Explorations in Intersectional Policymaking

• In Event: The Difference Women Make: Inclusion, Representation, and Public Policy

Abstract

How do race and gender interact to affect political representation in the U.S.? Existing research has a lot to say about the representation of women’s interests, Black interests, and Latinx interests, but what about the representation of more intersectional interests, or those who are “intersectionally marginalized” (Brown and Banks 2014; Strolovitch 2007)? In previous research, we have explored various modalities of “race-gender policy leadership” among state legislators: the propensity to sponsor (a) both women’s interest bills and minority interest bills; (b) bills that address multiple group interests simultaneously (e.g., standard anti-discrimination and affirmative action measures); and (c) bills that address the interests of disadvantaged subgroups of women and/or minorities, such as poor women of color (Strolovitch 2007). Yet, these approaches are by no means the only ways lawmakers might engage in race-gender policymaking; and when it comes to intersectional policymaking, they may obscure more than they reveal. In this paper, we push even further beyond single-axis conceptions of substantive representation and dig deeper into the contours of race-gender policy leadership.

As Brown’s (2014) in-depth analysis of Maryland state legislators illustrates, Black women can and do advocate for marginalized women of color by re-framing what most consider a women’s issue (e.g., domestic violence) as a race-gender issue. (See also: Frederick 2010.) Similarly, bills that address the interests of both women and racial/ethnic minorities may do so in ways that are more or less intersectional. For example, affirmative action measures could propose separate quotas or application procedures for women and minorities, or they could include remedies that recognize the intersecting and mutually constitutive nature of race-gender discrimination. Drawing from a growing body of intersectional theorizing in law and public policy (e.g., Carbado and Gulati 2013; Crenshaw 1989, 1991; Dill and Zambrana 2009; Hancock 2007, 2011; Hankivsky and Cormier 2011; Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2017; Richie 2012; Roberts 1997; Verloo 2013; Whittier 2016), this paper investigates these possibilities and many others. How might various women’s interest bills, Black interest bills, and Latinx interest bills be re-framed or re-purposed to address the concerns of women of color and others who are intersectionally marginalized? What do the varieties of intersectional policy proposals look like and who is more or less likely to undertake such initiatives?

Addressing these questions, we argue, requires a more qualitative and inductive approach to the study of gender, race, and policy agendas. We therefore embark on an in-depth, qualitative content analysis of the bills sponsored by a small subsample (N=30-40) of Democratic state legislators serving in 15 state houses in 1997 and 2005. We stratify this subsample of legislators by race-gender identity and restrict it to those who sponsored at least one race and/or gender related bill in either year. To the degree possible, we match legislators (across race-gender identities) by state, year, and district racial composition. Thus, we can compare the bills sponsored by similarly situated Latina, Latino, Black female, Black male, white female, and white male legislators. No matter what the results are, our research has important conceptual, empirical, and methodological implications for the study of race, gender, and representation.

Authors

• Kerry L. Haynie, Duke University

• Beth Reingold, Emory University