PSCI 5050: Graduate Seminar on the U.S. Congress

Department of Political Science, University of North Texas

WH 130, Tuesday 2.00-4.50p, spring 2013 Syllabus

Dr. ElizabethA. Oldmixon Office Hours: T 1.oo-2.00p, W 9.30-11.30a

Office: Wooten Hall 156 Email:

Mailbox: Wooten Hall 125 Office Telephone: 940.565.4761

Seminar Description

This course is a graduate-level research seminar on the U.S. Congress. We will examine Congress as a representative and policy-making institution; how it has developed and adapted its organizational and electoral processes over time; and what aspects of its institutional design would appear essential to its on-going maintenance and constitutional authority. At the end of this course, students should be in a good position to answer a field exam question on the U.S. Congress, and have a produced an original research paper that could hopefully be revised and presented at a conference.

Class Meetings

This course will be conducted in a seminar format. As such, much of the success or failure of the course will rest with the students. Students are expected to attend all classes, read all assigned material, and participate thoughtfully in class discussions. Participation involves more than simply restating the material that is assigned, but instead involves making insightful points about those readings and raising thoughtful questions about the material that stimulate discussion.

Required Reading

Dodd, Lawrence C. and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. 2012. Congress Reconsidered, 10th edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press/Sage.(978-1452227825) (D/O)

Grose, Christian. 2011. Congress in Black and White: Race and Representation in Washington and at Home. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (978-1107003514)

Mayhew, David R. 2004 [1974]. Congress: The Electoral Connection, Second Edition. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press. (978-0300105872)

Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (978-0691049267)

Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (978-0521717687)

Schedule

Week 1, January 15, Legislatures and the Study of Congress

  • The Federalist. Hamilton, Madison and Jay, No.’s 10, 51.
  • Liphart, Aaron. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, chs. 1, 11.
  • Squire, Peverill. 2006. “Historical Evolution of Legislatures in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 19-44.
  • Polsby, Nelson W. and Eric Schickler. 2002. “Landmarks in the Study of Congress since 1945.” Annual Review of Political Science 5: 333-367.

Week 2, January 22, Theoretical Perspectives

  • Dodd. 1977. “Congress and the Quest for Power.” CR, 1st ed.
  • Polsby, Nelson W.2004.How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, chs. 3-4.
  • Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry Weingast. 1994. “Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions.” LSQ 19: 149-179.
  • Stewart, Charles. 2001. Analyzing Congress.New York, NY: WW Norton & Company, ch. 1.
  • Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, chs. 1-2.

Week 3, January 29, Legitimacy and Public Approval

  • Dodd.1981. “Congress, the Constitution, and the Crisis of Legitimation.”CR, 2nd ed.
  • Mann and Ornstein. 2008. “Is Congress Still the Broken Branch?” CR, 9th ed.
  • Hibbing and Larimer. 2005. “What the American Public Wants Congress to Be.” CR, 8th ed.
  • D/O chs. 1-2, 16

Week 4, February 5, Institutional Development and Careerism

  • Schickler, Disjointed Pluralism, all
  • Polsby, Nelson W. 1968. "The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives." APSR 62: 144-168.
  • Hibbing, John R. 1991. “Contours of the Modern Congressional Career.” APSR 85:405-28.

Week 5, February 12, Elections

  • D/O chs. 4-5
  • Mayhew. Congress: The Electoral Connection, Second Edition, part 1
  • Mayhew, David. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6: 295-317.
  • Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, chs. 5-7
  • Carson, Jamie L., Gregory Koger, Matthew J. Lebo, and Everett Young. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” AJPS 54: 598-616.

Week 6, February 19, Representation

  • Miller, Warren E. and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” APSR 57:45-56.
  • Burden, Barry. 2007. The Personal Roots of Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, chs. 1-2, 5.

Lee, Frances. 1998. “Representation and Public Policy: The Consequences of Senate Apportionment for the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds.” JOP 60: 34-62

Fenno, Richard. 1977. "U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies." APSR 71: 883-916.

