GENDER AND LOCAL POLITICS

Gender and Local Party

Leadership in America
Daniel M. Shea, Allegheny College
Rebecca C. Harris, Washington and Lee University

ABSTRACT. A growing body of literature suggests important gender

differences in the leadership of political institutions. It seems clear, for
instance, that female legislators, especially legislative leaders, approach
their jobs differently than do their male colleagues–and that these differ-
ences have an impact on the policy process. The exploration of gender
differences in party organizations, however, is underdeveloped. This
study, based on a telephone survey of 805 local party leaders, suggests
that many hypotheses regarding gender-based differences cannot be sup-
ported by the data. Yet, important distinctions emerge. Specifically,
women party leaders are much more likely to be found on the West
Coast, to be older and more ideological, to oversee smaller budgets, and to
have a more “responsible” outlook than their male counterparts. This last
point, that female party leaders are quite concerned about policy matters
and the types of candidates party organizations should support, may
have broad ramifications for the future of party politics in the United
States. doi:10.1300/J501v28n01_04 [Article copies available for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, Vol. 28(1) 2006

Available online at http://jwpp.haworthpress.com
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J501v28n01_04 61
62 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

KEYWORDS. Political parties–organization, political parties–leader-

ship, political leadership–women, local politics, gender politics

INTRODUCTION

Extensive research on legislative and organizational leadership has

found important differences in the performance of men and women.
Scholars have found that men and women legislators do things differ-
ently, as well as find different things to do. We are also learning much
more about differences in male and female candidates. The research on
gender difference in party organizations, however, is underdeveloped.
Given the importance that parties have played in helping candidates win
office, and in structuring in-governing activity, this deficiency warrants
attention. Carrie Chapman Catt, an early women’s rights leader, com-
mented that “the only way to get things done is to get them done on the
inside of the political party . . . [Y]ou must move right to the center”
(cited in Burrell 1994, 166). But why, exactly, should we care about
transformation at the party organization level? What difference might
it make if women run party committees and if they are found in only
certain types of communities, and with certain types of party organiza-
tions? Moreover, what difference it would make if women approach
their jobs as party leaders differently than do men?
The history of party politics in America is one of transformation–
adaptation to the changing electoral context. For example, as television
advertisements stripped party activists of their role in delivering mes-
sages to voters, and as campaign consultants took over the job of run-
ning campaigns, party organizations adjusted and reemerged as key
players. Today’s “service-oriented” parties, where resources and advice
flood to otherwise candidate-centered campaigns, demonstrate how
these organizations can respond to contextual adjustments. Another sig-
nificant change has been the feminist movement in American politics.
Have the parties responded? As noted by Burrell, “The women’s move-
ment has been one of the major social and political phenomena of the
past quarter century. If the major parties were not to be marginalized,
they would have to respond . . .” (1994, 165).
One way to gauge if parties have responded to the feminist movement
is to discern the number of women holding leadership positions–a rather
straightforward process of counting state and local chairs. Perhaps, how-
ever, women have taken over state and local party organizations because
they mean less than in the past. In other words, conceivably women have
 Gender and Local Politics 63

simply filled roles no longer deemed important. If this were true, we

might expect women to be found in committees with fewer resources,
with smaller staffs, and in non-competitive areas. Any sort of celebration
about the growing number of party leadership roles given to women
would be tempered. Surely where women lead organizations and the
types of parties they manage is just as important as how many are in
charge.
We might also consider the outlook of women party leaders. One of
the unique features of the American system is the deference afforded state
and local party committees; there are no dictates, no orders coming down
from the top of the party hierarchy. Consequently, scholars have long
noted significant variation from state to state, and from county to county
in goals and types of activities (Mayhew 1986; Cotter et al. 1989; White
and Shea 2004). We might speculate that if women leaders are more ideo-
logical than their male counterparts, for instance, than they might recruit
different kinds of candidates, attract different types of activists, conduct
different campaign activities, and work with different types of ancillary
organizations than would men. On the other hand, if gender-based differ-
ences were minimal, increased numbers of women in control of local par-
ties, while interesting, would prove less significant.
This research, based on a telephone survey of 805 county party leaders,
attempts to discern gender differences. We explore where women are in
charge and how these women approach their job. Findings regarding
where women party leaders are found suggest little variation. That is,
other than a few modest differences, women do not seem to be relegated
to particular types of committees in particular types of communities.
There is no support for the supposition that women have filled a vacuum
in weak organizations. On the other hand, we do find significant variation
in the outlook of male and female party leaders. Women tend to be more
ideological and more “responsible,” suggesting their role in party leader-
ship positions has the potential to alter the nature of our electoral process.

