Women in State and Local Politics

As part of CAWP's Research Inventory on Gender & Politics, this overview focuses on current and past research, with particular emphasis on the latest findings, related to women in state and local politics. This overview captures the state of knowledge to increase understanding of current political realities, support research-based interventions, and generate future research questions and agendas.

Women in State and Local Politics with hub image

Analyzing women in state and local politics is crucial because women are more likely to serve at these levels.1 The higher number of positions creates opportunities for more women, including a greater diversity of women, to seek and hold elective offices. However, women are still underrepresented at these levels of office. 

As of March 2026:

  • Women hold 32.7% of municipal offices nationwide in cities with populations over 10,000. More than two-thirds (66.3%) of municipal offices across the United States continue to be held by men. Women are 41 of the mayors in the top 100 most populous cities in the United States.2 Women hold 33.6% of state legislative seats nationwide.3 New records were set for women’s representation in state legislatures across most race and ethnicity groups following the 2024 elections.4
  • Women are 31.6% of statewide elective executive officeholders, including 28% of governors. The 14 (10D, 4R) women serving as governors today matches the record high set briefly in January 2025. However, racial/ethnic disparities are stark in statewide elective executive office, where just 5 (4D, 1R) Asian American/Pacific Islander, 9 (9D) Black, 1 (1D) Native American, and 7 (5D, 2R) Latina women serve.5 

Research on women in state and local politics provides insights into the rise of candidates and elected officials at these levels of office, as well as their substantive and symbolic impact. State and local research also permits attention to the diversity of political ecosystems in which women run and serve, including the cultural, structural, and political realities that women navigate in the political sphere. Finally, broadening the scope of attention and intervention to women’s representation at these levels of office reflects an important reality: women’s political power is neither concentrated at the federal level nor necessarily greater there.6

The Partisan Divergence of Representation

The partisan divide in women's representation across levels of office reflects fundamental differences in party ideology, coalition composition, and voter preferences. Nearly two-thirds of women state legislators are Democrats, and women are almost at parity with men among Democratic state legislators nationwide. In contrast, women are just over 20% of Republican state legislators and about one-third of women state legislators are Republicans as of March 2026.7 Laurel Elder's book, The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don't, provides the most comprehensive account to date of the emergence and growth of the partisan gap in women's representation since the 1990s as well as key contributors to it.8 Other research at and beyond the state legislative level offers explanations for partisan differences in women’s representation, including Republican voters’ alignment with and preference for masculinity,9 differences in partisan perceptions of women’s underrepresentation as a problem and support for gender-targeted solutions,10 and partisan disparities in support infrastructure for women in politics.11 For more, see overview of Women and Political Parties

Pathways to Office

The decision to run for political office remains deeply gendered, with women facing distinct structural and personal barriers that shape their candidacy calculations regardless of level or type of office. For example, studies evaluating women’s political ambition generally and studies on women's decisions to run for specific offices demonstrate that considerations related to domestic responsibilities and caregiving have created hurdles to women candidate emergence.12 Susan Carroll and Kira Sanbonmatsu describe how the decision to run for the state legislature is “relationally embedded” for women, meaning that women are more likely than men to evaluate the effects of their candidacies on their families and consider whether they have sufficient support and encouragement from political actors.13 Other deterrents to women’s political candidacy such as party gatekeeping, lack of access to support networks, and perceptions of being unqualified for elective office are not unique to any office type or level.14 For more, see overview of Women Candidates and their Campaigns

But personal circumstances intersect with institutional factors, and those factors are more likely to vary by office and – even more – across states and localities. Many studies have identified the influence of structural factors on candidate emergence in state legislative and municipal elections. For example, Samantha Pettey found that term limits resulted in more women running for state legislative office in a fifty-state study of data from 1990-2000.15 A more recent study using 2016 and 2018 election data found that Latina and Black women state legislative candidates were more likely to emerge in states with term limits than those without them.16 Municipal elections have been some of the first to enact ranked choice voting, with the goal of diversifying both the pool of candidates and elected leaders. Jonathan Colner evaluated this type of electoral reform across more than two decades and nearly 300 cities and found no significant effect of implementing ranked choice voting on the number of women running.17 Still, other research has pointed to the success of women in ranked choice elections as evidence of its potential for creating greater gender parity in both candidacy and officeholding.18 At the local level, greater attention needs to be paid to which offices women are more or less likely to seek and why, including drawing on differences found on which local offices are more or less accessible to women by racial/ethnic group.19

Alana Jeydel and William Wilkerson found that differences in election rules (e.g. running independently or as a ticket, term limits) and structural conditions – such as gubernatorial salary – influence the number of women who run for governor.20 They also found that, for Republican women, the political pipeline was highly significant: the presence of Republican women in other elected positions, particularly in the U.S. House, state legislatures, and other statewide offices, was positively correlated with the likelihood of women appearing on a state’s gubernatorial primary ballots.21 In contrast, these pipeline variables were not significant for Democratic women, suggesting that Democratic women may draw on different pathways to gubernatorial candidacy or face different opportunity structures within their party. 

