology within the chamber (whether Republican or Democrat) corresponds to positive values.

I supplement the distribution of ideological differences by modeling the contrasts between conference delegation and majority party medians. I test hypothesis 3 with the following generalized equation, estimating ordinary least squares models with two-way random effects of the following form (Smithson and Merkle Reference Smithson and Merkle2013):

$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Conference}\ \mathrm{Ideolog}\mathrm{y}-& \hskip-1em \mathrm{Majority}\ \mathrm{Party}\ \mathrm{Ideolog}{y}_{it}=\beta \mathrm{Minority}\ \mathrm{Conference}\ \mathrm{Appointe}{\mathrm{r}}_{it}\\ {}& \hskip-30em +{\gamma}_i+{\delta}_t+{\rho}_{it}+{\epsilon}_{it}\end{array}} $$

where $ \mathrm{Conference}\ \mathrm{Ideolog}\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{Majority}\ \mathrm{Party}\ \mathrm{Ideolog}{\mathrm{y}}_{it} $ is a continuous variable computed as the difference in Shor and McCarty (Reference Shor and McCarty2011) common-space scores between the median conferee’s ideology and the median majority party legislator’s ideology. $ {\gamma}_i $ represents state random effects to account for unobserved heterogeneity across states and $ {\delta}_t $ represents session random effects to sweep out differences common to a legislative session. $ {\epsilon}_{it} $ is the error term. By incorporating these random effects, conference delegations are treated as being nested within states and legislative sessions.Footnote 22

My main independent variable $ \beta \hskip0.4em \mathrm{Minority}\ \mathrm{Conference}\ \mathrm{Appointe}{\mathrm{r}}_{it} $ is a dummy variable equal to one if the minority party in a state legislative chamber has influence over the conference appointing process in a given year, and 0 if the state chamber’s majority unilaterally selects conferees. A negative value from this variable would suggest that minority party appointments limit majority party control over conference committees by broadening the ideological gap between conference delegation and majority party medians. Importantly, conference appointing rules do not vary within-state across my data set. That is, there are no state legislative chambers from 2005 to 2016 that switch their rules from the majority party unilaterally appointing conferees to minority influence, or vice versa.Footnote 23

$ {\rho}_{it} $ controls for chamber-level factors that might influence the relationship between parties and conferees. First, I control for the heterogeneity of preferences across and within political parties from chamber to chamber. I measure the ideological distance between parties in state legislative chambers by using the Shor and McCarty (Reference Shor and McCarty2011) interparty heterogeneity measure which is equal to the average distance between the median ideal points of Republican and Democratic legislators in each chamber. I gauge the diversity of preferences within the chamber by using Shor and McCarty’s (Reference Shor and McCarty2011) intraparty heterogeneity indicator, which is the standard deviation of majority party legislator’s ideal points. Second, I account for the level of professionalism in the state legislature. There is likely a direct correlation between the professionalism of the legislature and the partisanship of legislators, whereby highly professionalized legislatures likely have legislators with stable partisan preferences (Battista and Richman Reference Battista and Richman2011; Fiorina Reference Fiorina1999; Ryan Reference Ryan2014). I capture each state’s professionalism with the Squire Index (Squire Reference Squire2017), which is a weighted combination of salary, days in session, and staff per legislator relative to members of Congress.Footnote 24 Lastly, I control for political factors like intercameral agreement and disagreement by estimating separate models with binary variables equal to one for when the lower and upper chambers are unified or divided. Party leaders undoubtedly consider the preferences of the opposing chamber when deciding on delegation composition since a majority of both chambers must agree on the conference report.

Results

Figure 3 shows the distribution of differences between conference delegation and majority party medians for all state legislative chambers between 2005 and 2016. Likewise, Figure 4 provides a density curve of the distribution of differences between conference and chamber medians. Both diagrams contain vertical dashed lines to indicate the aggregated conference delegation ideology. Figure 3 demonstrates a statistically significant divergence between conference delegation and majority party medians. Substantively, the average conference delegation is 0.262 points away from the majority party median, over one-sixth the mean ideological distance between the majority and minority parties.Footnote 25 This result shows that the average state chamber conference delegation does not mirror its majority party median, offering no support for hypothesis 1.

Figure 3. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians.

Note. Figure 3 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.262, t = −102.9, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.268, −0.258).