GENDER-BASED DIFFERENCES
IN AMERICAN POLITICS

Extensive research on legislative and organizational leadership has

found important differences between men and women. Kathlene (2001)
explored how congressional committee chairs conducted policy devel-
opment, finding men more instrumental and women more contextual.
Similar studies of female city council members by Abrams Beck (2001)
64 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

and Tolleson-Rinehart (2001) found patterns of inclusiveness and re-

sponsiveness. They suggest that women were more likely to see their
role as delegates, requiring input from all viewpoints, while men saw
their role as trustees, free to formulate policies on their own judgment.
Rosenthal (1998) characterizes this difference in terms of the likelihood
of women to use “collaborative” leadership styles, and Reingold (1996)
describes feminist leadership styles in state legislatures “stressing the
value of compromise, consensus-building, equality, and honesty.” (464)
What do we know about the participation of women in party politics?
As noted above, party politics have been a target of the feminist move-
ment since the very beginning. “Although contemporary feminist[s]
have . . . seen party organizations as something to be overcome, their
activities suggest an acknowledgement of their importance” (Burrell
1994, 166). An exhaustive historical analysis by Freeman (2000) ex-
plored the initial entrance of women into party politics in the first
half of the Twentieth century. Among other things, she chronicles the
difficulties that women faced in local party politics, particularly institu-
tional and social barriers to full participation and efficacy. This echoes
Flammang’s (1997) finding that expressions of women’s citizenship
remained largely non-partisan throughout the late 1950s, but by the
1970s, feminist organizations had moved to become key players in
party organizations.
Apart from historical studies, another branch of research has con-
fronted gender differences in activists, volunteers, and especially conven-
tion delegates. In 1933, Sophonisba Breckinridge conducted an analysis
of female participation in national conventions and national committees
(Breckenridge 1933). Fisher and Whitehead (1944) continued this analy-
sis and discussed the increasing importance of women volunteers in the
party organization, especially in the 1944 election. Jennings and Farah
(1981) interviewed national party delegates from Michigan and found
significant differences in the way men and women perceived the politi-
cal process, particularly in terms of how party policymaking should be-
constructed.
In terms of institutional roles within party organizations, Boneparth
talked with 103 female party workers in Santa Clara County in 1974,
finding that at least one-half of them felt excluded from decision making
on grounds of sex (1977). That same year, Margolis (1980) studied fe-
male party activists in small Connecticut towns, finding that women
tended to be relegated to maintenance functions. Men, on the other hand,
undertook highly visible activities–chores that often stoked their self es-
teem. Fowles, Perkins, and Rinehart (1979) found that gender roles were
 Gender and Local Politics 65