There are also similarities in the pools of potential candidates across levels of office. Studies at the local, state legislative, and congressional levels show that male legislators are still more likely than women to come from law and business, and lawyers are significantly overrepresented as both legislative candidates and officeholders.22 Consistent with what Danielle Thomsen and Aaron King found at the congressional level, Rachel Bernhard and Mirya Holman demonstrate that differences in occupation by gender contribute to women’s political underrepresentation in local offices.23 And research below the federal and statewide executive levels also reminds us that neither nascent political ambition nor previous officeholding experience are always necessary for successful bids for these offices. For example, almost two-thirds of women state representatives who participated in the Center for American Women and Politics’ (CAWP) 2008 survey of state legislators ran for the state legislature as their first elective office.24 This contrasts with the path to congressional office, which – for women and men – often comes after time in local, state, or (other) federal elective office.25

Once women do enter electoral contests, their success varies systematically based on contextual factors and intersecting identities. Previous research on predictors of women’s state and local representation sought to better understand the factors that promoted women’s electoral success. For example, Adrienne Smith, Beth Reingold, and Michael Leo Owens found that women were better represented on city councils in cities that were more liberal, had larger populations, and had women mayors.26 Women mayors were more likely in cities with nonpartisan elections and where mayors were selected by city councils instead of via direct elections.27 Becki Scola found that states with more liberal ideologies, multimember districts, higher percentages of professional women, and moralistic cultures had higher percentages of women in their state legislatures.28

In a more recent analysis, Nicholas Pyeatt and Alixandra Yanus found that women's entry and victory in state legislative primaries were greater in districts with women-friendly characteristics and where religiosity is lower.29 They also found that women’s primary success was greater in multimember districts, open primaries, and outside of the South. In other research, Asian, Black, and Latina women specifically have been found to fare better in multimember districts at the general election stage.30 Researchers have also investigated whether women fare better in district versus at-large general elections for local offices, finding mixed results; while one nationwide study found that only white women – not Black women or Latinas – benefited from district systems,31 another study of California municipalities found that electoral success was greater for all women in district versus at-large elections.32

Waging statewide – versus more localized – campaigns presents distinct hurdles, including the need to appeal to statewide electorates and to raise more campaign funds.33 Kevin Fahey and colleagues found that women-friendliness remained a positive predictor of vote shares for women statewide executive candidates.34 However, they found that the experience of running as a woman differs fundamentally across intersecting categories of race and party; while women-friendliness gives the greatest boost to Democratic and women of color candidates for statewide executive offices, white Republican women earn the greatest vote share in less women-friendly electorates. 

Indeed, doubts about women’s electability statewide can be particularly challenging to women from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, which may contribute to the dearth of racial/ethnic diversity among statewide elective executive office candidates and officeholders.35 For example, this electability bias was ever-present in Stacey Abrams’ (D-GA) campaign to become the first Black women governor in 2018, as was bias in media coverage of her campaign.36 While Abrams received more coverage, Heather Hicks found that Abrams received more negative coverage of her agentic traits (e.g. assertiveness) than her white primary opponent Stacey Evans.37 The framing and tone of campaign coverage can undermine rather than enhance women’s electoral prospects. Finally, CAWP’s research on gubernatorial contests finds that all women gubernatorial candidates are less likely than men to self-finance their campaigns, but this is particularly the case for women from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.38 Moreover, Republican women candidates usually fare worse in fundraising than Democratic women candidates.39 For more, see overview of Women, Money, and Politics

Even when women achieve incumbency or build political experience – factors that typically confer electoral advantages – gender penalties persist. In their study of mayoral and city council elections, Danielle Joesten Martin and Meredith Conroy found that women incumbents and experienced women candidates received lower vote shares than their male counterparts, suggesting that women must overcome ongoing skepticism about their fitness for office even after proving their viability through previous electoral or political success.40 Women are also held to higher standards. Consistent with findings at the congressional level, Sarah Anzia and Rachel Bernhard found that women’s similar rates of success to men in mayoral elections is due in part to the greater experience they bring to their candidacies.41

Impact of Women Officeholders 

Do women legislate differently than their male colleagues? Are they more or less effective at advancing legislation? How do constituents interact with women officeholders, and do women face different expectations or standards than men? For more, see overview of Women in Elective Office

Research on state legislatures has found gender differences at the agenda-setting or bill-introduction stage, though roll-call voting across issue areas show that party affiliation and constituency demands typically supersede gender in shaping legislator behavior.42 For example, CAWP’s national studies of state legislators in 1988 and 2001 showed that women legislators were more likely than their male colleagues to list a women’s rights bill or a bill affecting children and families as a top priority.43 Mirya Holman’s research in U.S. cities found similarly that women mayors were more likely than men to promote discussions about urban women’s issues at city council meetings.44 While research evidence is limited due to their smaller number, at least one study has shown women governors have also given more attention than men to social welfare issues.45

However, Democratic and Republican women officeholders bring very different viewpoints to their roles as lawmakers, as was evident in Tracy Osborn’s extensive study of gender and party effects across state legislatures.46 For example, Beth Reingold and colleagues found that conservative Republican women state legislators were more likely than men to lead anti-abortion policy initiatives, actively championing restrictive legislation as pro-women and pro-life rather than moderating their party's positions. They found an increase in state legislative proposals of this type between 1997 and 2012.47