Week 7, February 26, Research Paper Discussion

Week 8, March 5, Representation and Identity Politics

  • Grose, Congress in Black and White, all
  • Griffin, John D., Brian Newman, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2012. “A Gender Gap in Policy Representation in the U.S. Congress?” LSQ 37: 35-66.
  • Smith, Lauren Edwards, Laura R. Olson, and Jeffrey A. Fine. 2010. “Substantive Religious Representation in the US Senate.” PRQ 63: 68-82.

Week 9, March 12 – break

Week 10, March 19, Parties I

  • D/O chs. 7
  • Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ch. 12.
  • Cox, Gary G. and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993.Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, chs. 4-5
  • Rohde, David W. 1991.Party Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, chs. 1-2, 6.
  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where's the Party?” BJPS 23: 235–266.
  • Cooper, Joseph and David W. Brady. 1981. “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” APSR 75: 411–425.

Week 11, March 26, Parties II

  • Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, all
  • D/O ch. 9

Week 12, April 2, Committees

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, chs. 1-3.
  • Fenno, Richard F. 1962. “The House Appropriations Committee as a Political System: The Problem of Integration.” APSR 56:310-24.
  • Hall, Richard L., and Frank W. Wayman. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” APSR 84:797-820.
  • D/O ch. 8
  • Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” APSR 81: 85–127

Week 13, April 9, Roll Call Voting and Policy

  • Kingdon, John W. 1977. "Models of Legislative Voting." JOP 39:563-595.
  • Poole, Keith and Howard Rosenthal. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” AJPS 35: 228-278
  • Timothy P. Nokken. 2000. “Dynamics of Congressional Loyalty: Party Defection and Roll-Call

Behavior, 1947-97.” LSQ 25: 417-44.

  • Sulkin, Tracy. 2009. “Campaign Appeals and Legislative Action.” JOP 71: 1093-1108
  • D/O chs. 13-14, 17
  • Asher, Herbert B. and Herbert F. Weisberg. 1978. “Vote Change in Congress: Some Dynamic Perspectives on an Evolutionary Process.” AJPS 22: 391-425.

Week 14, April 16, Sharing Power with the President

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1998.Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, chs. 1-3.
  • Howell, William, Scott Adler, Charles Cameron, and Charles Rieman. 2000. "Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress." LSQ 25: 285-312.
  • Sarah Binder. 1999. “The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947-96." APSR 93(3): 519- 533.
  • Mayhew, David. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, chs. 1, 3-4.

Week 15, April 23, Sharing Power with the Courts

  • D/O ch. 11
  • Moraski, Bryon J., and Charles R. Shipan. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.” AJPS 43: 1069-95.
  • Blackstone, Bethany. Forthcoming. “An Analysis of Policy–Based Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Constitutional Decisions.” Law & Society Review.
  • Randazzo, Kirk A., Richard W. Waterman and Jeffrey A. Fine. 2006. “Checking the Federal Courts: The Impact of Congressional Statutes on Judicial Behavior.” JOP 68 (4): 1006-1017
  • Hettinger, Virginia A. and Christopher Zorn. 2005. “Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court.” LSQ 69: 664-677.
  • Andrew D. Martin. 2001. "Congressional Decision Making and the Separation of Powers."APSR95:361-378.

Week 16, April 30, Research Paper Presentations

Course Requirements and Grading

Seminar grades will be assigned according to the following schedule: A, 90-100%; B, 80-89.9%; C, 70-79.9%; D, 60-69.9%; F, below 60%.

Participation and Attendance, 20%: Students are required to attend each class meeting, having completed the reading assignment and ready to participate in a discussion of the material. If (when) called upon, students should be able to report to the class: 1) the major themes of each reading; 2) questions of clarification; and 3) an evaluation of the material. As a portion of this grade, students are required to submit weekly discussion questions to the instructor on Tuesdays by 9.00a.