very evident in electoral ambition and party activities. This research was
updated with Sanbonmatsu’s (2002) delegate attitude analysis, which
explored party differences in substantive responsiveness to gender is-
sues. Overall, this strain of research suggests significant gender-based
differences, as least through the 1980s. Women tended to be relegated to
less visible maintenance tasks and to be more liberal on issues such as the
role of government, crime and punishment, and defense policy (see also
Hurwitz and Smithey 1998). We should note, however, that not all schol-
ars have reached similar conclusions regarding the role of women in party
politics. Baer (1993), for instance, argues that parties have become much
more viable in recent years, and that they have become permeable and
receptive to women. “While success in public office-holding has been
marginal, success in political parties has not” (559). This is especially
true, she writes, when women are compared with other traditionally dis-
enfranchised groups, such as blacks and youth.
Another branch of gender-based scholarship has focused on leader-
ship roles within party organizations. Fowlkes, Perkins, and Tolleson-
Rinehart (1979) interviewed local party elites in Atlanta and found that
men and women were employed by the party in different roles: Women
were usually in routine party maintenance roles, attending meetings and
telephoning, while men handled the recruiting and canvassing. Clarke
and Kornberg (1979) interviewed local party leaders in four cities and
found that men and women differ in their positions and goals within the
party. Most recently, Paddock and Paddock (2004) surveyed county
party chairs from across the nation, finding that while there are some
ideological and policy-based differences, overall these differences are
not substantial. They conclude that inter-party ideological differences
are consistent with a growing ideological polarization in American
politics. On the whole, most studies of leaders in positions that require
organizational commitment, such as heading a local party, have not
demonstrated significant gender-based differences (Baer and Bositis
1988; Paddock and Paddock 2004).

BUT ARE LOCAL PARTIES STILL RELEVANT?

While it now seems clear that women are playing a greater role in party
organizations, is it not also true that parties have become less relevant
since the 1960s? During the 1960s and 1970s, it appeared that vibrant
party committees were headed for the history books. David Broder’s
66 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

oft-cited work, The Party’s Over (1971) told of a new political system,
where candidate- and consultant-centered politics was the norm. “Con-
cern for their survival” noted Schlesinger, “reached a near crescendo
in the 1970s when academics, journalists, and professional politicians
joined in an almost universal chorus to sing of their weakening, decline,
and decomposition” (1994, 1). Struggling to remain players, however,
party organizations took a dramatic turn in the early 1980s. Both major
parties developed campaign-centered branch organizations, revamped
their internal operations, and devised innovative ways to raise huge sums
of cash. By 1985, a team of scholars felt compelled to note that “the phoe-
nix has risen from the ashes” (Kayden and Mahe 1985, 3), and more
recently one observer suggests “the growth chart for this political ‘indus-
try’ exhibits an ebullience more familiar in Silicon Valley” (Putnam
2000, 37).
Frendreis and Gitelson (1999) conducted a series of mail surveys of
local party leaders in the 1990s designed to gauge the extent of organi-
zational vitality. They find “considerable evidence indicates that politi-
cal party organizations are increasingly active at the national, state, and
local levels and that they have adjusted to the changing political envi-
ronment” (135). Moreover, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002 allows soft money to be raised and spent by local party committees
for get-out-the-vote efforts. Local parties have long been a central part of
our political system and it appears that their role has been enhanced–at
least in some respects–in recent decades.
The precise role of women in the rejuvenation of party committees,
however, remains unclear. The lead resurgence study, conducted by
Cotter (1984), was dubbed the Party Transformation Study (PTS). It set
the benchmark for assessing local party activity, yet little mention is
made of gender-based differences. The same can be said of the Frendreis
and Gitelson studies, cited above. Baer (1993) argues that the overuse of
mass public opinion survey research created a “narrow orthodoxy that
has left the promise of the early gender-sensitive research of the 1970s
stillborn, and an entire area of political science central to the political in-
fluence of women–political parties–has been both ignored and misunder-
stood” (548). It is the “internal life” and the “external activities” of party
committees that are critical to understanding the role of women in con-
temporary politics. Moreover, she notes that the dramatic increase of
women as central players in national, state, and local party committees
has coincided with the rejuvenation of parties in general (562).
 Gender and Local Politics 67