Women's substantive representation – their impact on policy content and priorities – also varies by racial/ethnic identity and occupational background. Women bring distinctive orientations to political representation that reflect their community embeddedness and intersectional positioning. Christian Dyogi Phillips, Paru Shah, and Patrick Vossler find that Asian American women and Latinas hold "embedded" orientations to politics, viewing community networks as intertwined with their representative identity rather than seeing themselves as individual political actors separate from their communities.48 This embedded approach may shape how these legislators conceptualize their roles and exercise representation differently from those who adopt more individualistic frameworks. Beth Reingold, Kerry Haynie, and Kirsten Widner provide an intersectional analysis of women’s state legislative behavior in Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward an Intersectional Approach.49 They challenge single-axis approaches to evaluating women’s representation or women’s issues and instead evaluate the ways in which legislators advocate for various types of group interests in agenda-setting and advocacy. Drawing on data from 15 states in 1997 and 2005, they find that Black and Latina women legislators are especially active in bill sponsorship and policy leadership across multiple and intersecting group interests.50

Some scholars have delved more deeply into intersectional representation within specific states. Nadia Brown’s in-depth study on Black women legislators provides even more evidence of the ways in which Black women navigate their identities to shape legislative agendas, debates, and outcomes.51 Matthews and colleagues examined legislative behavior in the Texas House of Representatives from 1993 to 2019, finding that white women and women of color showed diverse co-sponsorship patterns, but these distinct approaches did not translate into higher success rates for either group. This suggests that while women from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups may legislate differently – potentially reflecting their embedded community orientations and intersectional constituencies – institutional barriers or majority dynamics can prevent these distinctive approaches from yielding greater policy achievements.52 

A recent study found that pink-collar representation among state legislators, meaning women from traditionally female-dominated occupations, is associated with increased spending on education and social services, suggesting that occupational socialization shapes policy priorities in ways that intersect with gender.53 The positive relationship between women’s representation and increased expenditures for social service programs is also evident at the local level.54 Examining budget outcomes at the county level, Markie McBrayer and Robert Lucas Williams found that women’s distinct impact is conditional on structural opportunities; electing women has positive effects on welfare expenditures under commission forms of county government – where individual commissioners have more direct authority over particular policy domains – and when the county receives a greater proportion of revenue from higher levels of government.55

Laine Shay and Beth Rauhaus examine whether women's representation in state legislatures affects gender inequality in the labor market, specifically the gender wage gap. While not a direct measure of policy choices in the same way as budget allocation, the gender wage gap reflects the cumulative effect of state policies on labor markets, anti-discrimination enforcement, family leave, childcare support, and numerous other factors that shape women's economic opportunities. They found that greater representation of women in state legislatures – Democratic and Republican – is significantly associated with a smaller gender wage gap.56 However, another study suggests that partisan control is most influential in achieving this type of gendered outcome; John Kuk and Zoltan Hajnal find that Democratic Party control in state government reduces gender inequality in income, wages, and unemployment.57

Beyond substantive policy, research on state and local governments provide insights on how diversity in legislative composition – specifically the representation of women and racial/ethnic minorities – affects legislatures' capacity for policy innovation. For example, Jack Nickelson and Joshua Jansa found that states with higher proportions of women legislators are significantly more likely than other states to adopt new policies early and to develop unique policy language rather than simply replicating other states' approaches.58 These effects hold true even when controlling for other factors associated with innovation, such as legislative professionalism, per capita income, and citizen ideology.

Leadership Strategies and Styles 

Women legislators demonstrate distinctive patterns of effectiveness and productivity that challenge assumptions about political performance. Mirya Holman and Anna Mahoney found that women state legislators are more productive than men even under term limits, suggesting that their overperformance is not attributable purely to electoral interests or vulnerability.59 Another study analyzed over 140,000 bills across forty state legislators and found that bills with at least one woman cosponsor are significantly more likely to receive a floor vote and to pass; this effect increases when bills have multiple women cosponsors.60 Bills with bipartisan women cosponsors have substantially higher success rates. Consistent with findings at the congressional level, Robert McGrath, Josh Ryan, and Jatia Wrighten document that women in professional legislatures are more effective than men at moving bills through the legislative stages despite receiving less valuable committee assignments.61 Another study on governors showed that women governors were more likely than men to enact the policies they proposed in their State of the State addresses.62

The relationship between state and local women officeholders and their constituents reveals both enhanced responsiveness and gendered expectations that create additional burdens. Beyond explicit policy outcomes, one study found that public meetings are more inclusive and garner higher levels of citizen participation in cities with women mayors.63 Another study found that women state legislators receive 14% more issue requests from constituents than their male counterparts, providing additional evidence that constituents might view women as more accessible or more likely to respond.64 And they are correct. Nichole Bauer and Ivy Cargile found that women state lawmakers were more responsive to constituent communication and were more likely to display compassion and empathy than men, with these patterns particularly pronounced among white women legislators.65 Danielle Thomsen and Bailey Sanders also found that women state legislators were more responsive to constituent requests than men.66 However, Mia Costa identifies a troubling "double bind" in constituent communication: female legislators are punished by even the least sexist respondents when they delay responses, indicating that the same responsiveness that advantages women also exposes them to harsher standards and penalties when they cannot meet heightened constituent expectations.67 This pattern reveals how gendered assumptions about women's nurturing and accessible nature create both opportunities for connection and unequal standards that women legislators must navigate.

Symbolic Representation

One of the most important symbolic functions of descriptive representation is its potential to enhance citizens' sense of political efficacy — their belief that government is responsive to people like them and that they can influence political outcomes. 