Figure 4. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians.

Note. Figure 4 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.01, t = 4.39, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.015, −0.006).

In contrast, Figure 4 shows that on aggregate there is barely any difference between conference delegation and chamber medians. Although significant, the average distance between conference and chamber medians is a trivial 0.01 points on the ideological scale, and this gap is in favor of the minority party. Therefore, descriptive evidence suggests that state-level conference delegations holistically reflect Krehbiel’s (Reference Krehbiel1993) claim that conferees reflect the chamber’s median voter, providing evidence for hypothesis 2.

It is possible that the results from Figures 3 and 4 may be warped by those conference delegations unrepresentative of the majority party and chamber (e.g., the outliers with Shor-McCarty differences less than negative two). It is unclear why these delegations stray so significantly from the majority party and chamber. For example, Colorado possesses 19 of the 21 most outlying delegations with respect to the majority party median, despite its majority leadership unilaterally appointing conferees. As a robustness check, Appendix C replicates Figures 3 and 4 using ideological differences between conference delegation and majority party/chamber medians restricted to plus/minus 0.5 on the Shor-McCarty scale. Substantive results regarding distance between average conference and majority party medians are unchanged regardless of ideological threshold.

An additional robustness test accounts for how frequently a state legislative chamber forms conference delegations and potential overweighting from those few states that disproportionately use conference committees. Appendix D reproduces Figures 3 and 4 with the removal of Hawaii’s House and Senate as well as the removal of Hawaii and Mississippi’s respective legislatures. Results are unchanged across all specifications.

To test hypothesis 3, Figures 5 and 6 show distributions of the differences between conference delegation and chamber/majority party medians, conditional on conference appointer. Like Figures 3 and 4, the density curves contain vertical dashed lines to indicate the average conference delegation ideology.Footnote 26 The top panels for Figures 5 and 6 refer to the distribution of conference delegations’ median legislator when the majority has unilateral conference appointing rights, and the bottom panels show the distributions when the minority can influence delegation composition.

Figure 5. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights.

Note. Figure 5 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.228, Minority rights mean = −0.574, t = 36.78, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.328, 0.365).

Figure 6. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights.

Note. Figure 6 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.007, Minority rights mean = −0.039, t = 4.39, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.018, 0.046).

Both figures support hypothesis 3, as the average conference delegation is distanced from the majority party’s preferences when the minority party possesses conference appointing rights. Figure 5 provides clear evidence for hypothesis 3, as minority conferee appointing rights shifts the average conference delegation in the direction of the minority party nearly one-third of the mean ideological distance between the majority and minority parties.Footnote 27 Figure 6 provides more muted effects for how minority appointing rights influence conference delegations relative to chamber medians. Substantively their presence shifts the conference delegation less than 5% of the mean ideological distance between majority and minority parties.

To further examine hypothesis 3, the results of the random effects models are provided in Table 1.Footnote 28 Overall, the models corroborate that minority conference appointer rights limit majority control over conference delegations. Model 1 shows the bivariate relationship between minority appointer rights and conference delegation ideological composition, illustrating that minority influence has a statistically significant effect on reducing majority control. The presence of minority appointer rights has a similar substantive effect to the difference shown in Figure 5, corresponding to a nearly one-third shift in interparty heterogeneity between the majority and minority parties.

Table 1. Minority appointers and conference delegation ideological bias

Note. Standard errors are given in parentheses.

*** p < 0.1;

** p < .05;

* p < .1

Footnote 29 This finding supports hypothesis 3 and is shown in Figure 7, which presents model 1’s estimates of the average marginal effect of minority appointing rights on conference delegation ideological composition.

Figure 7. Predicted distance of conference delegation from majority party median conditional on appointing rights.

Models 2 and 3 mitigate against confounding omitted variables by incorporating controls to capture state- and chamber-level political conditions. Both include the interparty heterogeneity, intraparty heterogeneity, and legislative professionalism variables, but differ with respect to partisan control of the legislature. Model 2 tests for the effects of a split legislature, whereas model 3 examines unified legislatures.