OUR APPROACH

Since gender differences in leadership have been found to be impor-

tant, and because local parties are important players in the political
world, this study is concerned with where women party leaders are
located and how they approach their job–especially if the “where” and
the “how” are qualitatively different from the men. When we think about
where women party leaders are located, we examine the factors external
and internal to the party. External factors examine the geographic loca-
tion of the community in terms of regional and demographic character-
istics to see if women operate their committees in locations different
from men. Internal factors examine committee infrastructure (budgets,
staff, etc.) to see if women operate committees with fewer resources
than men.
When we think about how women party leaders approach their posi-
tion, we examine who these women are and the attitudes they possess.
The demographic descriptors of these women (who they are) can be
significantly related to attitudes about how a party should be run, espe-
cially if the demographics are significantly different from the men.
This dimension would be especially important if women do not vary
significantly on demographic factors and yet continue to have differ-
ent goals than male party leaders. Such a finding would make gender
differences more important than ever, even among similarly situated
individuals.
In summary, this research is designed to address two interrelated
areas:

• First, where are female local party leaders located? Freeman

(2000) suggests different roles based on their location, especially
with regard to rural verses urban party committees. We might sup-
pose that women party leaders will more likely be found in urban,
affluent areas, and in poor, rural communities. We also might ex-
pect to find fewer women party leaders in highly partisan, compet-
itive areas and in communities with a long tradition of robust party
politics. Also, what sorts of committees do women oversee? Are
their gender-based differences based on the size, budget, and polit-
ical leanings of the party committees? Perhaps there is a glass ceil-
ing of sorts, where women can head some types of organizations,
but not all types.
68 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

• Second, who are these women and do they differ from male party
leaders in terms of age, experience, occupation, race, partisanship,
ideology and so forth? Do women party leaders have different
overarching goals than do their male counterparts? That is, do they
seek to accomplish different things through their leadership? To
use the language of party scholars, are female party leaders more
“responsible” than are male party leaders?

STUDY DESIGN

A telephone survey of 805 local party leaders was conducted between

October 1 and November 10, 2003.1 Each interview lasted roughly 30
minutes, and the questions dealt with a host of issues. Although there
are 3,148 counties in the United States, many are exceptionally small.
Rather than simply draw a random sample from the entire population of
counties, a list of the Democratic and Republican local party chairs in
the 1,000 most populated counties in the United States was compiled.
(A vast majority of these leaders were county party chairs, but in some
states, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Louisiana
party organizations are established at the town or parish level. These
leaders were also included in the sample.) Combined, these counties/
towns made up some 87 percent of the nation’s population. From this
list of 2,000 potential respondents, 403 Democratic and 402 Republican
local party chairs were randomly selected and interviewed.
Of our respondents, 595 (74 percent) were men and 204 (26 percent)
were women.2 This frequency mirrors the gender distribution of the
2,000 potential respondents and is consistent with other recent studies.
Paddock and Paddock (2004), for instance, sent surveys to party chairs
in 34 states, finding that roughly 30 percent of the leaders were women.
These numbers are also consistent with the percentage of women in
state party leadership roles in 2005: Women account for 22 percent of
Republican state chairs and 20 percent of Democratic state chairs. In
terms of partisanship, 286 of the Democrats were men (71 percent) and
119 were women (29 percent); 318 GOP chairs were men (79 percent)
and 84 were women (21 percent). Our data were then merged with sev-
eral aggregate files. For example, numerous variables from the 2000
Census File were included in the analysis, as were several from The
Book of the States (2004) and other standard sources of county and
state-level aggregate data (as described below).
 Gender and Local Politics 69

WOMEN PARTY LEADERS:

WHERE ARE THEY?