Katelyn Stauffer's research demonstrates that what matters for citizens' political attitudes is not necessarily the actual level of women's representation in legislatures but rather citizens' perceptions of that representation.68 Her central finding is that believing women are well-represented in Congress and state legislatures is significantly associated with higher levels of external efficacy — people’s sense that these institutions are responsive to people like them. This finding has been replicated in another study which also showed that this pattern extends to race: Americans who believe more Black people serve in their legislature also believe their legislature is more responsive.69 Other studies have investigated the relationship between women’s actual descriptive representation and women’s political engagement and ambition. For example, Christina Ladam, Jeffrey Harden, and Jason Windett found that the presence of women in high-profile offices of governor and senator had a positive effect on women’s emergence as state legislative candidates in the same state.70 While state legislative and municipal offices are often less visible to average citizens and are thus less often the focus of studies measuring symbolic effects, the potential for women officeholders to inspire engagement across levels of office is evident.

These findings suggest that diversifying institutions produces broad symbolic benefits, not just narrow group-specific advantages. This may help build broader coalitions supporting efforts to increase descriptive representation, as such efforts can be framed as improving governance and responsiveness for everyone, not just for underrepresented groups.

Violence against Women in Politics

The prevalence of abuse against women in political office represents a pervasive and underrecognized barrier to women's full participation in democratic governance. Moreover, a number of studies have documented that women in local and state face unprecedented levels of violence.71 In their survey of state senators, Rebekah Herrick and Sue Thomas found that 84% reported experiencing psychological abuse, with women more likely to face physical violence, particularly those in leadership positions.72 They also surveyed mayors and found that women of color mayors face the highest levels of raced and gendered violence, while non-Hispanic white women face more psychological violence, revealing how intersecting identities shape both the type and intensity of abuse experienced.73 Looking at mayors more broadly, they found that 83% experienced psychological abuse, with women more likely than men to experience most types of abuse.74 These consistently high rates of violence and abuse across different offices and levels of government indicate that political violence and harassment against women officeholders is not isolated to particular contexts but rather represents a systematic pattern that threatens women's ability to serve effectively and may deter future candidates from seeking office.

Institutional factors shape both the prevalence of abuse and the overall climate for women legislators, though these effects are complex and sometimes counterintuitive. Rebekah Herrick, Sue Thomas, and Kate Bartholomy found that women state senators reported facing more aggression from colleagues in state senates with higher percentages of women or where women’s representation was tending upward, suggesting a backlash dynamic where increased women's representation paradoxically triggers more hostility from male colleagues who may feel threatened by changing power dynamics.75 This troubling finding indicates that simply increasing women's numbers does not automatically improve their experience and may initially worsen conditions as institutions adjust to new gender compositions. 

CAWP’s recent research on women’s political power within states provides some evidence of this backlash and the durability of old boys’ networks in state political ecosystems.76 Interviews with women political leaders in Nevada – where women achieved majority status in the state legislature – about the persistence of sexism and racism within and beyond the legislature offer the clearest evidence that increasing the number of women in office does not eliminate gendered and intersectional dynamics within political institutions that have long advantaged white people and men. At the same time, case studies of the Nevada Legislature optimistically show the potential for women to create a more welcoming environment, promote women’s recruitment and leadership, increase focus on women's issues, and promote the normalization of gender parity in government.77 To ensure more of these positive results, the work must continue to monitor and address violence, abuse, and other hurdles to women running for, winning, and serving in state and local office. 

Suggested Citation: Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Paru Shah. 2026. CAWP Research Inventory on Gender & Politics. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Endnotes 

1 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Levels of Office.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/

2 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Local.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/local 

3 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature

4 Dittmar, Kelly. 2025. “State Legislatures: Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” In Women in Election 2024: Stalled Progress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2024-report/state-legislatures/#racial-and-ethnic-diversity

5 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Statewide Elective Executive.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/statewide-elective-executive

6 Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/

7 CAWP. “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature

8 Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don't. New York, NY: New York University Press.

9 Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge. 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94.

10 Dittmar 2023

11 Kreitzer, Rebecca, and Tracy Osborn. 2020. “Women Candidate Recruitment Groups in the States.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 183–192. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Dittmar 2023

12 Bernhard, Rachel I., Shauna L. Shames, Rachel Silbermann, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2020. “Who Runs? Data from Women Trained as Candidates.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 30–40. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Bernhard, Rachel, Shauna Shames, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2021. “To Emerge? Breadwinning, Motherhood, and Women’s Decisions to Run for Office.” American Political Science Review 115 (2): 379–94; Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dittmar 2023

13 Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

14 Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2025. It Takes More Than a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

15 Pettey, Samantha. 2018. “Female Candidate Emergence and Term Limits: A State-Level Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 318–29.

16 Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Gathoni Kimondo. 2025. “When Women Run: Explaining the Emergence of Women State Legislative Candidates.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 31 (4): 1061–76.

17 Colner, Jonathan. 2025. "Running Toward Rankings: Ranked Choice Voting's Impact on Candidate Entry and Descriptive Representation." American Journal of Political Science 69 (3): 1010–28.

18 RepresentWomen. 2026. “Ranked Choice Voting.” https://www.representwomen.org/ranked_choice_voting_rcv

19 Krebs, Timothy B., and John K. Wagner. 2023. "Women and Local Politics: How Different Offices Affect Female Candidacies." Political Research Quarterly 76 (3): 1293–308; Swain, Katie E. O., and Pei-te Lien. 2017. “Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (2): 128–50.