Several control variables are uniformly significant in predicting differences between conference and majority party medians for all alternative model specifications. Increases in interparty heterogeneity widen differences between conference delegation and majority party medians, consistent with the notion that interchamber differences stimulate moderate behavior. When parties are farther apart, conference delegations must be sufficiently broad to forge compromise and attract a larger coalition within the chamber for approving the conference report (Ryan Reference Ryan2014). Conversely, rises in intraparty heterogeneity within the majority party corresponds to conference delegations more similar to the majority party. While a full account of conference appointment strategies conditional on preferences within the majority party is beyond the scope of this article, the majority leadership likely seeks to maximize its policy goals by pursuing partisan advantage in its conferee selection when faced with heterogeneous coalitions within its party (Lazarus and Monroe Reference Lazarus and Monroe2007).

The level of professionalism has no impact on the difference between conference and majority party medians, as its effects do not reach statistical significance in models 2 or 3. Partisan control of the legislature matters slightly in determining the distance between conference and majority medians. The presence of a split or unified legislature slightly shifts conference delegation medians away from majority party medians.

Discussion

Using an original data set of state legislative conference committees over a decade, my results suggest that on aggregate there is no pro-majority slant in state legislative conference delegations. Instead, conference groupings are ideologically centered on the chamber median, providing evidence that conferences serve as an informational tool for the chamber (Krehbiel Reference Krehbiel1991; Reference Krehbiel1993). This finding contrasts from congressional-level research which demonstrated a clear partisan bent in the representativeness of conference committees (Vander Wielen and Smith Reference Wielen, Ryan and Smith2011).

Moreover, I leverage variation in institutional rules across U.S. state legislatures to assess the significance of minority conferee appointing rights on how representative conference delegations are with respect to the majority party. When examining chambers that permit minority influence over conference composition, I find that the majority party is limited in the conference appointing process. If conference delegations independently pursue their interests (Vander Wielen Reference Vander Wielen2010), these findings speak to the policy implications of minority influence over the conference stage, consistent with prior work that demonstrates how majority parties are hindered when legislative rules advantage the minority party (Ryan Reference Ryan2014).

This article focuses on a single institutional rule associated with conference committees, building upon recent research which has investigated the conditions under which state legislatures go to conference (Emrich Reference Emrich2022a). Unlike Congress which seldom goes to conference in recent sessions due to surging polarization (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal Reference McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal2016; Ryan Reference Ryan2011; Shor and McCarty Reference Shor and McCarty2011), thousands of conference committees are appointed annually in the states. Further research could explore why many of these conference committees fail. This phenomenon is well-studied by scholars of the U.S. Congress, yet little is known about the circumstances leading to failure in the states. Nearly 30% of state legislative conference committee reports fail to pass the legislature. Moreover, over a third of conferenced bills fail to become law (Emrich Reference Emrich2022a). Although conference committees continue to be appointed, these failures underscore the difficulties of legislating in the modern, polarized context.

Data Availability Statement

Replication materials are available on SPPQ Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/Q10HBY (Emrich Reference Emrich2022b).

Acknowledgments

I thank Sarah Binder, Justin Kirkland, Eric Lawrence, Christopher Warshaw, and participants of the 2020 Southern Political Science Association’s Annual Conference for helpful comments and conversations. Any errors are my own.

Funding Statement

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

A. Appendices

Appendix A—Open States Data Appendix

Most of the data from 2011 through 2016 for this article comes from Open States, a nonprofit organization that leverages crowd-sourcing and web scraping to compile data on legislators’ and legislatures’ activities for all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The code responsible for scraping bills and votes from Open States can be found on the Open States Github.

Broadly speaking, the Open States repository tracks bills, reviews upcoming legislation, and provides bill-level information on how state-level representatives are voting. For the purposes of this article, I leverage Open States’ public domain bulk data. Specifically, I utilize Open States’ Legacy CSV data which draws from the Open States API v1 which was last updated on November 3rd, 2018. The Legacy CSV files are a CSV transformation of the data available on Open States’ Legacy JSON archives. The Legacy CSV files can be found here.

Within the Legacy CSV files are several .csv folders for each of the 50 states: legislators.csv, legislator_roles.csv, committees.csv, bills.csv, bill_actions.csv, bill_sponsors.csv, bill_votes.csv, and bill_legislator_votes.csv. I leverage the bill_actions.csv to provide information on conference committee delegations. Each row within a bill_actions.csv provides an additional step in the legislative process for a bill. As such, conference committee delegations were uniquely identified by legislative session using the “session,” “chamber,” “bill_id” and “action” columns. Specifically, the “action” column often indicated the specific members of a conference delegation.