Research Paper, 40%: Each student is required to write a research paper that (1) clearly states an empirical question; (2) discusses its importance for our understanding of Congress; (3) addresses previous research and theorizing relevant to approaching the puzzle; (4) presents a general theoretical perspective and relevant hypotheses (or possible answers); (5) explains and executes empirical tests. Page length may vary based on the nature of the project. Expect the range for most papers to be 15 to 25 pages, double-spaced, with reasonable fonts and margins. Students must use APSA Style citations. The papers will be presented, conference style, on the last day of class.

  • A brief research proposal is due Monday, February 25.
  • The final paper is due by 5pm on Friday, April 29.

Critical Essays/Discussions, 40%: Students will write two essays that summarize (briefly), synthesize, and critique the readings for the week. Reviews will be about 5-8 pages in length. Students should draw on additional, unassigned literature related to the subject matter.You should assume that your audience has read the literature (we have!), and focus your efforts drawing out the most important interesting aspects of literature. On the basis of these essays, you will lead seminar discussions. Essays are due by 9.00a on the seminar meeting day. They should be emailed to the entire class.

Suggested Reading

Aldrich, John H. and David W. Rohde. 2000. “The Republican Revolution and the House Appropriations Committee.” JOP 62: 1–33.

-----. 2001. “The Logic of Conditional PartyGovernment.” InCongress Reconsidered, Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds. Washington, DC:CQ Press.

Binder, Sarah. 1997.Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

-----. 2003.Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Bond,Jon R. and Richard Fleisher. 1990. The President and the Legislative Arena. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clausen, Aage. 1973. How Congressmen Decide. St. Martin's Press.

Cox, Gary and Mathew McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

David W. Brady. 1988. Critical Elections and Congressional Policymaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Dodd Larry C. 1986.“The cycles of legislativechange: building a dynamic theory. In Political

Science: The Science of Politics, ed. HF Weisberg. New York: Agathon.

Evans, C. Lawrence. 1999. "Legislative Structure: Rules, Precedents, Jurisdictions." LSQ 24: 605-642.

The Federalist. Hamilton, Madison and Jay, No.’s 10, 47-58, 62-66.

Fenno, Richard. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston, MA: Little Brown & Company.

-----. 2002[1978]. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. New York, NY: Pearson.

Fisher, Louis. 2007. Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Fiorina, Morris P. 2001. “Keystone Reconsidered.” In Congress Reconsidered. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Haider-Markel, Donald P, Mark R. Joslyn, and Chad J. Kniss. 2000. “Minority Group Interests and Political Representation: Gay Elected Officials in the Policy Process.” JOP62(2):568-77.

Hall, Richard L. 1995. “Empiricism and Progress in Positive Theories of Legislative Institutions.” In Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions. Shepsle and Weingast, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hibbing, John R. and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in the Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives.” AJPS 31:126-41.

Jacobson, Gary. 2012. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th ed. New York, NY: Longman.

Katz, Jonathan N. and Brian R. Sala. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral

Connection.” APSR 90: 21-33.

Kingdon, John W. 1989. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions , 3rd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Press.

Koger, Gregory. 2010. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Krehbiel, Keith. 1997. “Restrictive Rules Reconsidered.” AJPS 41: 919–944.

Lee, Francis. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lee, Frances E. and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. 1999. Sizing up the Senate: The UnequalConsequences of Equal Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis A. Froman, Jr. and Randall B. Ripley. 1965.“Conditions for Party Leadership: The Case of the House Democrats.”APSR 59: 52–63.

Matthews, Donald. 1959. “The Folkways of the United States Senate: Conformity to GroupNorms and Legislative Effectiveness.” APSR 53: 1064-1089.

McCubbins, Mathew D. and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police

Patrols versus Fire Alarms." AJPS 28: 165-179.

Oldmixon, Elizabeth A. 2009. “Religion and Legislative Politics.” In Oxford Handbook on Religion and American Politics. Corwin Smidt, James Guth, and Lyman Kellstedt, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oleszek, Walter J. 2013. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process , 9th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Price, David E. 2004. The Congressional Experience. Boulder: Westview Press.

Schickler, Eric, and Andrew Rich. 1997. “Controlling the Floor: Parties as Procedural Coalitions in the House.” AJPS 41:1340-75.