20 Jeydel, Alana, and William R. Wilkerson. 2025. "Why Aren’t More Women on the Gubernatorial Ballot?" Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (2): 346–67.

21 Jeydel and Wilkerson 2025

22 Bernhard, Rachel, and Mirya R. Holman. 2025. Gendered Jobs and Local Leaders: Women, Work, and the Pipeline to Local Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Bonica, Adam. 2020. “Why Are There So Many Lawyers in Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 45 (2): 253–89; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Manning, Jennifer E. 2025. Membership of the 119th Congress: A Profile, Report R48535, August 4. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48535#ifn13

23 Bernhard and Holman 2025; Thomsen, Danielle M., and Aaron S. King. 2020. “Women’s Representation and the Gendered Pipeline to Power.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 989–1000.

24 Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislature. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/poisedtorun_0.pdf; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

25 Manning 2025 

26 Smith, Adrienne R., Beth Reingold, and Michael Leo Owens. 2012. “The Political Determinants of Women’s Descriptive Representation in Cities.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 315–29.

27 Smith, Reingold, and Owens 2012

28 Scola, Becki. 2015. Gender, Race, and Office Holding in the United States: Representation at the Intersections. New York, NY: Routledge.

29 Pyeatt, Nicholas, and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2021. "Gender, Entry, and Victory in State Legislative Primary Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 42 (4): 352–68. For discussion of “women-friendly” districts, see Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. 2012. Women and Congressional Elections: A Century of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

30 Swain and Lein 2017

31 Trounstine, Jessica, and Melody E. Valdini. 2008. “The Context Matters: The Effects of Single-Member versus At-Large Districts on City Council Diversity.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 554–69.

32 Crowder-Meyer, Melody, Shana Kushner Gadarian, and Jessica Trounstine. 2015. “Electoral Institutions, Gender Stereotypes, and Women’s Local Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3 (2): 318–34. 

33 Windett, Jason. 2014. "Differing Paths to the Top: Gender, Ambition, and Running for Governor." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (4): 287–314.

34 Fahey, Kevin, Nicholas Pyeatt, and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2025. "Strategic Candidates and Sacrificial Lambs?: An Exploration of Gender and Race in State Executive Elections." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 25 (3): 325–47.

35 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2015. “Why Not a Woman of Color? The Candidacies of US Women of Color for Statewide Executive Office.” In Oxford Handbook Topics in Politics, online edition, April 13. Oxford Academic. 

36 Dittmar, Kelly. 2019. “Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are Running Dual Campaigns.” CNN, September 2. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/02/opinions/women-candidates-electibility-burden-dittmar

37 Hicks, Heather M. 2022. "Intersectional Stereotyping in Media Coverage: The Case of Stacey Abrams Versus Stacey Evans in Georgia." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (1): 95–106. 

38 Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Kathleen Rogers, and Claire Gothreau. 2020. The Money Hurdle in the Race for Governor. Individual Contributors, 2000-2018. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2021-12/cawp_money_politics_race-for-governor_a11y.pdf

39 Sanbonmatsu, Rogers, and Gothreau et al. 2020 

40 Martin, Joesten Danielle, and Meredith Conroy. 2024. "Female Candidates’ Incumbency and Quality (Dis)Advantage in Local Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 45 (3): 335–49.

41 Anzia, Sarah F., and Rachel Bernhard. 2022. “Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 52: 1544–63.

42 Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

43 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2001. Women State Legislators: Past, Present and Future. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/stlegpastpresentfuture.pdf; Dodson, Debra L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. 

44 Holman, Mirya R. 2015. Women in Politics in the American City. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

45 Heidbreder, Brianne, and Katherine Felix Scheurer. 2013. “Gender and the Gubernatorial Agenda.” State and Local Government Review 45 (1): 3–13.

46 Osborn 2012

47 Reingold, Beth, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Tracy Osborn, and Michele L. Swers. 2021. "Anti-abortion Policymaking and Women’s Representation." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 403–20.

48 Phillips, Christian Dyogi, Paru Shah, and Patrick Vossler. 2022. "Immigrants, Intersectionality and the Politics of Substantive Representation." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (1): 64–81.

49 Reingold, Beth, Kerry Lee Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2021. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

50 Reingold, Haynie, and Widner 2021

51 Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

52 Matthews, Abigail A., Tracy Osborn, Emily U. Schilling, and Rebecca Kreitzer. 2025. "Legislative Success and Collaboration in the Texas State House." Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (1): 159–81.

53 Barnes, Tiffany D., Victoria D. Beall, and Mirya R. Holman. 2021. "Pink-Collar Representation and Budgetary Outcomes in US States." Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 119–54.

54 Holman 2015; Smith, Adrienne R. 2014. “Cities Where Women Rule: Female Political Incorporation and the Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funding.” Politics & Gender 10 (3): 313–40. 

55 McBrayer, Markie, and Robert Lucas Williams. 2023. "The Second Sex in the Second District: The Policy Effects of Electing Women to County Government." Political Research Quarterly 76 (2): 825–40.

56 Shay, Laine P., and Beth M. Rauhaus. 2023. "Closing the Gap: An Analysis of Women's Representation in State Legislatures and the Gender Pay Gap." Legislative Studies Quarterly 48 (4): 897–911.

