Term Limits and the
Representation of Women
Mary Hawkesworth and Katherine E. Kleeman
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
May 2001
Acknowledgements
This report, and CAWP’s meeting about women and term limits which is described here,
were the products of considerable effort on the part of many people. Debbie Walsh,
CAWP’s associate director, initiated the Center’s work on the impact of term limits on
women’s representation in state legislatures and organized the conference, identifying and
inviting the key legislators and activists to ensure a productive discussion. She was ably
assisted by Krista Jenkins and Tema Javerbaum.
Professor Susan Carroll, graduate research assistant Krista Jenkins, Professor Gary
Moncrief, and Jennie Drage of the National Conference of State Legislatures provided
invaluable research perspectives. CAWP staff members including Gilda Morales, Susan
Nemeth, and Verna Jeffries and graduate student Jen Schenk contributed importantly to the
success of the meeting. Linda Phillips expertly designed and formatted conference
materials, as well as this report.
Funding for the conference came from: Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.; Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company; Hoechst Marion Roussel; U.S. Term Limits Foundation; and Wyeth-
Ayerst Pharmaceuticals. Printing of this report was made possible through the generosity
of an anonymous donor to the Center for American Women and Politics.
Finally, we want to thank the legislators and activists who participated in the term limits
conference and whose experiences are reported here. CAWP’s research has shown why it is
essential that women’s voices be heard in the halls of government. The women who take
on the tremendous challenge of serving in public office, and especially those who work to
ensure that other women will follow them, can take pride in the difference they make, both
in public policies and in the institutions where those policies are shaped.
Mary Hawkesworth
Katherine E. Kleeman
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Exploring the Consequences of Changing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Internal Operation of Legislative Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Influence Over Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Impace on Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Composition of the Legislature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
House results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Senate results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Parties and the Recruitment of Legislative Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Stories from the States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
What’s Next: Following Up in Term-Limited States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix: Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4
Executive Summary
In the last decade of the 20
th
century, 18 states in the U.S. changed the rules of the
political game in fundamental ways. By imposing a cap on the number of years that elected
officials may serve in office, term limit legislation creates opportunities for women and
people of color to increase their representation in public office.
To develop strategies to enable women to capitalize upon the political opportunities
created by term limits, the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) drew upon
the expertise of women elected officials in twelve states where term limits had gone into
effect prior to 2000. In November 1999 women legislators from these states joined scholars
and representatives of women’s advocacy groups for a conference at the Eagleton Institute
of Politics to explore means to maintain and enhance women’s political representation.
Term Limits and the Representation of Women provides an overview of conference
deliberations. The preliminary data on the gender impact of term limits indicates that
although term limits create opportunities for women and minorities to move into state
legislatures, the mere existence of an opportunity does not guarantee the achievement of a
desired outcome. In the 1998 elections in 6 term-limited states, while women gained 7
senate seats opened by term limits, four more women in state houses vacated seats because
of term limits than were elected to such seats. African American women and Latinas were
particularly hard hit: of the 7 African American women forced out of state houses by term
limits, only 1 was replaced by another African American woman; of the 5 Latinas forced
out of office by term limits, only 2 were replaced by Latina legislators. In the 2000 elections
in 11 term-limited states, 19 women senators were forced out by term limits, and 19 women
won senate seats opened by term limits. In house races, 70 women lost their seats due to
term limits, but only 65 women won seats opened by term limits.
Conference participants agreed that:
• Recruitment of viable women candidates to run for seats opened by term limits is key
to increasing the numbers of women in state legislatures.
• Term limits do not discriminate on the basis of sex in the removal of public officials,
but current political recruitment practices continue to advantage men.
• In the 1998 and 2000 elections, there were no women candidates running in primary
elections for the majority of seats opened by term limits or for a very large
proportion of seats vacated by women incumbents forced out by term limits.
• Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is making a major effort to
identify women candidates, encourage women to run for open seats, or support
women candidates in primary and general elections in term-limited states.
• If women are to preserve and increase their present numbers in state legislatures,
there must be concerted efforts by activists, women’s organizations, and political
parties to recruit more women to open seats.
• Effective recruitment strategies must expand prevailing conceptions of who
constitutes a viable candidate, paying heed to women’s differing paths to political
power.
• To eliminate subtle and blatant barriers to women’s full participation in public
leadership, additional efforts must be devoted to the development of training
programs to groom women for public office and for leadership positions within the
public sphere.
5
Introduction
Since 1990, twenty-two states have passed legislation limiting the number of years that
elected representatives may serve in state legislatures. Although three state supreme courts
have struck down term limits,
1
in 19 states term limits govern the political careers of 2,313
state legislators, 35% of the state legislators in the United States.
By imposing a cap on the number of years that elected officials may serve in office, term
limits change the rules of the political game in fundamental ways. The vast majority (77.6%)
of incumbent legislators are men. In principle, any change that weakens the staying power
of incumbents could work to the collective advantage of women. By creating more open
seats, term limits provide an opportunity for women and other under-represented groups
to increase their numbers in state legislatures. Are women taking advantage of the
opportunities created by term limits? Are institutions such as political parties and women’s
advocacy groups using this opportunity to achieve more gender and racial diversity in
legislative bodies? If not, is it possible to identify strategies that would enable them to do
so?
In November, 1999 the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) convened a
meeting in New Brunswick, New Jersey to examine preliminary data on the impact of term
limits on women’s representation and to explore how women might capitalize upon the
political opportunities created by term limits. To parti cipate in the discussion, CAWP
invited representatives from twelve states in which term limits have already become
effective (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, Ohio, Oregon, and South Dakota). Democratic and Republican women
legislators were joined by scholars and representatives of women’s advocacy groups to
review preliminary findings about women’s representation and term limits. The goal of the
gathering was not to debate the merits or desirability of term limits, but to analyze the
effects of term limits upon the number of women serving in state legislatures and to
consider strategies for ensuring that women increase their representation in state
legislatures as term limits take hold.
1
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Washington
enacted term limits legislation that was later voided by the states’ highest courts. In November 2000, Nebraska
once again passed term limit legislation, which will become effective in 2008.
6
Exploring the Consequences of Changing the Rules
How are term limits changing the practice of politics in state legislatures? To begin to
answer this question, CAWP invited several researchers to share their insights about
emerging trends in term-limited states. Gary Moncrief, Professor of Political Science at
Boise State University in Idaho and an expert on state legislatures, Jennie Drage, Policy
Associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) whose specialization
includes term limits, campaign finance reform, initiative and referendum, legislative ethics,
and lobbying, Susan Carroll, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and Senior
Research Associate at CAWP, and Krista Jenkins, a doctoral candidate in political science at
Rutgers and graduate research assistant at CAWP provided an overview of discernible
impacts of term limits. Their analyses suggest that term limits effect the internal operation
of legislative institutions, the acquisition and use of political power, public policy, the
composition of the legislature, and the recruitment of legislative candidates. While much
more research must be done to assess the gender impact of such changes, analyses of
emerging trends may help to identify questions relevant to the representation of women in
term-limited states.
Term limits vary across the nineteen states in which they have been adopted, as do the
characteristics of legislatures in those states. Term limits are likely to have very different
impact in states with full-time legislatures, high salaries, and extensive staff support than
they have in states with part-time legislatures, low-pay, and few staff resources. Table 1
classifies states on the basis of the type of legislature and the length of term-limit.