Appendix B— State Legislative Chamber Conference Committee Rules and Composition Totals

Table B.2. State conference committee rules and composition totals

Appendix C—Results Using Alternative Shor-McCarty Threshold

A.1.1 Robustness checks for Figures 4 and 5

Figure C.1. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).

Note. Figure C.1 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.087, t = −69.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.089, −0.084).

Figure C.2. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).

Note. Figure C.2 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = 0.031, t = 22.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.028, 0.033).

A.1.2 Robustness checks for Figures 6 and 7

Figure C.3. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).

Note. Figure C.3 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.083, Minority rights mean = −0.138, t = 9.15, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.043, 0.066).

Figure C.4. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).

Note. Figure C.4 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = 0.041, Minority rights mean = −0.065, t = 20.9, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.096, 0.116).

Appendix D—Results Excluding Hawaii and Mississippi

A.1.3 Robustness checks for Figures 4 and 5 excluding Hawaii

Figure D.1. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians (excluding Hawaii).

Note. Figure D.1 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.309, t = −101.9, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.315, −0.303).

Figure D.2. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians (excluding Hawaii).

Note. Figure D.2 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = 0.003, t = 1.07, p < 0.283, 95% CI: (−0.003, 0.009).

A.1.4 Robustness checks for Figures 4 and 5 Excluding Hawaii and Mississippi

Figure D.3. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).

Note. Figure D.3 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.282, t = −86.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.289, −0.276).

Figure D.4. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).

Note. Figure D.4 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.02, t = −5.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.023, −0.011).

A.1.5 Robustness checks for Figures 6 and 7 excluding Hawaii

Figure D.5. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii).

Note. Figure D.5 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.271, Minority rights mean = −0.574, t = 31.63, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.284, 0.322).

Figure D.6. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii).

Note. Figure D.6 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = 0.009, Minority rights mean = −0.039, t = 6.44, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.033, 0.063).

A.1.6 Robustness checks for Figures 6 and 7 excluding Hawaii and Mississippi

Figure D.7. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).

Note. Figure D.7 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.278, Minority rights mean = −0.326, t = 5.34, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.030, 0.065).

Figure D.8. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).

Note. Figure D.8 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.017, Minority rights mean = −0.019, t = 0.33, p < 0.744, 95% CI: (−0.014, 0.019).

Appendix E—Table Results Under Varied Conditions

A.1.7 Table results using year random effects

Table E.3. Minority appointers and conference committee ideological bias with year random effects

Note. Standard errors are given in parentheses.

A.1.8 Table results using alternative Shor-McCarty threshold

Table E.4. Minority appointers and conference committee ideological bias (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty Scale)

Note. Standard errors are given in parentheses.

Author Biography

Colin Emrich is a data analyst in the Office of Institutional Research at Gwynedd Mercy University in Gwynedd Valley, PA. His research focuses on the forces that shape politics and policymaking in American legislatures.

Footnotes

1 Alternatively, legislators can engage in amendment trading across chambers, although Ryan (Reference Ryan2014) notes this method is time-consuming and rigid for resolving differences on intricate legislation.

2 Of course, the median legislator can reject the conference report in anticipation of a better future bill, though this is an uncertain strategy because the future bill would need to be reconsidered and passed in both chambers.

3 Some states (e.g., Maine) call panels between chambers to resolve differences in legislation committees of conference instead of conference committees. These terms have identical meanings, and committee of conference is used when referring to applicable states.

4 These cross-sectional studies are limited by two methodological concerns. First, the considerable variation in institutional characteristics makes it difficult to extrapolate the findings from a few states to every state legislative chamber. Second, the results are based on a single snapshot of time, making it hard to know whether the results are generalizable to other time periods. Moreover, the findings could be biased by any number of omitted variables that are correlated with the presence of institutional features in a single year.

5 Although the Senate Majority Leader unilaterally appoints, the Senate must pass three motions to go to conference: a motion formally disagreeing with the House bill; a motion expressing the Senate’s desire to conference; and a motion enabling senators to be selected for conference. Each of these three motions can be filibustered, providing the Senate minority party leverage in the decision to go to conference.

6 The conference committee resolved differences between H.B. 4145 and S.B. 2365. The bills’ main purpose was the addition of 1.5 billion dollars in extra funding for Massachusetts public schools over a seven-year period as suggested by Massachusetts’ Foundation Budget Review Commission report in 2015.