57 Kuk, John, and Zoltan Hajnal. 2021. "Democratic Party Control Reduces Gender Inequality." Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 155–88.

58 Nickelson, Jack, and Joshua M. Jansa. 2023. "Descriptive Representation and Innovation in American Legislatures." Political Research Quarterly 76 (4): 2018–35.

59 Holman, Mirya R., and Anna Mitchell Mahoney. 2023. "Take (Her) to the Limit: Term Limits Do Not Diminish Women's Overperformance in Legislative Office." Legislative Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 681–94.

60 Holman, Mirya R., Anna Mahoney, and Emma Hurler. 2022. "Let’s Work Together: Bill Success via Women’s Cosponsorship in U.S. State Legislatures." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 676–90.

61 McGrath, Robert J., Josh Ryan, and Jatia Wrighten. 2025. "High Hurdles: Legislative Professionalism and the Effectiveness of Women State Legislators." The Journal of Politics (Online): 1–64.

62 Alaimo, Kara. 2025. “Women Governors in the United States Use More Communal Language than Male Governors in their State of the State Addresses and Tweets and Achieve Greater Policy Success.” Communication and the Public 10 (3): 197–210.

63 Holman 2015

64 Butler, Daniel M., Elin Naurin, and Patrik Öhberg. 2022. "Constituents Ask Female Legislators to Do More." The Journal of Politics 84 (4): 2278–82.

65 Bauer, Nichole M., and Ivy A.M. Cargile. 2023. "Women Get the Job Done: Differences in Constituent Communication from Female and Male Lawmakers." Politics & Gender 19 (4): 1110–33.

66 Thomsen, Danielle M., and Bailey K. Sanders. 2020. “Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness.” Perspectives on Politics 18 (4): 1017–30. 

67 Costa, Mia. 2021. "He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator-Constituent Communication." Politics & Gender 17 (4): 528–51.

68 Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2021. "Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1226–41; Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2025. The Politics of Perception How Beliefs about Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

69 Clark, Christopher J., and Steven Rogers. 2025. "Public Perceptions of Minority Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy: A Replication, Validation, and Extension." American Political Science Review 119 (4): 2019–26. 

70 Ladam, Christina, Jeffrey J. Harden, and Jason H. Windett. 2018. "Prominent Role Models: High‐Profile Female Politicians and the Emergence of Women as Candidates for Public Office." American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 369–81.

71 Ramachandran, Gowri, Chisun Lee, Maya Kornberg, Kimberly Peeler-Allen, Ruby Edlin, Julia Fishman, Jiyoon Park, and Grady Yuthok Short. 2024. Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders. Brennan Center for Justice, January 25. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/intimidation-state-and-local-officeholders 

72 Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2022. "Not Just Sticks and Stones: Psychological Abuse and Physical Violence among U.S. State Senators." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 422–47. 

73 Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2023. "An Intersectional Exploration of Psychological Violence, Threats, and Physical Violence of Mayors in 2021." American Politics Research 52 (3): 264–78.

74 Herrick, Rebekah, Sue Thomas, Lori Franklin, Marcia L. Godwin, Eveline Gnabasik, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2021. "Physical Violence and Psychological Abuse Against Female and Male Mayors in the United States." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (4): 681–98.

75 Herrick, Rebekah, Sue Thomas, and Kate Bartholomy. 2022. "Gender, Power, and Colleague Aggression in U.S. State Senates." Political Research Quarterly 75 (1): 134–46. 

76 Dittmar 2023

77 Dittmar 2023; Haynes, Noah, and Jordan Butcher. 2025. "‘Stronger:’ Learning From Nevada's Women-Led Legislative Majority." Legislative Studies Quarterly 50 (3): 1–11; Sweet-Cushman, Jennie, Rebecca Gill, and Christopher Zorn. 2025. "Legislating in the First Female Majority State Legislature: Gendered Power, Leadership, and Patterns of Sponsorship and Cosponsorship." Political Research Quarterly 78 (3): 1045–59. 

  • 1

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Levels of Office.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/

     

  • 2

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Local.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/local 

  • 3

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature

  • 4

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2025. “State Legislatures: Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” In Women in Election 2024: Stalled Progress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2024-report/state-legislatures/#racial-and-ethnic-diversity

  • 5

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Statewide Elective Executive.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/statewide-elective-executive 

  • 6

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/

  • 7

    CAWP. “State Legislature.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/state-legislature 

  • 8

    Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don't. New York, NY: New York University Press.

  • 9

    Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge. 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94.

  • 10

    Dittmar 2023

  • 11

    Kreitzer, Rebecca, and Tracy Osborn. 2020. “Women Candidate Recruitment Groups in the States.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 183–192. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Dittmar 2023

  • 12

    Bernhard, Rachel I., Shauna L. Shames, Rachel Silbermann, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2020. “Who Runs? Data from Women Trained as Candidates.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 30–40. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; Bernhard, Rachel, Shauna Shames, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2021. “To Emerge? Breadwinning, Motherhood, and Women’s Decisions to Run for Office.” American Political Science Review 115 (2): 379–94; Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dittmar 2023

  • 13

    Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

  • 14

    Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2025. It Takes More Than a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

  • 15

    Pettey, Samantha. 2018. “Female Candidate Emergence and Term Limits: A State-Level Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 318–29.

  • 16

    Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Gathoni Kimondo. 2025. “When Women Run: Explaining the Emergence of Women State Legislative Candidates.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 31 (4): 1061–76.