Although it will be years before a complete picture of the consequences of term limits
for state legislatures emerges, important transformations are underway in several key areas.
Table 1
Type of Term Limit and Type of State Legislature
Full Time Transitional Part Time
6-8 year limit California* Arizona Arkansas*
Michigan* Colorado Idaho
Ohio Florida Maine
Missouri* Montana
Nebraska* South Dakota
Oregon*
10-12 year limit Nevada* Louisiana
Oklahoma* Utah
Wyoming
In transitional states, legislators are in session 4-5 months each year, are
comparatively well-paid and their offices are comparatively well-staffed.
*Indicates states with lifetime term limits.
Source: Gary Moncrief
The Internal Operation of Legislative Institutions
Legislatures with six-year term limits are experiencing critical shifts in decision-making
power as the time for the cultivation of leadership is dramatically compressed. New
mechanisms are being developed to groom newly-elected legislators for leadership. States
such as Arkansas, California, Michigan, and Oregon have appointed first-year legislators to
serve as committee chairs and vice-chairs in the lower chamber. To compensate for the high
turnover in legislators in such short-periods of time, some state legislatures are increasing the
training provided for new members, expanding orientation sessions, and developing policy
briefings, committee chair apprenticeships, and other strategies to bring newcomers up to
speed.
Although it will be
years before a
complete picture of
the consequences of
term limits for state
legislatures emerges,
important transfor-
mations are
underway in several
key areas.
7
With power shifting towards newcomers, there is less deference to experienced members
in term-limited states. Decision-making processes appear to be more open, as new members
bring enthusiasm to the legislative process and some cynical veterans depart from the
institution. Lack of knowledge of past proceedings, however, has generated the revival of
some legislation that had been reviewed and dismissed in the past. There has also been an
increase in the introduction of overlapping legislation.
There is evidence that legislative leadership is weakening as leaders are less able to control
members. Incoming leaders need time to learn their new jobs and make staff and committee
assignments, while lame-duck speakers are more likely to be ineffectual. Despite these
problems, however, there is evidence that legislative leaders in term-limited states are taking
more active roles such as introducing bills and helping others with their electoral races.
In addition to earlier jockeying for leadership positions, anecdotal evidence from some
states indicates increased ideological conflict, decreasing collegiality, growing tension between
the House and the Senate, and increased reliance on staff for technical advice and procedural
guidance. In addition, governor’s initiatives are more likely to move through the lower
chamber without objection. State senates, with more veteran members still in place and a
better grasp of parliamentary procedure, have gained power, which they have used to bottle
up weak legislation forwarded from state houses, exercise more independence in the budget
process, and offer more criticism of gubernatorial initiatives. Several states have also reported
a growth in administrative problems as new lawmakers failed to understand fully their
responsibilities for managing the institution.
Influence Over Legislation
There has been considerable debate over the effect of term limits on legislation.
Proponents of term limits argue that term limits will weaken the influence of lobbyists and
interest groups, as short-term legislators are held more accountable by the voters. Opponents
of term limits, on the other hand, fear that lobbyists and interest groups will become more
powerful as veteran legislators are forced out of office and legislatures suffer a resultant loss
of institutional memory and political savvy. Some have argued that legislative staff will gain
increasing influence as they become the repositories of institutional memory, while others
have predicted that the executive branch will become more powerful as the expertise in the
legislative branch diminishes.
Preliminary evidence from the twelve states with effective term limits suggests mixed
developments. There is no empirical evidence that interest groups and lobbyists are either
more or less influential now. But there does seem to be a general perception that lobbyists
have to work harder because of all the new faces in the statehouse. Legislative staff members
do not seem to feel more powerful; they simply feel more pressured. The one institution that
most observers think has gained influence is the office of the governor.
Impact on Policy
The impact of term limits on public policy is complex and various. In some states,
legislators forced out by term limits were willing to take risks on policy issues in their last term.
In Michigan, for example, term-limited legislators passed comprehensive education reform.
In other states, legislatures report a critical loss of expertise in several policy areas, particularly
in areas where the subject matter is complex and technical. In at least one state, Maine, new
legislators employed a variety of public outreach strategies to explain their agenda and
generate new citizen support. There is no evidence of changes in “pork barrel” spending as
a result of term limits.
Composition of the Legislature
Several states report that term limits have changed the kinds of people entering the
legislature. Some report the election of more young people. In Maine, for example, a group
of very young legislators, several of whom were still in college, was elected. Other states
report the election of more people from the “fringes” of each party – more liberal Democrats
...anecdotal evidence
from some states
indicates increased
ideological conflict,
decreasing collegi-
ality, growing tension
between the House
and the Senate, and
increased reliance on
staff for technical
advice and
procedural guidance.
8
and more conservative Republicans. Thus, new legislators tend to be more ideological than
their predecessors. More lawmakers seem to be promoting single-issue agendas.
Proponents of term limits have argued that term limits promote diversity: more women
and people of color will be elected to the legislatures as incumbents – primarily white men –
are forced out. With respect to diversity, however, the preliminary evidence is mixed.
House results
Contrary to optimistic predictions, the number of women serving in state house seats
which became open because their incumbents were term-limited actually decreased following
both the 1998 and 2000 elections. Across the six states which implemented term limits for
state house races in 1998, 47 incumbent women were forced to leave office as a result of term
limits while only 43 women won election to the house seats vacated by these women and other
term-limited incumbents (Table 2).
Table 2:
Numbers of Term-Limited State House Seats Represented by
Women Before and After the 1998 Elections in Six States
Source: Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins, “Unrealized Opportunity: Term Limits and the Representation of Women in State
Legislatures,” March 2001.
Similarly, across the 11 states in which term limits were in effect for house seats in 2000,
70 women who served in term-limited seats were forced to resign while only 65 new women
were elected to seats which opened up as a result of term limits (Table 3). In both elections,
then, the number of women who were forced to leave office because of term limits was
greater than the number of women elected to seats vacated by term-limited incumbents.
Table 3:
Numbers of Term-Limited State House Seats Represented by
Women Before and After the 2000 Elections in Eleven States
Source: Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins, “Unrealized Opportunity: Term Limits and the Representation of Women
in State Legislatures,” March 2001.
The number of women of color serving in term-limited house seats also declined, while
the number of African American and Latino men in such seats increased. Of the seven
Total of Six States
47
43
0
20
40
60
No. of women
Individual States
9
6
9
2
5
16
8
6
2
1
9
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
Arkansas California Colorado Maine Michigan Oregon
No. of Women
Pre-Election Post-Election
Total of All States
70
65
0
25
50
75
100
No. of Women
Individual States
4
6
5
3
11
5
7
7
12
7
3
4
1
8
1
11
4
4
6
14
7
5
0 5 10 15 20
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Maine
Michigan
Montana
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
No. of Women
Pre-Election Post-Election
9
African American women who were forced out of office by term limits in 1998, only one was
replaced by another African American woman; one was replaced by a white woman, and the
remaining five were replaced by African American men. Of the five Latinas forced out of
office by term limits, only two were replaced by Latinas; the other three were replaced by
Latino men.
Despite the loss of term-limited seats, the total number of women serving in the lower
houses of the six states which implemented term limits for house seats in 1998 remained the
same, 145, before and after the 1998 elections. For the 11 states in which term limits were in
effect for house seats in 2000, the total number of women state representatives actually
increased following the 2000 elections from 265 to 270. Thus, women’s victories against
incumbents and in open seats not subject to term-limits off-set the loss of women in term-
limited seats.