7 An exception to this norm is Oklahoma’s House of Representatives, which automatically designates conferees based on legislation type (e.g., Conference Committee on Banking, Financial Services, and Pensions).

8 If a state’s lieutenant governor has the same partisan identification as the minority party of the legislative chamber, I anticipate that they behave as minority leaders within the chamber do.

9 Lazarus and Monroe (Reference Lazarus and Monroe2007) describe such in the context of U.S. House of Representatives conference appointments: “sometimes appointing members of a jurisdictional committee gets in the way of another of the Speaker’s goals as a selected agent of the majority party: engineering the passage of legislation that is beneficial to (a majority of) the party” (595).

10 I expect this effect to be unconditional. As Lee (Reference Lee2016) suggests, even if the parties’ preferences on a bill to not diverge substantially, minority parties still benefit by denying the majority party a policy victory for which they could claim credit.

11 Kentucky and Florida list the conference committees formed prior to 2008 and 2011, respectively, but do not provide conferee membership information.

12 Data for many states from 2011 to 2016 was taken from Open States, which is a nonprofit organization that uses crowd-sourcing and web scraping to compile data on legislators’ and legislatures’ activities for all 50 states. This data is accessible from Openstates.org. Appendix A illustrates the requisite steps to acquire the conference delegation information.

13 The conference delegations in my data set are those which are initially appointed. I do not account for conferences in which a single conferee may be removed or added. This seldom occurs across chambers, and the conditions under which legislators are removed from or added to conference delegations are unclear.

14 Connecticut’s session journals make reference to committees of conference, though there is no information about their formation.

15 Maine and Ohio report when their committee of conferences form, but do not name individual legislators serving on the committees.

16 Oklahoma’s Senate authorized 21 additional permanent standing conference committees in 2011 to handle all contentious legislation. These standing conference committees do not report individual membership, so Oklahoma’s Senate data spans from 2005 to 2010. For example, bills with fiscal impacts are often referred to Oklahoma’s General Conference Committee on Appropriations. Moreover, Oklahoma’s General Conference Committee on Appropriations preceded the additional standing conference committees, and spans both chambers. Thus, House conference committees were also omitted when necessary.

17 Data for noncommemorative bills between 2005 and 2016 come from Emrich (Reference Emrich2022a) who explores the conditions under which legislative leaders leverage conference committees to reconcile bicameral differences.

18 These consistent rates of conference committees diverge from congressional studies which show that conferences are an increasingly rare method used to resolve bicameral differences (Oleszek Reference Oleszek2010; Ryan Reference Ryan2011).

19 Hawaii has 8,476 conference groupings in the data set (4,169 House and 4,307 Senate).

20 This method assumes that conferences are randomly drawn from the parent chamber, which is unlikely to be true given majority party powers of appointing conferees and norms of deference to standing committee members during the selection process. Therefore, I use Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to nonparametrically assess whether conference delegation medians diverge from majority party and chamber medians. They demonstrate that the conference delegation and majority party medians are nonidentical populations (p < 0.001) as well as conference delegation and chamber medians (p < 0.001).

21 Idaho’s and Texas’ Senates also allow for the lieutenant governor to appoint conferees, but they have perfect partisan symmetry with their Senate majority parties from 2005 to 2016, making those years majority appointed.

22 Appendix E shows models with year random effects instead of session random effects. The results are unchanged across specifications.

23 This lack of variation inhibits the use of fixed effects models, as state fixed effects would almost entirely subsume the effects of the conference appointer variable. The remaining estimates would result from the comparatively few conference delegations where the lieutenant governor can appoint conferees and is of a different party than the chamber majority.

24 Squire measures the index for 2003, 2009, and 2015, providing roughly demi-decade-varying measures for each state.

25 The average interparty heterogeneity between majority and minority parties from 2005 to 2016 was 1.479 points on the Shor-McCarty common space scale.

26 Appendix D provides identical robustness checks for Figures 5 and 6 that are used for Figures 3 and 4.

27 0.465/1.479 = 0.314.

28 Appendix E replicates Table 1. restricted to plus/minus 0.5 on the Shor-McCarty scale. Core results are unchanged across model specifications.

29 0.447/1.479 = 0.302.