As the literature and other evidence suggests, there are plenty of rea-
sons to suspect gender differences in local party leadership, especially
in terms of where women party leaders might be found. Our analysis
tested several hypotheses about where women might be, including re-
gional concentrations in the East and West, locations with particular
community demographics, locations with smaller committees, con-
centration in particular party cultures, locations with less party com-
petitiveness, and locations with less historical party strength. While
nuances emerge, findings indicate that, beyond partisanship, there is no
typical place where a local party leader is more likely to be a man or a
woman.
Partisanship. The first question was whether these women are lead-
ing Democratic or Republican committees. While women made up 26
percent of respondents, 30 percent of Democratic chairs were held by
women. This compares with 21 percent of Republican chairs that were
women. This difference is statistically significant (t = 9.865, p ⱕ .0001).
While few would be surprised to find that women were more likely to
head Democratic parties, some might be surprised by the narrowness of
the “partisan gap.” We surmise that while women were more successful
at becoming leaders of the Democratic party in the 1970s and 1980s,
over the last decade or so the GOP has been quite open to women.
This is perhaps especially true in the South, where Republican commit-
tees were being formed in many communities for the first time in the
1990s. We see no reason why the “partisan gap” would remain in the
years ahead.
Region. Important differences also emerged when we took a look at
the proportion of women in different regions of the country. As Table 1
notes, our expectation that West Coast politics is a bit more “gender
neutral” than other parts of the country was supported by the data.
Women made up 36 percent of local party leaders in the West, which
proved to be a statistically significant difference (t = ⫺34.330, p ⱕ .0001).
This finding was congruent with other data demonstrating that women hold
higher percentages of public office in the West (Center for Women and
Politics, 2001). The causal relationship between the high number of female
elected officials in the West and the robust number of women party leaders
is unclear. That is, do we have more female elected officials in the West be-
cause female party leaders recruit them, or have women elected officials
played a role in bringing women to power in local parties? Perhaps the cul-
70 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

TABLE 1. Percent of Female Party Leaders in Each Region by Party

Region Percentage of Women (Number)

Overall
Northeast 23.7 (36)
Midwest 23.1 (48)
West 36.8 (42)
South 24.0 (78)
Nationwide 25.5 (204 of 799)
Democrats
Northeast 28.6 (22)
Midwest 31.4 (33)
West 44.8 (26)
South 24.7 (40)
Republicans
Northeast 18.7 (14)
Midwest 15.4 (16)
West 28.1 (16)
South 23.3 (38)

Source: Tabulations of authors’ survey of 799 party leaders, 2003.

ture in the West is simply more conducive to women’s involvement in all

realms of politics. There are additional findings when the party of the re-
spondents is controlled. In the West, for example, female Democratic lead-
ers were nearly as numerous as male Democratic leaders. Conversely, less
than one-fifth of the Republican leaders in the Midwest and the Northeast
were women. One might have expected that with the history of progressive
Republicans in the Northeast we might have found a greater share of
women party leaders–but apparently this is not the case. Also, contrary to
expectations, southern GOP committees had a greater share of women
party leaders than Republican organizations of the Northeast and Midwest.
Demographic Information. One-third of women party leaders were
located in rural areas (pop. > 50,0000); one-third of women party lead-
ers were located in metropolitan areas of one million or more (with
13 percent from five million or more); and one-third of women party
leaders were located in communities of intermediate size. These num-
bers were nearly identical for men. Democratic women (33 percent)
were only slightly more likely than Republican women (27 percent)
 Gender and Local Politics 71

to be located in rural areas. This is an important finding because con-

ventional wisdom may have suspected women leaders would be con-
centrated in progressive, urban areas.
We expected women to head organizations in distinctive communi-
ties. It would have seemed plausible, for instance, to expect women to
head parties disproportionately in progressive areas, with affluent, well-
educated voters. Yet, few such differences emerged. Little was found
when a host of other demographic measures were introduced, including
the racial demographics of the communities, the median household in-
come, levels of education, dominant type of industry, and so forth. The
only notable difference was in region, as previously discussed.
Party Culture. Students of politics have long noted differences based
on local traditions and norms (Elazar 1994, for instance). Perhaps
women are more likely to head committees in areas where parties are
historically weak? One oft-used measure of party strength was devel-
oped by Cotter et al. (1984) in the Party Transformation Study noted
previously above. By merging their data with our survey results, we
were able to explore this dimension. Once again, however, few signifi-
cant differences emerge. That is, women in both parties in all regions
tended to oversee about the same type of committee as did their male
counterparts.
Another way to consider party variations was through a historical
lens. Put a bit differently, some states and communities have a history of
robust party politics, while others do not (see, for instance, Wilson
1962). Mayhew (1986) undertook an extensive exploration of party
committees and used a five-point scale to operationalize the history of
party politics in each state (“1” denotes weak party states and a “5” are
those with a rich history of party politics). Once again little variation
emerged when the gender of contemporary party leaders was intro-
duced. The distribution of female party leaders in different types of
states paralleled the overall distribution.
Still another possibility was party competition. Perhaps women are
found in states where there is a low level of competition between the
two parties. We operationalized party competition with an index first
created by Ranney (1976), where prior vote totals from a number of
statewide office contests are combined. Here we found women (82 per-
cent), like their male colleagues (72 percent), were clustered in states
with low party competition. In other words, only a small number of
states are truly competitive these days. Along similar lines, we asked the
respondents to assess whether campaigns in their area are generally run
by professionals or volunteers. Once again, little difference emerged:
72 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