Senate results
The expectation that term limits would lead to increases in the number of women
legislators finds some support at the state senate level, but only for the 1998, and not the 2000,
elections. In contrast to the pattern of decreases in the number of women serving in term-
limited seats found for house races in both elections, the number of women serving in senate
seats where an incumbent was term-limited increased as a result of the 1998 elections (Table
4) and stayed the same as a result of the 2000 elections (Table 5) across the states in each
election which implemented term limits for senate races. In 1998, three women were forced
to give up their senate seats because of term limits, but 10 other women were elected to senate
seats which were vacated because of term limits (Table 4). In 2000, 19 women had to step
down from senate seats due to term limits, and 19 other women were elected to term-limited
seats (Table 5).
Table 4:
Numbers of Term-Limited State Senate Seats
Represented by Women Before and After the 1998 Elections in Three States
Source: Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins, “Unrealized Opportunity: Term Limits and the Representation of Women
in State Legislatures,” March 2001.
In 1998 women made gains both overall and in term-limited seats in each of the three
states that had implemented term limits for state senate seats (Table 4). In California only
one woman senator was forced out by term limits and five new women were elected to seats
that opened up because of term limits. In Colorado two women senators lost their seats
because of term limits while four n ew women were elected in races for term-limited seats.
Finally, in Maine the only senator forced out because of term limits was a man, and he was
replaced by a woman. Thus, in each of these three states, there were overall increases in
women’s representation in senate seats due at least partially to gains women made as a result
of term limits.
In 2000 the picture was decidedly more mixed. The overall number of women serving
in state senates increased in only three states (Arizona, Arkansas, and Oregon). In five states
(California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, and Ohio) the numbers of women senators
decreased following the 2000 elections, and in two states (Florida and South Dakota) the
Individual States
0
2
1
1
4
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
California Colorado Maine
No. of Women
Pre-Election Post-Election
Total of All States
3
10
0
5
10
15
No. of Women
10
numbers stayed the same. Similarly, the number of women in term-limited senate seats
increased in some states, remained the same in others, and decreased in still others (Table
5). In two states (Arkansas and Arizona), more women were elected to senate seats that
were open because of term limits than were forced to vacate seats because of term limits.
Table 5:
Numbers of Term-Limited State Senate Seats Represented by
Women Before and After the 2000 Elections in Ten States
Source: Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins, “Unrealized Opportunity: Term Limits and the Representation of Women
in State Legislatures,” March 2001.
In four states (Florida, Maine, Oregon, and South Dakota), the numbers of women serving
in term-limited senate seats was the same before and after the 2000 elections. Finally, in four
states (California, Colorado, Montana, and Ohio), more women were forced out by term-
limits than were elected in seats that were open because of term limits, resulting in
decreases in the numbers of women serving in term-limited seats (Table 5). Thus, in only
two of the 10 states, Arizona and Arkansas, were there overall increases in women’s
representation which were due at least in part to gains made by women in term-limited
seats.
Table 6:
Proportions of Term-Limited State House Seats Where
No Woman Candidate Ran in Either Party’s Primary
1998 2000
State
% of Term-Limited Seats % of Term-Limited Seats
With No Woman Candidate With No Woman Candidate
in Major Party Primaries
a
in Major Party Primaries
b
Arkansas 57.1 87.5
California 18.8 21.7
Colorado 38.9 70.0
Maine 90.9 56.3
Michigan 31.3 33.3
Oregon 38.1 20.0
Arizona 6.7
Florida 42.6
Montana 52.9
Ohio 41.9
South Dakota 40.0
All Term-limited States 42.5 43.6
a
Number of term-limited seats = 49 for Arkansas, 16 for California, 18 for Colorado, 11 for
Maine, 64 for Michigan, 21 for Oregon, and 179 for all six states combined.
b
Number of term-limited seats = 24 for Arkansas, 23 for California, 10 for Colorado, 16 for
Maine, 21 for Michigan, 15 for Oregon, 15 for Arizona, 54 for Florida, 34 for Montana, 43
for Ohio, 20 for South Dakota, and 275 for all 11 states combined.
Source: Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins, “Unrealized Opportunity: Term Limits and the Representation of Women
in State Legislatures,” March 2001.
Individual States
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
0
5
4
0
5
10
15
20
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Maine
Montana
Ohio
Oregon
South Dakota
No. of Women
Pre-Election Post-Election
Total of All States
19
19
0
10
20
30
No. of Women
11
Parties and the Recruitment of Legislative Candidates
Term limits provide the opportunity for a more diverse legislature by increasing the
number of open seats in any given election. Whether that opportunity is fulfilled or not
depends on whether more women and minority candidates run for and win those open
seats. It is clear that term limits enable parties (and others) to start their recruitment process
much earlier. As a consequence of term limits, political parties and candidates know years
in advance which seats will be open because the incumbent is term-limited; hence, targeted
recruitments can begin much earlier. Are women candidates as likely as men to be recruited
to run for office? Are women as likely as men to put themselves forward as candidates in
term-limited races?
A review of the gender of candidates in primary elections in term-limited states may shed
some light on this question. Table 6 indicates that in 1998 and 2000 in more than two-fifths
of all races for house seats vacated because of term limits across all six states, no woman
entered either the Republican or the Democratic primary.
Across the states where term limits were implemented, a woman entered the Democratic
primary to try to win the seat of a term-limited Democratic incumbent in only 42.2 percent
of the cases in 1998 (N=102) and 46.6 percent of the cases in 2000 (N=131). A woman
entered the Republican primary to run for the seat previously held by a term-limited
Republican incumbent in only 48.1 percent of the cases in 1998 (N=77) and 41.7 percent of
the cases in 2000 (N=144).
Table 7:
Proportions of Term-Limited State House Seats Previously Held
by Women Incumbents Where No Woman Ran in Major Party Primaries
1998 2000
State
% of Term-Limited Women’s % of Term-Limited Women’s
Seats with No Woman Candidate Seats with No Woman Candidate
in Major Party Primaries
a
in Major Party Primaries
b
Arkansas 44.4 66.7
California 16.7 20.0
Colorado 55.6 66.7
Maine 100.0 80.0
Michigan 18.8 42.9
Oregon 20.0 0.0
Arizona 0.0
Florida 18.2
Montana 71.4
Ohio 58.3
South Dakota 33.3
All Term-limited States 34.0 41.4
a
Total number of term-limited seats previously held by women incumbents = 9 in Arkansas,
6 in California, 9 in Colorado, 2 in Maine, 16 in Michigan, 5 in Oregon, and 47 across all six
states.
b
Total number of term-limited seats previously held by women incumbents = 6 in Arkansas,
5 in California, 3 in Colorado, 5 in Maine, 7 in Michigan, 7 in Oregon, 4 in Arizona, 11 in
Florida, 7 in Montana, 12 in Ohio, 3 in South Dakota, and 70 across all 11 states.
Source: Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins, “Unrealized Opportunity: Term Limits and the Representation of Women
in State Legislatures,” March 2001.