  • 17

    Colner, Jonathan. 2025. "Running Toward Rankings: Ranked Choice Voting's Impact on Candidate Entry and Descriptive Representation." American Journal of Political Science 69 (3): 1010–28.

  • 18

    RepresentWomen. 2026. “Ranked Choice Voting.” https://www.representwomen.org/ranked_choice_voting_rcv

  • 19

    Krebs, Timothy B., and John K. Wagner. 2023. "Women and Local Politics: How Different Offices Affect Female Candidacies." Political Research Quarterly 76 (3): 1293–308; Swain, Katie E. O., and Pei-te Lien. 2017. “Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (2): 128–50.

  • 20

    Jeydel, Alana, and William R. Wilkerson. 2025. "Why Aren’t More Women on the Gubernatorial Ballot?" Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (2): 346–67.

  • 21

    Jeydel and Wilkerson 2025

  • 22

    Bernhard, Rachel, and Mirya R. Holman. 2025. Gendered Jobs and Local Leaders: Women, Work, and the Pipeline to Local Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Bonica, Adam. 2020. “Why Are There So Many Lawyers in Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 45 (2): 253–89; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Manning, Jennifer E. 2025. Membership of the 119th Congress: A Profile, Report R48535, August 4. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48535#ifn13

  • 23

    Bernhard and Holman 2025; Thomsen, Danielle M., and Aaron S. King. 2020. “Women’s Representation and the Gendered Pipeline to Power.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 989–1000.

  • 24

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislature. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/poisedtorun_0.pdf; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

  • 25

    Manning 2025 

  • 26

    Smith, Adrienne R., Beth Reingold, and Michael Leo Owens. 2012. “The Political Determinants of Women’s Descriptive Representation in Cities.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 315–29.

  • 27

    Smith, Reingold, and Owens 2012

  • 28

    Scola, Becki. 2015. Gender, Race, and Office Holding in the United States: Representation at the Intersections. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • 29

    Pyeatt, Nicholas, and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2021. "Gender, Entry, and Victory in State Legislative Primary Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 42 (4): 352–68. For discussion of “women-friendly” districts, see Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. 2012. Women and Congressional Elections: A Century of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

  • 30

    Swain and Lein 2017

  • 31

    Trounstine, Jessica, and Melody E. Valdini. 2008. “The Context Matters: The Effects of Single-Member versus At-Large Districts on City Council Diversity.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 554–69.

  • 32

    Crowder-Meyer, Melody, Shana Kushner Gadarian, and Jessica Trounstine. 2015. “Electoral Institutions, Gender Stereotypes, and Women’s Local Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3 (2): 318–34. 

  • 33

    Windett, Jason. 2014. "Differing Paths to the Top: Gender, Ambition, and Running for Governor." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (4): 287–314.

  • 34

    Fahey, Kevin, Nicholas Pyeatt, and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2025. "Strategic Candidates and Sacrificial Lambs?: An Exploration of Gender and Race in State Executive Elections." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 25 (3): 325–47.

  • 35

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2015. “Why Not a Woman of Color? The Candidacies of US Women of Color for Statewide Executive Office.” In Oxford Handbook Topics in Politics, online edition, April 13. Oxford Academic.

  • 36

    Dittmar, Kelly. 2019. “Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are Running Dual Campaigns.” CNN, September 2. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/02/opinions/women-candidates-electibility-burden-dittmar

  • 37

    Hicks, Heather M. 2022. "Intersectional Stereotyping in Media Coverage: The Case of Stacey Abrams Versus Stacey Evans in Georgia." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (1): 95–106.  

  • 38

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Kathleen Rogers, and Claire Gothreau. 2020. The Money Hurdle in the Race for Governor. Individual Contributors, 2000-2018. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2021-12/cawp_money_politics_race-for-governor_a11y.pdf

  • 39

    Sanbonmatsu, Rogers, and Gothreau et al. 2020

  • 40

    Martin, Joesten Danielle, and Meredith Conroy. 2024. "Female Candidates’ Incumbency and Quality (Dis)Advantage in Local Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 45 (3): 335–49.

  • 41

    Anzia, Sarah F., and Rachel Bernhard. 2022. “Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 52: 1544–63.

  • 42

    Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender, and Representation in the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 43

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2001. Women State Legislators: Past, Present and Future. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/stlegpastpresentfuture.pdf; Dodson, Debra L., and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. 

  • 44

    Holman, Mirya R. 2015. Women in Politics in the American City. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

  • 45

    Heidbreder, Brianne, and Katherine Felix Scheurer. 2013. “Gender and the Gubernatorial Agenda.” State and Local Government Review 45 (1): 3–13.

  • 46

    Osborn 2012

  • 47

    Reingold, Beth, Rebecca J. Kreitzer, Tracy Osborn, and Michele L. Swers. 2021. "Anti-abortion Policymaking and Women’s Representation." Political Research Quarterly 74 (2): 403–20.

  • 48

    Phillips, Christian Dyogi, Paru Shah, and Patrick Vossler. 2022. "Immigrants, Intersectionality and the Politics of Substantive Representation." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (1): 64–81.

  • 49

    Reingold, Beth, Kerry Lee Haynie, and Kirsten Widner. 2021. Race, Gender, and Political Representation: Toward a More Intersectional Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 50

    Reingold, Haynie, and Widner 2021

  • 51

    Brown, Nadia. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 52

    Matthews, Abigail A., Tracy Osborn, Emily U. Schilling, and Rebecca Kreitzer. 2025. "Legislative Success and Collaboration in the Texas State House." Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (1): 159–81.

