Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:13:59.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a New Measure of State-Level LGBT Interest Group Strength

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jami K. Taylor ,
Donald P. Haider-Markel Open the ORCID record for Donald P. Haider-Markel [Opens in a new window]  and
Benjamin Rogers
Jami K. Taylor
Affiliation:
The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA
Donald P. Haider-Markel*
Affiliation:
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Benjamin Rogers
Affiliation:
Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA, USA
*
Donald P. Haider-Markel, Department of Political Science, The University of Kansas, 1541 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attempts to assess the influence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups on LGBT-related policy are hampered by imprecise measurement of LGBT group strength and activity. This research note examines the problems with existing measures of state-level LGBT advocacy strength and it develops an alternative measure of LGBT advocacy group strength. We utilize revenue and asset data available from the National Center for Charitable Statistics to develop better and reproducible state-level measures of LGBT interest group strength on an annual basis. We compare our measures to existing measures and demonstrate their utility for the ongoing study of LGBT politics. The approach used in construction of our measure can be extended over time, is replicable in other issue areas, and thus has broad utility for the study of interest groups at the subnational level.

Keywords

state policyLGBT rightsgay rightsinterest groupsmeasurement
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 334 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, Mahalley, Pettus, Carrie, and Haider-Markel, Donald P.. 2004. “Making the National Local: Specifying the Conditions for National Government Influence on State Policymaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4 (3): 318–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballotpedia. 2018. “States.” (accessed January 29, 2018).Google Scholar
Barclay, Scott, and Fisher, Shauna. 2003. “The States and the Differing Impetus for Divergent Paths on Same-Sex Marriage, 1990-2001.” Policy Studies Journal 31 (3): 331–352. doi:10.1111/1541-0072.00025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barman, Emily. 2013. “Classification Struggles in the Nonprofit Sector: The Formation of the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities, 1969-1987.” Social Science History 37 (1): 103–141.Google Scholar
Berry, William, Ringquist, Evan, Fording, Richard, and Hanson, Russell. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2018. “SA1 Personal Income Summary: Personal Income, Population, per Capita Personal Income.” (accessed January 29, 2018).Google Scholar
Cohn, D'Vera. 2011. “Census Bureau Flaws in Same-Sex Couple Count.” Social & Demographic Trends. Pew Research Center. (accessed March 21, 2014).Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fording, Richard. 2015. “Updated Measures of Citizen and Government Ideology.” (accessed January 24, 2018).Google Scholar
Gates, Gary. 2017. “Vermont Leads States in LGBT Identification.” Gallup News, February. (accessed January 24, 2018).Google Scholar
Gates, Gary, and Newport, Frank. 2013. “Gallup Special Report: New Estimates of the LGBT Population in the United States.” The Williams Institute.“ (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 1997. “Interest Group Survival: Shared Interests versus Competition for Resources.” Journal of Politics 59 (3): 903–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2001. “Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1 (1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2010. Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections, and Policy Representation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Meier, Kenneth J.. 1996. “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of the Conflict.” Journal of Politics 58 (2): 332–349. doi:10.2307/2960229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Meier, Kenneth J.. 2003. “Legislative Victory, Electoral Uncertainty: Explaining Outcomes in the Battles over Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.” Review of Policy Research 20 (4): 671–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, John M. 1985. “The Political Economy of Group Membership.” The American Political Science Review 79 (1): 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campaign, Human Rights. 2016. “2015 State Equality Index.” (accessed January 24, 2018).Google Scholar
Kane, Melinda D. 2003. “Social Movement Policy Success: Decriminalizing State Sodomy Laws, 1969-1998.” Mobilization 8 (3): 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew, Nicholson-Crotty, Sean C., Woods, Neal D., and Bowman, Ann O'M.. 2016. “Policy Diffusion and the Pro-innovation Bias.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (1): 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2009. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Daniel C. 2011. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the U.S. States.” Social Science Quarterly 92 (2): 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Daniel C., and Jacobsmeier, Matthew L.. 2017. “Evaluating Policy Representation with Dynamic MRP Estimates: Direct Democracy and Same-Sex Relationship Policies in the United States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 17 (4): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, Burdett, and Cigler, Allan. 2007. “Introduction: The Changing Nature of Interest Group Politics.” In Interest Group Politics, eds. Cigler, Allan and Loomis, Burdett, 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1–33.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael, and Vergari, Sandra. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” The Journal of Politics 60 (1): 126–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Center for Charitable Statistics. 2008. “How and by Whom Are NTEEs Assigned?”/ (accessed April 28, 2017).Google Scholar
National Center for Charitable Statistics. n.d. “NCCS All Registered Nonprofits Table Wizard.”.Google Scholar
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. 2014. “State Nondiscrimination Laws in the U.S.”:// (accessed January 11, 2018).Google Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S.____(2015).Google Scholar
O'Connell, Martin, and Feliz, Sarah. 2011. “Same-Sex Couple Household Statistics from the 2010 Census.” Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division U.S. Bureau of the Census. (accessed March 21, 2014).Google Scholar
O'Connell, Martin, and Lofquis, Daphne. 2009. “Changes to the American Community Survey between 2007 and 2008 and Their Potential Effect on the Estimates of Same-Sex Couple Households.” U.S. Census Bureau. (accessed March 21, 2014).Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna. 2017. “Free-Riders or Competitive Races? Strategic Interaction across the American States on Tobacco Policy Making.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 17 (3): 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, Pew Research. 2014. “Religious Landscape Study.” (accessed January 24, 2018).Google Scholar
Pollock, Philip. 2009. The Essentials of Political Analysis. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Andrew. 2005. “The End of Gay Culture: Assimilation and its Meaning.” The New Republic, October 24. (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Taylor, Jami, Lewis, Daniel, Jacobsmeier, Matthew, and DiSarro, Brian. 2012. “Content and Complexity in Policy Reinvention and Diffusion: Gay and Transgender-Inclusive Laws against Discrimination.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12 (1): 75–98. doi:10.1177/1532440011433589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, June. 2011. “The Gay Bar: Can It Survive?” Slate, July 1. (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
Tinkleman, Daniel, and Neely, Daniel. 2011. “Some Econometric Issues in Studying Nonprofit Revenue Interactions Using NCCS Data.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40 (4): 751–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States v. Windsor 570 U.S. _____ (2013).Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “Frequently Asked Questions about Same-Sex Partner Households.” (accessed April 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Wald, Kenneth, Button, James, and Rienzo, Barbara. 1996. “The Politics of Gay Rights in American Communities: Explaining Antidiscrimination Ordinances and Policies.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1152–1178. doi:10.2307/2111746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Jack. 1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” American Political Science Review 77 (2): 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, John. 2003. Interest Groups and Congress: Lobbying, Contributions and Influence. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Taylor et al. Supplementary Material

Appendix A

Download Taylor et al. Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 87.1 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Taylor et al. Supplementary Material

Appendix B

Download Taylor et al. Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 24.7 KB