Table 7 indicates that in primary races for house seats which had previously been held by
a term-limited woman incumbent, no woman candidate entered either party’s primary in one-
third of the races in 1998 and two-fifths of the races in 2000. For an even larger proportion
of these house seats, all of the candidates in the primary of the retiring woman incumbent’s
party were men. For 48.1 percent of the house seats in 1998 (N=27) and 45.5 percent of the
house seats in 2000 (N=44) previously held by Democratic women, no woman entered the
Term limits provide
the opportunity for a
more diverse legis-
lature by increasing
the number of open
seats in any given
election. Whether
that opportunity is
fulfilled or not
depends on whether
more women and
minority candidates
run for and win
those open seats.
12
Democratic primary. For 40.0 percent of the house seats in 1998 (N=20) and 60.0 percent of
the house seats in 2000 (N=25) previously held by Republican women, no woman ran in the
Republican primary. Since in most cases a woman would have a better chance of winning the
seat if she were of the same party as the retiring incumbent, the lack of women candidates
in the primary of the incumbent’s party certainly worked to depress the number of new
women who were elected to replace women incumbents forced out by term limits.
Because there were so many races for house seats previously held by a term-limited
woman incumbent where no woman entered the race in either party, many of the term-
limited seats held by women before the elections were occupied by men following the
election. Across all six states only 25.5 percent of the term-limited house seats in 1998
(N=47) and 29.0 percent of the term-limited house seats in 2000 (N=69) held by women
before the election continued to be held by women following the election.
The absence of women candidates from primary contests raises important questions
about party recruitment practices. Are women absent because the parties fail to recruit them,
or worse, actively thwart them? Do women decline invitations from their parties to run? Or,
in the absence of party recruitment efforts, are women less likely than men to put themselves
forward as candidates?
To begin to answer such questions, more needs to be known about women candidates’
decisions to run for office and the obstacles they face once they have decided to launch a
campaign. Table 8 reports the results of one survey designed to investigate how men and
women come to run for office. As Table 8 makes clear, men were more than three times more
likely than women to be “self-starters,” who threw their hats into the ring solely on their own
decision. By contrast, women were more than twice as likely as men to have been persuaded
to run.
Table 8
Whose Idea Was It To Run For Legislature?
Differences between male and female responses
Men Women
(n=366) (n=98)
Self-starters 37.7% 11.2%
Encouraged 45.1% 52.0%
Persuaded 17.2% 6.7%
(total sample of non incumbent candidates=464)
Source: Gary Moncrief, Peverill Squire, Malcolm Jewell, Who Runs for the
Legislature? (Prentice-Hall Inc., 2001.)
That women who run for office are more likely to have been actively recruited, indeed
persuaded to run, does not in itself tell us if parties or other organizations are currently
making those recruitment efforts in term-limited states. For insights into that question, the
reports from women legislators in term limited states are enormously helpful.
Stories from the States
Conference participants
2
from each term-limited state relayed tales of frustration and of
progress: frustration with the barriers that keep women from advancing and progress
resulting from creative efforts by both individuals and organizations to identify, groom and
support women as candidates for legislative seats and other public offices. They also
presented examples of both short-term and long-term strategies taking shape to ensure that
viable women candidates would be available as seats open up.
2
To encourage the candid exchange of views, while protecting the political interests of the elected women
participating in this discussion, CAWP promised to provide confidentiality in reporting the substance of the
following discussion. For this reason, no names are attached to quotations emerging from the conference.
The absence of
women candidates
from primary con-
tests raises impor-
tant questions about
party recruitment
practices.
13
Both Democratic and Republican women expressed deep frustration about the absence
of systematic efforts by their parties to identify potential women candidates, to encourage
them to run for office and to support women candidates throughout their primary and
general election campaigns. They also aired concerns about subtle and blatant barriers that
confront women in each party. In many of the states where term limits have gone into effect,
significant forces are deterring women’s advancement. Participants spoke of party leaders
who were indifferent, or even hostile, to women as candidates. They described behind-the-
scenes decision making and power grabs, and “the anointment” by male leaders of their male
successors. One person noted:
The recruitment that is happening now is the designation of successors by some
of the most powerful, long-time reps who are going to be term-limited out, who
have...obtained pledges from lobbyists for their successors. It is a very
orchestrated and calculated role....They have already lined up tremendous
amounts of money, and none of this has to do with women being recruited to
run, of course.
Several participants noted the prevalence of false promises: party leaders would pay lip
service to assisting women, but fail to make good on those promises. As one participant
reported:
[Party leaders in my state] talk out of both sides of their mouth. They keep telling
me repeatedly “I am going to come down and work with you to recruit women,”
and then they never show up.
Other participants added stories of practices far more damaging than false promises. A
legislator reported that male colleagues in her state on both sides of the aisle keep “hit lists”
of women to target for defeat because of actions they have taken on the House floor. In some
states where Republican leadership holds strong pro-life views, pro-choice candidates –
women in particular – are targeted for defeat in primaries by power brokers within their own
party. Some also indicated that the line-up of political players was not changing radically, with
many officials simply shifting from one political office to another as term limits forced them
out. One person insisted, “Term limits have not removed anyone from the political process.
They have merely stirred the pot.” Yet some women find it harder to remain political players
than do their male counterparts. As one legislator who had been term-limited out of office
noted, women struggle to maintain their political livelihood after being forced out while their
male counterparts were supported by a “good ol’ boys network.”
Pro-choice Republican women reported particular difficulties they confront because of
their stances on reproductive rights. The national party’s platform has long been strongly anti-
abortion, and state parties and leaders are often cool, if not hostile, to pro-choice candidates,
particularly women. The issue sometimes obscures or drowns out other important concerns
that might unite Republicans.
Democratic women also noted that state party organizations are doing little to recruit
women candidates, leaving that work to women’s organizations and sporadic local efforts.
They manifested particular concern over gender bias in party perceptions of “viable”
candidates. When choosing the person perceived as the strongest Democratic candidate for a
district, party operatives far too frequently consider male candidates only. They may pit the
need to recruit African American and Latino candidates against the need to recruit women,
as if there were no viable Latina and African American women candidates. Democratic
women also indicated that although party leaders claim to remain neutral in primaries, many
leaders in their states did back certain candidates covertly, and women were not the usual
beneficiaries of such covert support.
Despite the persistent barriers confronting women candidates, some participants did
identify examples of places and programs where women were being encouraged to step
forward, offering hope that, with concerted effort, progress in women’s recruitment might be
possible.
In three states, the Republican Party has developed model training programs for women
aspiring to political office. The Lincoln Series in Illinois, the Lugar Series in Indiana, and the
Participants spoke of
party leaders who
were indifferent, or
even hostile, to
women as candi-
dates. They described
behind-the-scenes
decision-making and
power grabs, and
“the anointment” by
male leaders of their
male successors.
14
Whitman Series in New Jersey groom Republican women for candidacies or appointments,
teach them specific political skills and techniques, and provide extensive networking
opportunities and contacts. Each program sets forth an expectation that participants will run
for office, become active in public policy, or mentor other women after completing the
program.
G.O.P. women also mentioned the importance of the National Federation of Republican
Women. The Federation organizes campaign management schools to help Republican women
run for office, and it provides a variety of training, support and networking activities at the
state level.