  • 53

    Barnes, Tiffany D., Victoria D. Beall, and Mirya R. Holman. 2021. "Pink-Collar Representation and Budgetary Outcomes in US States." Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 119–54.

  • 54

    Holman 2015; Smith, Adrienne R. 2014. “Cities Where Women Rule: Female Political Incorporation and the Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funding.” Politics & Gender 10 (3): 313–40. 

  • 55

    McBrayer, Markie, and Robert Lucas Williams. 2023. "The Second Sex in the Second District: The Policy Effects of Electing Women to County Government." Political Research Quarterly 76 (2): 825–40.

  • 56

    Shay, Laine P., and Beth M. Rauhaus. 2023. "Closing the Gap: An Analysis of Women's Representation in State Legislatures and the Gender Pay Gap." Legislative Studies Quarterly 48 (4): 897–911.

  • 57

    Kuk, John, and Zoltan Hajnal. 2021. "Democratic Party Control Reduces Gender Inequality." Legislative Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 155–88.

  • 58

    Nickelson, Jack, and Joshua M. Jansa. 2023. "Descriptive Representation and Innovation in American Legislatures." Political Research Quarterly 76 (4): 2018–35.

  • 59

    Holman, Mirya R., and Anna Mitchell Mahoney. 2023. "Take (Her) to the Limit: Term Limits Do Not Diminish Women's Overperformance in Legislative Office." Legislative Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 681–94.

  • 60

    Holman, Mirya R., Anna Mahoney, and Emma Hurler. 2022. "Let’s Work Together: Bill Success via Women’s Cosponsorship in U.S. State Legislatures." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 676–90.

  • 61

    McGrath, Robert J., Josh Ryan, and Jatia Wrighten. 2025. "High Hurdles: Legislative Professionalism and the Effectiveness of Women State Legislators." The Journal of Politics (Online): 1-64.

  • 62

    Alaimo, Kara. 2025. “Women Governors in the United States Use More Communal Language than Male Governors in their State of the State Addresses and Tweets and Achieve Greater Policy Success.” Communication and the Public 10 (3): 197–210.

  • 63

    Holman 2015

  • 64

    Butler, Daniel M., Elin Naurin, and Patrik Öhberg. 2022. "Constituents Ask Female Legislators to Do More." The Journal of Politics 84 (4): 2278–82.

  • 65

    Bauer, Nichole M., and Ivy A.M. Cargile. 2023. "Women Get the Job Done: Differences in Constituent Communication from Female and Male Lawmakers." Politics & Gender 19 (4): 1110–33.

  • 66

    Thomsen, Danielle M., and Bailey K. Sanders. 2020. “Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness.” Perspectives on Politics 18 (4): 1017–30. 

  • 67

    Costa, Mia. 2021. "He Said, She Said: The Gender Double Bind in Legislator-Constituent Communication." Politics & Gender 17 (4): 528–51.

  • 68

    Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2021. "Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1226–41; Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2025. The Politics of Perception How Beliefs about Women's Inclusion Shape Democratic Legitimacy in the US. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

  • 69

    Clark, Christopher J., and Steven Rogers. 2025. "Public Perceptions of Minority Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy: A Replication, Validation, and Extension." American Political Science Review 119 (4): 2019–26.

  • 70

    Ladam, Christina, Jeffrey J. Harden, and Jason H. Windett. 2018. "Prominent Role Models: High‐Profile Female Politicians and the Emergence of Women as Candidates for Public Office." American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 369–81.

  • 71

    Ramachandran, Gowri, Chisun Lee, Maya Kornberg, Kimberly Peeler-Allen, Ruby Edlin, Julia Fishman, Jiyoon Park, and Grady Yuthok Short. 2024. Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders. Brennan Center for Justice, January 25. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/intimidation-state-and-local-officeholders 

  • 72

    Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2022. "Not Just Sticks and Stones: Psychological Abuse and Physical Violence among U.S. State Senators." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 422–47. 

  • 73

    Herrick, Rebekah, and Sue Thomas. 2023. "An Intersectional Exploration of Psychological Violence, Threats, and Physical Violence of Mayors in 2021." American Politics Research 52 (3): 264–78.

  • 74

    Herrick, Rebekah, Sue Thomas, Lori Franklin, Marcia L. Godwin, Eveline Gnabasik, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2021. "Physical Violence and Psychological Abuse Against Female and Male Mayors in the United States." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (4): 681–98.

  • 75

    Herrick, Rebekah, Sue Thomas, and Kate Bartholomy. 2022. "Gender, Power, and Colleague Aggression in U.S. State Senates." Political Research Quarterly 75 (1): 134–46. 

  • 76

    Dittmar 2023

  • 77

    Dittmar 2023; Haynes, Noah, and Jordan Butcher. 2025. "‘Stronger:’ Learning From Nevada's Women-Led Legislative Majority." Legislative Studies Quarterly 50 (3): 1–11; Sweet-Cushman, Jennie, Rebecca Gill, and Christopher Zorn. 2025. "Legislating in the First Female Majority State Legislature: Gendered Power, Leadership, and Patterns of Sponsorship and Cosponsorship." Political Research Quarterly 78 (3): 1045–59.