Studies in American Political Development, page 1 of 19, 2020. ISSN 0898-588X/20 doi:10.1017/S0898588X19000166 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press From Personal to Partisan: Abortion, Party, and Religion Among California State Legislators David Karol, Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland Chloe N. Thurston, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University The parties’ polarization on abortion is a signal development. Yet while the issue has been much discussed, schol- ars have said less about how it reveals the unstable relationship between legislators’ personal backgrounds and their issue positions. We argue that the importance of personal characteristics may wane as links between parties and interest groups develop. We focus on the case of abortion in the California State Assembly—one of the first legis- lative bodies to wrestle with the issue in modern times. Drawing from newly collected evidence on legislator and district religion and Assembly voting, we show that divisions on abortion were chiefly religious in the 1960s— with Catholics in both parties opposing reform—but later became highly partisan. This shift was distinct from overall polarization and was not a result of district-level factors or “sorting” of legislators by religion into parties. Instead, growing ties between new movements and parties—feminists for Democrats and the Christian Right for the Republicans—made party affiliation supplant religion as the leading cue for legislators on abortion, impelling many incumbents to revise their positions. Archival and secondary evidence further show that activists sent new cues to legislators about the importance of their positions on these issues. Showing how personal character- istics became outweighed by partisan considerations contributes to understanding of party position change and polarization, as well as processes of representation and abortion politics. INTRODUCTION legislators’ personal characteristics, district demo- graphics, and abortion-related roll calls, as well as Many studies have shown that legislators’ personal archival and secondary evidence of group mobiliza- characteristics and backgrounds may affect their tion, we show that, at first, legislators split more stands on issues. Yet, are these relationships stable, or along denominational lines than partisan ones, with do they vary over the history of an issue? If the latter, Catholics in both parties opposing abortion while then why? And if there is change, is it evident among Protestants and others were more supportive of incumbents, or does it stem from their replacement reform. Gradually the divide became a partisan one. by a new generation? We argue that when an issue is While the Assembly polarized more generally in this new on the agenda, legislators’ votes may be informed era, the realignment on abortion was distinctive, as by their personal backgrounds. Over time, however, we show via a comparison to labor issues that had changes in party coalitions may alter legislators’ incen- long been on the legislature’s agenda. Our analysis tives, leading them to follow a party cue instead. These finds little evidence that district-level factors or incentives will lead some incumbents to adapt, permit- “sorting” of legislators by religion into party caucuses ting rapid change in a party’sstands. produced this change. Moreover, polling over this Our empirical focus is on the case of abortion in period reveals that mass-level shifts in religious and California. We examine voting on abortion laws in party alignments on abortion postdated changes in the California State Assembly as the issue moved the Assembly. Instead, we argue that growing ties from cross-cutting to partisan in the late twentieth between new movements and parties—feminists for century. Drawing from an original data set including Democrats and the Christian Right for the GOP— helped party supplant religion as the chief cue for legislators on abortion, leading incumbents to take E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] new stands on the issue. 1 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Maryland College Park, on 10 Mar 2020 at 12:07:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X19000166 2 DAVID KAROL AND CHLOE N. THURSTON Our findings have implications for multiple audien- offers an important window into this process, given ces. First, they speak to a growing literature that posits that many issues first arise in the states. This was cer- groups and movements as important shapers of tainly the case for abortion, arguably the most import- parties’ issue commitments over time, but has been ant issue in the unraveling of the New Deal coalition less attentive to the potential for personal factors to other than race.5 shape politicians’ pre-polarized stance.1 While schol- The remainder of this article proceeds as follows. ars have characterized polarization as a shift from In the next section, we review literature on party pos- district to party cues, our analysis suggests that polar- ition change and representation, discussing the cir- ization may be at times more accurately described as cumstances under which legislators’ votes may be a a shift from personal to party cues. Moreover, by high- product of their personal background and when lighting the dynamic interplay between legislators’ per- they may stem from other factors. We then present sonal characteristics, party coalitions, and position the case of California, where the abortion liberaliza- taking, we also contribute to scholarship on represen- tion movement first began in 1959, and where legisla- tation. When issues are new to the agenda or other- tion legalizing abortion passed years before the issue wise “uncrystallized,” legislators may have more reached the national stage. After describing the evolu- leeway to vote according to personal background char- tion of the abortion controversy and its relationship to acteristics.2 This may wane over time as groups and groups and parties, which draws predominantly from parties begin to send clearer signals to legislators archival and secondary sources, we then present a about their policy positions. Finally, our focus on Cali- series of analyses of an original data set to further fornia brings the study of party position change to the probe the relationship between party, personal back- state level. While there has been a renewed debate in ground characteristics, and voting over time. We recent years among political scientists trying to under- show that the issue became increasingly partisan, stand polarization and public opinion at the state including among long-serving incumbents, while reli- level,3 states have generally been understudied by stu- gious affiliation lost predictive power. We conclude by dents of party position change, with the exception of a discussing broader implications and potential exten- small number of race-focused American political sions of our findings. development studies.4 We believe that a state focus A DYNAMIC VIEW OF PERSONAL COMMITMENTS AND 1. See, for example, David Karol, Party Position Change in Ameri- PARTISAN VOTING can Politics: Coalition Management (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Kathleen Bawn, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Seth “ Scholars have long seen party and constituency as key Masket, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, A Theory of Political ’ Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American determinants of politicians policy stands. When Politics,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 3 (2012): 571–97; Jacob issues turn from cross-cutting to partisan, some S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, “After the ‘Master Theory’: Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis,” Per- spectives on Politics 12, no. 3 (2014): 643–62; Katherine Krimmel, 5. For scholars of abortion policy, the state is hardly a new “The Efficiencies and Pathologies of Special Interest Partisanship,” arena. Yet our focus on the states departs from many of these Studies in American Political Development 31 (2017): 149–69; Daniel earlier studies. First, many examine policymaking over one Schlozman, When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in period, focusing on cross-sectional analysis of roll calls. Others American History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015); examine policymaking over a longer time horizon, but make Christopher Baylor, First to the Party: The Group Origins of Political states the unit of analysis; this is key for understanding state-level Transformation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, legislative characteristics that might matter, for example, the 2017). effect of partisan control or gender makeup of the legislative 2. Jane Mansbridge, “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and branch, or overall public opinion. Yet it tells us less about how pos- Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics ition taking on the issue may vary over time for members of the 61, no. 3 (1999): 628–57. legislature. See, for example, Rebecca Kreitzer, “Politics and Moral- 3. Devin Caughey and Christopher Warshaw, “Policy Preferen- ity in State Abortion Policy,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15, no. 1 ces and Policy Change: Dynamic Responsiveness in the American (2015): 41–66; Michael Berkman and Robert O’Connor, “Do States, 1936–2014,” American Political Science Review 112, no. 2 Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and