Some governors have also contributed to the advancement of women by increasing the
number of women’s appointments. Governors make thousands of appointments to high-
level positions and to boards and commissions, and these can be valuable both in themselves
and as stepping stones to elective office. In some states, organized groups monitor
gubernatorial appointments, identify “qualified” women who should be considered, and press
for increased inclusion of women in all kinds of positions. The Sue Shear Institute in Missouri
(named for a longtime state legislator), for example, has developed a “talent bank” to promote
women’s selection for appointive offices as one way to help women gain experience in
government which can provide a foundation for subsequent electoral campaigns.
Partisan Political Leadership Development
Republicans in three states – Indiana, Illinois, and New Jersey – have developed
training programs to equip GOP women with the skills, contacts and resources needed to
mount candidacies or seek high-level appointments. In each state, the program was
organized by a core group of Republican women who identified a need and took the
initiative. Each selects its participants from applicants who have already demonstrated
leadership skills in the workplace or community. Each highlights prominent Republicans
from the state, along with non-partisan experts such as journalists or community activists.
All three programs provide intensive training over several months in specific political
techniques, strategies and concepts.
The Richard G. Lugar Excellence in Public Service Series was the first of these
programs, initiated in 1990 by a team of five Indiana women including two elected officials
and three businesswomen. Their concept was:
a political leadership development program for fast-tracking and
mainstreaming outstanding Hoosier women into positions of influence in the
public arena. Up to 18 women are selected annually through an application
and interview process to participate in the training.
Day-long classes, led by local, state and national Republican leaders, are held monthly
for eight months. The program culminates with a three-day seminar in Washington, D.C.
All sessions are designed to encourage, prepare and inspire class members to position
themselves for key elected and appointed offices.
Between 1990 and 1999, 120 women ranging in age from 26 to 59 participated in the
Lugar Series. Of these women, 32 have become candidates for office and others have been
appointed to public service positions at local, state and national levels. Most have become
active as leaders, staff members or volunteers in political campaigns.
Funding for the program has come primarily from women donors through individual
contributions and an annual fundraising luncheon. Corporate contributions, minimal at
first, have grown over the years. The contributions of "Corporate Partners" allowed the
series to hire a full time executive director.
The series was named for Senator Richard G. Lugar, long a popular elected official in
Indiana. Senator Lugar was enthusiastically involved in the series from the beginning and
has met with each class.
A presentation about the Lugar Series at a 1993 meeting of the Republican National
Committee inspired Illinois women to mobilize to establish The Lincoln Series in 1995.
New Jersey women started a similar program, the Christine Todd Whitman Series,in
1998, honoring the state's first woman governor. Ohio followed suit in 2000 with the
JoAnn Davidson Series, named for the former state House speaker.
15
With respect to recruitment, Democratic women cited examples of crucial roles played by
women within the party, women’s organizations, community groups, and individual mentors.
One woman described a “farm team” system operating in her Congressional district in which
the local party made a concerted effort to recruit and train potential candidates at least three
years before nominating them for elective offices. This strategy had proved particularly
effective for recruitment of African American candidates.
The Democrats also discussed the critical opportunities afforded by reapportionment and
redistricting for the recruitment of women to state legislatures. Noting that redistricting
following the 2000 census “will have a very strong impact on minority seats and women’s
seats,” Democratic women suggested that the party’s primary focus will likely remain on
locating “viable” candidates, and it will fall to women to ensure that women are considered
viable, and as such eligible for nomination. Several women suggested that women could
benefit greatly if “gender impact” were considered as one criterion among many considered
by the party during the redistricting process. But the Democratic legislators suggested that the
key to including gender impact in redistricting debates would be to have women legislators
serve on the influential redistricting committees and participate in the deal-making while their
votes are in demand.
Participants agreed that identifying large numbers of viable women candidates posed a
substantial challenge in the short run. Developing a recruitment pool of women candidates
is a time-consuming project. Particularly in recent years as election costs have increased and
political cynicism has grown, many women who might be appealing candidates have been
reluctant to run. Finding interested potential candidates and ensuring that they have the
contacts, visibility and resources they need to win takes time and effort. According to
conference participants, the challenge of identifying viable women candidates has been taken
up by women’s organizations and committed party women more often than by the parties
themselves. In Michigan, for example, women undertook active efforts to identify, recruit and
support women candidates to replace those being term-limited out. The Michigan Women’s
Political Caucus, with additional support from the Michigan Women’s Campaign Fund, hired
a former legislator to work on recruitment, and she identified as many as 60 potential
candidates. Legislators being term-limited out were asked for their recommendations of
potential candidates, and organizations around the state were asked for suggestions. While
some of the candidates they recruited did win, some were discouraged by their parties from
running, and others lost in primaries. From this experience, the Michigan women determined
that they needed to target winnable seats for each party, begin developing potential candidates
as much as three years in advance, and use a one-on-one process to recruit the strongest
possible candidates.
Other states used different mechanisms to attract and support women candidates. Ohio
Democrats turned to WEDO (Women Elected Democratic Officials), which started as a way
to help women get to know local officials in preparation for statewide races, but developed
into a recruitment tool. Party structures, such as Florida’s Federation of Republican Women,
recruited, trained and worked for women candidates. Democratic women and the Democrat
Hispanic Caucus in Florida joined forces to find and support Latinas to run for the legislature
in key districts.
In California, well-qualified Democratic women candidates — assemblywomen who had
been term limited out of their seats — were ready to run for the state senate but needed
support. Senator Dede Alpert, working with both male and female leaders, created the
Democratic Women Leaders Fund, which raised more than $350,000 to bring more women
into California’s senate, concentrating on the candidates in greatest need. Other candidates
and women senators whose war chests were already full contributed some of their funds to
the targeted candidates. As a result, California’s senate emerged from the 1998 elections with
10 women members, the largest number ever. California Republican women developed the
Seneca Network which, like the national WISH (Women in the House and Senate) List,
provides bundled contributions for women candidates; unlike WISH List, however, the
Seneca Network does not require a pro-choice stance as a criterion for funding.
Developing a recruit-
ment pool of women
candidates is a time-
consuming project.
Particularly in recent
years as election
costs have increased
and political cynicism
has grown, many
women who might be
appealing candidates
have been reluctant
to run.
16
Like California, other states developed fundraising efforts targeting women candidates,
sometimes within a party and sometimes across parties. Ohio’s Hope Chest models itself on
the national EMILY’s (Early Money Is Like Yeast) List, which was founded to help elect
women to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives by raising financial support for
Democratic women. Oregon’s WINPAC (Women’s Investment Network) initially provided
support for pro-choice newcomers to the state legislature, but later focused its efforts
exclusively on Democratic women. To gain WINPAC support, candidates must also have
developed a strong campaign plan and a sizable campaign organization.
In contrast to these collective strategies to recruit more women as candidates, significant
efforts have also been made by individuals. As one Republican woman commented:
I make a solid commitment to a woman who says to me she wants to run. I will
raise her the money, put on the fundraisers, do her literature, make sure she is
connected to the right resources and that she knows who they are. Whether they
are petition gatherers or the fundraisers or whatever it is, I get them what they
need. I think it is very important for us to do this. You just have to transfer
everything you know to that new person.
A Democrat from another state felt much the same, but expressed regret that efforts were
not more concerted:
If we see that a person has the determination and wants to work hard and get
elected, and has good qualifications as far as what it takes to understand the issues
and run a good campaign, then we help them. But it is all one on one, and that
is the unfortunate thing, because there is not a lot of public dialogue. If you
happen to know someone else and they talk to you about a good candidate, then
you hear about it. But otherwise, it is not in the newspapers, not in what you call
the “buzz” of politics.