*** p < .01;

** p < .05;

* p < .1.

*** p < .01;

** p < .05;

* p < .1.

References

Balla, Steven J., Lawrence, Eric D., Maltzman, Forrest, and Sigelman, Lee. 2002. “Partisanship, Blame Avoidance, and the Distribution of Legislative Pork.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battista, James Coleman, and Richman, Jesse T.. 2011. “Party Pressure in the US State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 397422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Chad. 2011. “A User’s Guide to Hawaii Conference Committees.” Honolulu Civil Beat. https://www.civilbeat.org/2011/04/10521-a-users-guide-to-hawaii-conference-committees/ December 16, 2019.Google Scholar
Clapp, Charles L. 1963. The Congressman, His Work as He Sees It. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Tom S., and Linzer, Drew A.. 2015. “Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects?Political Science Research and Methods 3 (2): 399408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Emrich, Colin. 2022a. “The Politics of Bicameral Agreement: Why and When Do State Lawmakers Go to Conference?State Politics & Policy Quarterly 22: 289319.Google Scholar
Emrich, Colin. 2022b, “Replication Data for: Conference Committee Structure and Majority Party Bias in U.S. States.” UNC Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/Q10HBY.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. “Further Evidence of the Partisan Consequences of Legislative Professionalism.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 974–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidlin, Boris, and Gastwirth, Joseph L.. 2000. “Should the Median Test Be Retired from General Use?The American Statistician 54 (3): 161–64.Google Scholar
Gilmour, John B. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James M.. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90 (2): 303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Donald A. 1980. “House-Senate Conference Committees: A Comparative-State Perspective.” American Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 769–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Donald A. 1983. “Conference Committees and Levels of Interchamber Disagreement: A Comparative State Perspective.” State & Local Government Review 15 (3): 130–33.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84 (3): 797820.Google Scholar
Illinois House of Representatives. 2015. “Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-Ninth General Assembly.”Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koger, Gregory, and Lebo, Matthew J.. 2017. Strategic Party Government: Why Winning Trumps Ideology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where’s the Party?British Journal of Political Science 23 (2): 235–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauth, Thomas P. 1990. “The Governor and the Conference Committee in Georgia.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (3): 441–53.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Jeffrey, and Monroe, Nathan W.. 2007. “The Speaker’s Discretion: Conference Committee Appointments in the 97th Through 106th Congresses.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (4): 593606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the US Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longley, Lawrence D., and Oleszek, Walter J.. 1989. Bicameral Politics: Conference Committees in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Massachusetts House Republican Caucus. 2019. “Representative Ferguson Appointed to Student Opportunity Act Conference Committee.”Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6 (3): 295317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2016. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary, and Schofield, Norman. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 245–60.Google Scholar
Nagler, Jonathan. 1989. “Strategic Implications of Conferee Selection in the House of Representatives: "It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over.” American Politics Quarterly 17 (1): 5479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 1998. “Inside the Legislative Process: A Comprehensive Survey.” National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J. 2010. “Whither the Role of Conference Committees, Or Is It Wither?” Extension of Remarks. The article itself is openly available on the Monkey Cage at themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Oleszek.pdfGoogle Scholar
Oleszek, Walter J., Oleszek, Mark J., Rybicki, Elizabeth, and Heniff, Bill Jr. 2015. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. Ideology and Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. “A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 357–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. “An Informational Rationale for Congruent Bicameralism.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 13 (2): 123–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Josh M. 2011. “The Disappearing Conference Committee: The Use of Procedures by Minority Coalitions to Prevent Conferencing.” Congress & The Presidency 38: 101–25.Google Scholar
Ryan, Josh M. 2014. “Conference Committee Proposal Rights and Policy Outcomes in the States.” The Journal of Politics 76 (4): 1059–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2010. “The Influence of Conference Committees on Policy Outcomes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 35 (4): 487518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vander Wielen, Ryan J. 2013. “Why Conference Committees? A Theory of Conference Use in Structuring Bicameral Agreement.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 25 (1): 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybicki, Elizabeth. 2003. “Unresolved Differences: Bicameral Negotiations in Congress, 1877-2002.” In Prepared for the History of Congress Conference. San Diego: University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
Sentinel & Enterprise. 2019. “State Rep. Ferguson Appointed to the Conference Committee for Student Opportunity Act.” Sentinel and Enterprise, October.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81 (1): 85104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 530–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 2016. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the US Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 1988. “An Essay on Sequence, Position, Goals, and Committee Power.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (2): 151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithson, Michael, and Merkle, Edgar C.. 2013. Generalized Linear Models for Categorical and Continuous Limited Dependent Variables. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2017. “A Squire Index Update.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 17 (4): 361–71.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Money, Jeannette. 1997. Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beek, Stephen D. 1995. Post-Passage Politics: Conference Committees. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Marshall, William J.. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets.” Journal of Political Economy 96 (1): 132–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielen, Vander, Ryan, J., and Smith, Steven S.. 2011. “Majority Party Bias in U.S. Congressional Conference Committees.” Congress & The Presidency 38 (3): 271300. doi:10.1080/07343469.2011.603018.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) State lower chamber conference committee appointers. (b) State upper chamber conference committee appointers.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Percentage of conference delegation bills in state legislatures by chamber, 2005–2016.Note. Figure 2 slightly underrepresents the total number of conference delegations, as a single bill can have multiple conference committees. Oklahoma’s House of Representatives trendline stops at 2010 to match Oklahoma’s Senate trendline. Additionally, states that have no bills in a given year are dropped from Figure 2. Those states with biennial legislatures are connected by every two years (e.g., Montana 2005 and 2007).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians.Note.Figure 3 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.262, t = −102.9, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.268, −0.258).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians.Note.Figure 4 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.01, t = 4.39, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.015, −0.006).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights.Note.Figure 5 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.228, Minority rights mean = −0.574, t = 36.78, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.328, 0.365).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights.Note.Figure 6 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.007, Minority rights mean = −0.039, t = 4.39, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.018, 0.046).