Schiller, Wendy J. 2000. Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

-----. 2011.Unorthodox Lawmaking, 4th edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press/Sage.

Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, Carol. 2006.Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress. University Press of America.

Swers,Michele. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Swift, Elaine K. 1996. The Making of an American Senate: Reconstitutive Change in Congress, 1787-1841. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Young, James S. 1966. The Washington Community, 1800-1825. Columbia.

Seminar Policies

Late Assignments: Late assignments are unacceptable and will be penalized a half a letter grade for the first day they are late, and a full letter grade every day thereafter. As with incompletes, extensions are given only under extreme circumstances and after consultation with the instructor – prior to the due date.

Classroom Conduct: All students must treat the instructor, the other students, and the classroom setting with respect. The same is true for the instructor. Therefore:

  • All potentially disruptive electronic devices must be silenced. Use of laptops in class is a privilege that I extend for note taking or for in class exercises as directed.
  • Students should not send text messages, have side conversations, fall asleep, or read irrelevant materials during class. It’s rude and distracting.
  • Students should be on time and stay for the entire period.
  • Please show respect for alternative opinions and points of view.
  • Please note that expectations for student conduct apply to all instructional forums.

Religious Holidays

In accordance with UNT Policy 15.2.5, students will be excused from class or other activities for the observance of religious holidays, for religions whose places of worship are exempt from property tax under Section 11.20 of the Tax Code. The student is encouraged to notify the instructor as soon as possible regarding the absence.

Departmental Statement of ADA Compliance

The University of North Texas makes reasonable academic accommodation for students with disabilities. Students seeking accommodation must first register with the Office of Disability Accommodation (ODA) to verify their eligibility. If a disability is verified, the ODA will provide you with an accommodation letter to be delivered to faculty to begin a private discussion regarding your specific needs in a course. You may request accommodations at any time, however, ODA notices of accommodation should be provided as early as possible in the semester to avoid any delay in implementation.

Note that students must obtain a new letter of accommodation for every semester and must meet with each faculty member prior to implementation in each class. For additional information see the Office of Disability Accommodation website at You may also contact them by phone at 940.565.4323.

Cheating and Plagiarism

The UNT Code of Student Conduct and Discipline defines cheating and plagiarism as theuse of unauthorized books, notes, or otherwise securing help in a test; copying others' tests,assignments, reports, or term papers; representing the work of another as one's own; collaborating without authority with another student during an examination or in preparing academic work; or otherwise practicing scholastic dishonesty.

Normally, the minimum penalty for cheating or plagiarism is a grade of "F" in the course. In the case of graduate departmental exams, the minimum penalty shall be failure of all fields of the exam. Determination of cheating or plagiarism shall be made by the instructor in the course,or by the field faculty in the case of departmental exams.

Cases of cheating or plagiarism on graduate departmental exams, theses, or dissertations shall automatically be referred to the departmental Graduate Studies Committee. Cases ofcheating or plagiarism in ordinary coursework may, at the discretion of the instructor, be referred to theUndergraduate Studies Committee in the case of undergraduate students, or the GraduateStudies Committee in the case of graduate students. These committees, acting as agents of the department Chair, shall impose further penalties, or recommend further penalties to the Dean ofStudents, if they determine that the case warrants it. In all cases, the Dean of Students shall beinformed in writing of the case.

Students may appeal any decision under this policy by following the procedures laid down in the UNT Code of Student Conduct and Discipline.

Policies on academic dishonesty:

Acceptable Student Behavior

Student behavior that interferes with an instructor’s ability to conduct a class or other students' opportunity to learn is unacceptable and disruptive and will not be tolerated in any instructional forum at UNT. Students engaging in unacceptable behavior will be directed to leave the classroom and the instructor may refer the student to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities to consider whether the student's conduct violated the Code of Student Conduct. The university's expectations for student conduct apply to all instructional forums, including university and electronic classroom, labs, discussion groups, field trips, etc. The Code of Student Conduct can be found at

Course drop information: see schedule at –

Graduate Seminar on the US Congress / 1