As voices from many states agreed, a longer term strategy of getting women to put
themselves forward as candidates will be critically important. One stated the general
agreement concisely:
The truth of the matter is that we aren’t getting women to step forward. That is
where we need to be much more aggressive. Women have about the same success
rate at the polls as men, but we just aren’t getting the women to come forward.
How can women be encouraged to put themselves forward as candidates for elective
office? Some of the earliest research on women and politics suggested that forms of
“countersocialization” were required to empower women to assume equal roles in public
leadership. Towards that end, several universities across the United States have developed
long-term capacity-building programs to assist women in linking their strengths to public
policy needs by pursuing political careers. At Rutgers University, the University of Missouri-
St. Louis, and several other universities around the country, leadership education programs
have been established to groom women for participation in public leadership roles.
In a number of states women’s advocacy groups are structuring opportunities to expose
young women to political activities, hoping that they will be inspired to build political careers
for themselves. In California, for example, the POWER Project (Profiles of Women
Extraordinary and Republican) is reaching out to young women on college campuses to
provide role models. At the same time, African American women in California are working
through BWOPA (Black Women Organized for Political Action) to offset the possibility that
there may soon be no African American women in that state’s legislature. In addition to
candidate recruitment and financial support, BWOPA is also developing long-term strategies,
such as matching women with former legislators for mentoring. The group recognizes that
they must go beyond the obvious prospects. As one California Democrat pointed out:
When you talk about grooming new leadership, there are a lot of women out
there with leadership skills and talents who have been redirected to other areas
— private sector and NGOs. So the challenge is to break out of the box in terms
of thinking about who would be a viable candidate, and to look in other kinds of
places.
So the challenge is to
break out of the box
in terms of thinking
about who would be
a viable candidate,
and to look in other
kinds of places.
17
Participants agreed that the search for potential candidates must extend beyond rank and
file party activists. Issue involvement, for example, can motivate women to move into the
electoral arena. A Democratic woman involved with advocacy for the poor gave an example:
Poverty is robustly bipartisan, and we are seeing a number of young women,
young mothers, get very active and involved with this issue. I was very heartened
to see one of our volunteers who has become engaged in this issue....She said to
me a couple of weeks ago, “I think I’ll run for the legislature in a couple of years,
because I really think this is an important issue, and if we want changes, this is
how we have to make it happen.
Table 9
Characteristics of Legislatures in All Term-Limited States in 2000
Size Pay # of Constituents
Per District
House/ House/
Assembly Senate Assembly Senate
Arizona 60 30 $24,000/year 73,801 147,602
Arkansas 100 35 $12,500/year 25,098 71,708
California 80 40 $99,000/year 398,478 796,956
Colorado 65 35 $30,000/year 58,810 109,219
Florida 120 40 $26,388/year 120,000 360,000
Idaho 70 35 $14,760/year 16,989 33,979
Louisiana 105 39 $16,800/year 41,434 111,553
Maine 151 35 $10,500/year for first 8,234 35,523
regular session;
$7,500/year for second
regular session
Michigan 110 38 $55,054/year 87,221 252,483
Missouri 163 34 $29,080.20/year 32,875 157,609
Montana 100 50 $59.67/legislative day 8,794 17,587
Nebraska 49 $12,000/year 340,000
Nevada 42 21 $130/day maximum of 38,171 76,341
60 days of session
Ohio 99 33 $42,426.90/year 112,856 338,569
Oklahoma 101 48 $38,400/year 32,682 68,769
Oregon 60 30 $14,496/year 53,396 106,791
South Dakota 70 35 $12,000/two-year term 10,463 20,926
Utah 75 29 $100/calendar day 26,673 68,983
Wyoming 60 30 $125/calendar day 8,023 16,047
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
Issue advocacy can also provide a substantial political base for candidates who emerge
from these ranks. The South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women was mentioned as one
example of an organization that mobilized women across party lines around issues of mutual
concern and subsequently endorsed and supported women candidates who shared those
concerns.
18
Participants acknowledged that many factors may dissuade women from running for
office. Many challenges to maintaining or increasing women’s representation in legislatures are
unrelated to term limits. The nature of the legislature itself can be a barrier to women
considering candidacy. Being a legislator is often low paid and always time consuming, and the
legislative calendar is incompatible with many kinds of careers and with family responsibilities
(See Table 9).
Moreover, in large states, distance from the state capitol may make it difficult for women
to assume responsibilities there in addition to those at home. The increasingly bitter political
climate and the potential for intrusion into private life discourage many potential candidates
from throwing their hats into the ring. Term limits may exacerbate these challenges, however,
if incumbent women who have already overcome those barriers are forced out of office and
persistent gender bias within political parties hinders the cultivation of career paths for
women politicians comparable to those available to male politicians, and if insufficient efforts
are made to recruit additional women to run for office in term-limited states.
What’s Next: Following Up in Term-Limited States
Additional research on the effects of term limits on women’s representation is certainly
needed as term limits are implemented in more states over the next several years.
Nevertheless, preliminary data suggest that effective recruitment of women candidates is
critical to the maintenance and enhancement of women’s representation in states with term
limits.
In response to the clear need for mobilization to recruit women and minority candidates,
each state delegation presented an action plan to enhance the recruitment of women within
their state. The action plans reflected ideas shared by meeting participants in general
sessions, as well as some innovative ideas generated by discussion among the members of
the state delegation. Each of the actions plans addressed a range of key issues, including:
Candidate recruitment: In most of the states represented, much more can be done to
recruit women candidates. Participants agreed that the tedious task of identifying and
wooing potential candidates one by one remains a necessity, even where other kinds of
efforts might be underway. One state suggested a bi-partisan strategic targeting project,
identifying districts where legislative seats were almost certain to go to particular parties and
seeking out women of the appropriate parties for those districts. Democratic and Republican
women could work toward the shared goal of electing women in their own parties in
targeted districts.
Some participants pointed out that candidate recruitment for state legislatures has too
often focused on a narrow range of possibilities – local or county officeholders, attorneys,
and businesswomen, for example. They recommended mining new veins of potential
candidates: women’s service organizations, African American sororities, non-college
graduates, mothers of school-age children, senior citizens, neighborhood organizations. One
person suggested a grassroots strategy – a recreational vehicle to roam her state, creating a
training institute on wheels to recruit and educate new candidates.
Training programs: Indiana, Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio training programs provided
attractive models that held great appeal for women in the states where such programs have
not yet been established. While the existing programs have been created by and for
Republican women, Democrats were eager to test similar models, and some participants
thought a bi-partisan approach might also work. Some states were ready not only to establish
programs, but to name them after political pathbreakers such as Jeannette Rankin from
Montana, the first woman in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Hattie Wyatt Caraway
from Arkansas, the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate.
Preparing Women Legislators for Leadership Positions: Women in legislatures, like
women in many traditionally male-dominant professions, often confront an uneven playing
field. For women who have battled to gain a foothold in legislatures, it has often taken many
years of hard work to convince male colleagues of their worthiness for leadership roles.
19
Term limits necessarily shorten the time available to “learn the ropes,” win the respect of
male colleagues, and acquire positions of power within the party and within the legislature.