Figure 6

Table 1. Minority appointers and conference delegation ideological bias

Figure 7

Figure 7. Predicted distance of conference delegation from majority party median conditional on appointing rights.

Figure 8

Table B.2. State conference committee rules and composition totals

Figure 9

Figure C.1. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).Note.Figure C.1 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.087, t = −69.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.089, −0.084).

Figure 10

Figure C.2. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).Note.Figure C.2 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = 0.031, t = 22.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.028, 0.033).

Figure 11

Figure C.3. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).Note.Figure C.3 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.083, Minority rights mean = −0.138, t = 9.15, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.043, 0.066).

Figure 12

Figure C.4. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty scale).Note.Figure C.4 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = 0.041, Minority rights mean = −0.065, t = 20.9, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.096, 0.116).

Figure 13

Figure D.1. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians (excluding Hawaii).Note.Figure D.1 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.309, t = −101.9, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.315, −0.303).

Figure 14

Figure D.2. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians (excluding Hawaii).Note.Figure D.2 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = 0.003, t = 1.07, p < 0.283, 95% CI: (−0.003, 0.009).

Figure 15

Figure D.3. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority party medians (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).Note.Figure D.3 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.282, t = −86.4, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.289, −0.276).

Figure 16

Figure D.4. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).Note.Figure D.4 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale. Mean = −0.02, t = −5.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (−0.023, −0.011).

Figure 17

Figure D.5. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii).Note.Figure D.5 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.271, Minority rights mean = −0.574, t = 31.63, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.284, 0.322).

Figure 18

Figure D.6. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii).Note.Figure D.6 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = 0.009, Minority rights mean = −0.039, t = 6.44, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.033, 0.063).

Figure 19

Figure D.7. Ideological distance between conference delegation and majority medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).Note.Figure D.7 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and majority party medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.278, Minority rights mean = −0.326, t = 5.34, p < 0.001, 95% CI: (0.030, 0.065).

Figure 20

Figure D.8. Ideological distance between conference delegation and chamber medians conditional on appointer rights (excluding Hawaii and Mississippi).Note.Figure D.8 shows the distribution of differences between the conference delegation and chamber medians on the Shor-McCarty common space scale conditional on conference appointer. Majority only mean = −0.017, Minority rights mean = −0.019, t = 0.33, p < 0.744, 95% CI: (−0.014, 0.019).

Figure 21

Table E.3. Minority appointers and conference committee ideological bias with year random effects

Figure 22

Table E.4. Minority appointers and conference committee ideological bias (+/− 0.5 on Shor-McCarty Scale)

Supplementary material: Link

Emrich Dataset

Link