As term limits press parties and legislatures to reconsider how they choose their leaders,
however, they may also open new opportunities for women to move quickly into leadership
positions. Newly-elected women legislators must be groomed to take advantage of the
opportunities for leadership.
Links to organizations and programs: Many participants suggested that working
through existing organizations or programs would be the most direct way to enhance the
recruitment of women.. Californians offered the example of an annual bipartisan statewide
Governor’s conference for women that typically attracted 2,000 women from every part of
the state. They proposed arranging panel discussions on women running for office to
present at that conference and possibly at conventions of statewide women’s organizations.
Others suggested organizing workshops or receptions at meetings of officeholders, such as
associations of county or municipal officials or school board members, as a means to seek
out potential state legislative candidates. Women’s organizations, too, could be targeted and
asked to present programs about the need for more women to run as well as more focused
skill-building sessions. Some people also suggested that the Women’s Political Caucus or the
Women’s Campaign Fund could play important roles by becoming more active in their
states. Colorado Senator Gloria Tanner reported that the National Organization of Black
Legislative Elective Women (NOBEL Women) is considering organizing a women’s
leadership training program as a means to recruit more African American women for
elective office.
Establishing new organizations: Some participants thought they needed new
organizations or structures in their states. The Ohio women envisioned “Flo’s List” (Future
Leaders of Ohio) as a mechanism for identifying potential candidates, especially women of
color, and matching them with current elected officials who could serve as mentors.
Candidate funding: Early money is a necessity to ensure a candidate’s viability and
visibility. Participants suggested efforts to enhance existing fundraising mechanisms or to
develop new statewide women’s PACs to support legislative candidates.
Educating the next generation: Many participants were interested in encouraging
young women’s interest in politics in the hope that they might some day become candidates
and officeholders. Some hoped to find institutions in their states to become partners in
CAWP’s NEW Leadership Development Network. Oregon already holds a young leader’s
day at the state capitol, which could be expanded to include a special session for girls. The
annual “Women’s History Week” celebrations could highlight political participation as an
option for girls and young women. Organizations such as YMCA/YWCA and Girls State
also offer valuable leadership programs, which might be enhanced to include more
emphasis on the option of running for office.
Support systems: Because running for and serving in office present daunting
challenges, many women who might consider a candidacy are hesitant. Therefore,
participants suggested various support systems that might increase the comfort level for a
potential candidate. One idea was a “rapid reaction team” that could be called into action
as needed, whether to raise money, deal with the media, or quash rumors. Another
suggestion was a “resting place” for women leaving office, a place for former officeholders
to reflect back and plan ahead. One group spoke of a “WIT” group for women in
transition, proposing the idea of linking women leaving office with those just entering
office who might benefit from the veterans’ advice and support. Representatives of another
state raised the idea of a mentoring network for women candidates, in part to ensure that
party campaign teams would take women candidates seriously.
Representatives from all the states agreed that they would need to involve many others
if they were to succeed in strengthening efforts to get women elected. As the meeting
ended, participants pledged to go home and convene meetings, make contacts, and talk to
others about how best to proceed, given the political culture and customs of their own
states.
Newly-elected
women legislators
must be groomed to
take advantage of
the opportunities for
leadership.
20
CAWP, too, made a commitment to action at the close of the meeting. The Center
agreed to:
• serve as a clearinghouse and connector for state projects;
• establish a listserve so that meeting participants could continue to communicate
with one another;
• place articles and information of interest on the CAWP web site;
• continue research on the effects of term limits on women’s representation;
• convene a national conference of elected women in November, 2001, at which term
limits and the political recruitment of women, along with other major issues related
to women’s status as officeholders and candidates, would be addressed in plenary
sessions and workshops.
Conclusion
Although term limits create opportunities for women and minorities to move into state
legislatures, the mere existence of an opportunity does not guarantee the achievement of a
desired outcome. The preliminary research findings about the impact of term limits on
women’s representation caution against naive optimism. Term limits sweep out male and
female incumbents indiscriminately. But current political recruitment practices continue to
advantage men. If women are to preserve and increase their present numbers in state
legislatures, there must be a concerted effort by activists, women’s organizations, and political
parties to recruit more women for open seats.
To date, the impact of term limits on the representation of women has not received
much public attention. Many conference participants were intimately familiar with the
emerging effects of term limits in their states, but, thinking those developments were local
and idiosyncratic, they were not prepared to generalize from them. Coming together helped
them to realize the need for concerted efforts in each state if women’s hard-won
representation in state legislatures is to be preserved and enhanced.
If women are to
preserve and increase
their present numbers
in state legislatures,
there must be a
concerted effort by
activists, women’s
organizations, and
political parties to
recruit more women
for open seats.
21
University-Based Political Leadership Education Programs
Establishing educational or training programs is one way to expand the pool of future
women candidates. A college or university setting can make a hospitable home for such a
program, providing neutral ground on which non-partisan educational activities can take place.
Some of these programs serve college women and teach them about the range of possibilities
for political engagement, while others are aimed at women who are already established in
careers and want to consider more active involvement in politics, possibly including running
for office.
The Center for American Women and Politics
The Center for American Women and Politics has two models for programs to educate
women for political participation: NEW Leadership, aimed at college women, and Ready to
Run, targeting women in New Jersey who are considering running for office. While New Jersey
is not a term-limited state, CAWP welcomes adaptation of its programs to serve the particular
needs of other states.
Under the NEW Leadership (National Education for Women's Leadership) rubric, CAWP
offers education programs designed to prepare young women for public leadership. The
award-winning NEW Leadership New Jersey summer institute educates and empowers college
women to participate actively in politics and public policy making. The six-part curriculum
NEW Leadership curriculum includes:
1. Teaching about the diversity of women's historical and contemporary
participation in politics and policymaking;
2. Connecting students with women leaders making a difference in the public
sphere;
3. Helping students explore the demands of leadership in a diverse society;
4. Cultivating students' leadership skills;
5. Enabling students to practice leadership through action;
6. Engaging young women in the use of interactive technologies to build their
political involvement.
With a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, CAWP established the NEW Leadership
Development Network to train nine institutional partners in the program model so they can
create similar programs in their own states or regions. NEW Leadership Development
Network partners presented their first NEW Leadership programs in Summer 2000.
The Center for Women and Politics in Pennsylvania at Chatham College sponsored NEW
Leadership Pennsylvania in June, 2000. The Carrie Chapman Catt Center at Iowa State
University held NEW Leadership Midwest in August, 2000, bringing together students from
Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and North Dakota. The University of Texas at Dallas, held
its initial series of weekend programs from September through November, 2000.
The 2000-2001 NEW Leadership Development Network partners attended the NEW
Leadership Development Institute in June, 2000, in preparation of their inaugural programs,
scheduled for 2001. In June, 2001, the Women and Politics Institute at American University
will work with 13 consortium schools in the Washington DC area to host NEW Leadership
DC, while the Center for Women and Democracy at the University of Washington in Seattle
will host NEW Leadership for women in the Puget Sound region. Additionally, the Women's
Leadership Institute at Bennett College will sponsor NEW Leadership North Carolina.
The newest NLDN partners, the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center
at University of Oklahoma, the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy at
Ohio State University, and the Women's Resource Center at Washington State University, will
attend NEW Leadership New Jersey in June, 2001 in anticipation of hosting their own
regional programs in the summer of 2002.
A training manual has also been prepared to assist others who wish to adopt the model.
For more information, contact
NEW Leadership Program Coordinator
CAWP, Eagleton Institute of Politics
191 Ryders Lane, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8557
Phone: (732) 932-9384 Fax: (732) 932-6778
www.newleadership.rutgers.edu
Ready to Run is a bipartisan initiative conceived in 1998 by CAWP and the Institute for
Women's Leadership (a consortium at Douglass College). The goal is to increase the number
of women officeholders in New Jersey by identifying and grooming potential candidates. The
first all-day Ready to Run conference in December 1998 brought together almost 100 women
from counties throughout the state. They heard and learned from a distinguished array of
women elected officials, campaign activists, journalists and media consultants.
22
Responding to the participants' evaluations, the next event was a more narrowly focused
meeting on the New Jersey county party system in May 1999. Additional small, focused
workshops will be offered on topics suggested by conference participants. Annual day-long
statewide conferences were organized for March, 2000 and 2001. Ready to Run has also
developed mentorship opportunities to link candidates with women from their own parties
who can offer guidance and support. For more information, contact:
Ready to Run
CAWP, Eagleton Institute of Politics
191 Ryders Lane, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8557
Phone: (732) 932-9384 Fax: (732) 932-6778
www.cawp.rutgers.edu
The Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life
The Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life at the University of Missouri-St. Louis
was founded in 1996 "to assist women in developing the interest and skills necessary to
succeed as full participants within government, serving in elected and appointed office as well
as employed policy makers." The Institute is named for the late State Representative Sue
Shear, who served for 26 years, longer than any other woman in Missouri's legislature. With a
satellite office at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, the Institute also serves the western
end of the state.
The Institute's goal is "to help women break down both the external and internal barriers
to embracing the rights and responsibilities of a representative democracy." Toward this end,
the Institute:
• collects data on women in public policymaking roles;
• maintains a talent bank of women interested in serving on boards and
commissions and provides periodic training for women interested in effective
board membership;
• hosts the 21st Century Leadership Training program, a one-week residential
training program for Missouri college women;
• provides skill-building programs to facilitate the success of women in state,
county and local governments;
• offers non-partisan training on campaign basics and organizing to help women
overcome their reluctance to run for office, as well as advanced campaign
training for women who have filed to run for office.
For more information, contact:
Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life
8001 Natural Bridge Road, JC Penney Building Room 201
St. Louis, Missouri 63121-4499
Phone: (314) 516-6623 Fax: (314) 516-6621
Kansas City telephone: (816) 235-1409
www.umsl.edu/~iwpl
The Women’s Campaign School
The Women's Campaign School at Yale University teaches women the political skills,
strategies and tactics to run a winning campaign. WCS is jointly sponsored by the Yale Law
School and Women's Studies at Yale University. WCS, a nonprofit corporation, offers a unique
non-partisan, non-issue based campaign training program. Classes are held on the Yale
campus. Each year a 4 day comprehensive session is offered, designed to teach a wide range
of campaign skills and introduce participants to professionals in the campaign and political
arena. Training classes are designed for candidates as well as campaign staff. Classes are taught
by seasoned campaign strategists and include the latest in campaign techniques. In addition
each student is offered personal on-camera training, and a campaign manual. Graduates
become part of a close-knit alumnae network. The school also runs special one-day
workshops of various topics, including "Secrets of Successful Fund-raising", "Campaign
Message and Strategy", and Politics: The Uncommon Career Choice", "Municipal Candidate
Training" and "Public Speaking and Media Skills". For more information, contact:
The Women's Campaign School
PO Box 3307
New Haven, CT 06515-0407
Phone: (203) 734-7385 or 800-353-2878
Fax: (203) 734-7547
www.wcsyale.org
23
Representative Carolyn S. Allen
Arizona House of Representatives
Mary Jo Arndt
President
National Federation of Republican Women
Commissioner Lyn Bankes
Wayne County Commission (Michigan)
Melissa A. Becker
Washington Director
WiLL
Representative Shirley Brown
Florida House of Representatives
Professor Susan Carroll
Senior Research Associate
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Representative Jo E. Carson
Arkansas House of Representatives
Kathleen Casey
Graduate Research Associate
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Cheryl K. Chapman
South Dakota Advocacy Network for Women
Representative Fran N. Coleman
Colorado House of Representatives
Professor Wartyna Davis
William Paterson College
Representative Rita D. Days
Missouri House of Representatives
Jennifer L. Drage
Policy Associate
National Conference of State Legislatures
Pepper English
Women's Campaign Fund
The Honorable Judith C. Foss
Former Maine State Representative
Kathleen Hale
Executive Director
National Women's Political Caucus
Professor Mary Hawkesworth
Director
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Professor Kerry L. Haynie
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Jodi Heintz
Director, NEW Leadership
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Erica M. Henri
Political Director
Women's Campaign Fund
Millie Herrera
Democratic Hispanic Caucus of Florida
Dina Hidalgo
Director of Personnel
California State Senate
Lieutenant Governor Carole Hillard
South Dakota
Jimmy D. Jackson
Office of Senator Dede Alpert (California)
Llenda Jackson-Leslie
Vice President, Communications
Michigan Women's Political Caucus
Tema Javerbaum
Research Associate
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Verna Jeffries
Secretary
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Krista Jenkins
Research Associate
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Carole Jean Jordan
National Committeewoman, Florida
Republican National Committee
Representative Deborah Kafoury
Oregon House of Representatives
Kathy Kleeman
Senior Program Associate
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
The Honorable Martha Hill Kreutz
Former Colorado State Representative
Janice Laurente
Intern
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Appendix: Participants
24
Samantha L. Maltzman
Undergraduate Associate
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Professor Ruth B. Mandel
Director
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Representative Lynne Martinez
Michigan House of Representatives
Representative Emmy L. McClelland
Missouri House of Representatives
Professor Joan E. McLean
Ohio Wesleyan University
Holly J. Mitchell
Legislative Advocate
Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc.
Professor Gary Moncrief
Department of Political Science
Boise State University
Gilda Morales
Information Services Coordinator
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Susan Nemeth
Director of Development
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Roselyn O'Connell
President
National Women's Political Caucus
Senator Lana Oleen
President, Women's Network
National Conference of State Legislatures
Kansas State Senate
Linda Phillips
Computer Services Coordinator
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Senator C. J. Prentiss
Ohio Senate
Representative Nancy L. Quarles
Michigan House of Representatives
The Honorable Jacqueline J. Roberts
Office of Sen. Blanche Lambert Lincoln
Former Arkansas State Representative
Professor Alan Rosenthal
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Florida House of Representatives
Senator Ruth Solomon
Arizona State Senate
Candy Straight
President
WISH List
Senator Gloria Travis Tanner
President
NOBEL/Women
Colorado State Senate
Erin Toomey
Project Assistant
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Representative Roberta L. Voss
Arizona House of Representatives
Debbie Walsh
Associate Director
Center for American Women and Politics
Eagleton Institute of Politics
Senator Mignon Waterman
Montana State Senate
Angela D. Wiederrich
Chief of Staff
Office of Assemblywoman Lynne Leach
The Honorable Harriett E. Woods
Harriett Woods Productions
Betsey Wright
Betsey Wright & Associates, Inc.
Representative Cindy Younkin
Montana House of Representatives
Participants (continued)