Some 26 percent of women party leaders were located in “professional”

campaign areas, while 23 percent of the male party leaders were in such
areas. This finding suggests women are at least as likely as men to head
professionalized operations, a discovery far removed from the early
notion of female involvement as “helpers.” Clearly, the role of women
as party leaders was at least on par with the men in terms of leading
professionalized local party organizations. Women, when compared
with men, were not inequitably concentrated in organizations where
volunteers lead the way.
Summary. Other than our findings regarding region of the country,
these results seem contrary to a number of early studies and conven-
tional wisdom. Women party leaders are not relegated to particular
types of communities. Women are leaders in small, rural towns. They
are leaders of parties in all types of socio-economic communities, in
states with a history of modest party committees and ones with a tradi-
tion of vibrant organizations. They are leaders in both competitive and
non-competitive party states, and they lead committees as likely to be
professionalized as those run by the men.

WHAT SORTS OF PARTY COMMITTEES

DO WOMEN OVERSEE?

There is a great deal of variance in party structures. Some of this vari-

ation has to do with traditional forces, but it is also a function of leader-
ship, demographics, recent campaign events, fundraising, and much
else. Some party units are modest, boasting a leader and perhaps a few
activists. Others are full-scale operations, with a permanent staff and an
existing headquarters. Some of this variation has to do with the size and
affluence of the county, but not all. That is, numerous small counties
have significant party committees. Another dimension might be the per-
spective of rank-and-file members. Some party units are filled with
hardcore ideological activists, while others are composed of more mod-
erate members, often involved with the party for social reasons. Did
women oversee particular types of committees?
Size of County Party Committee. One common way to assess the size
and vitality of a party committee is through finances. As noted in Table 2,
our data suggest that committees headed by women had significantly
smaller budgets than committees headed by men. The average budget
for women’s committees ($31,619) was almost half that of men-run
party organizations ($57,943). These gender differences remain even
 Gender and Local Politics 73

TABLE 2. Size (Budget) of the Local Party Organization

Men Women
Average budget for all party
leaders (t = ⫺2.772, significance .006) $57,943 $31,619
Democratic leaders $35,919 $35,511
Republican leaders $77,311 $25,784

Source: Tabulations of authors’ survey of party leaders, 2003.

when we control for region. An even more surprising finding emerges

when the party of the respondent was introduced as a control. Democratic
men ($35,919) and women ($35,111) had almost identical average bud-
gets. By contrast, the average budget of Republican men ($77,311) was
three times that of Republican women ($25,784). The data clearly iden-
tify a partisan gender gap in committee resources. While Democratic
women party leaders were as likely as men to head both small and large
committees, Republican women controlled significantly smaller com-
mittees than did their male counterparts.
Another approach was to consider variation in facilities. An equal
number of male (61 percent) and female (63 percent) respondents were
in charge of party committees with existing headquarters. We also
looked at the establishment of Web sites, which might suggest those
who have them are more “modern” or “cutting edge” than those that do
not. But here again we found little difference between men (60 percent)
and women (62 percent). The fact that women tended to oversee com-
mittees with fewer resources, but at the same time are just as likely to
head an ongoing headquarters and to have a Web site, might suggest
gender-based differences in the allocation of monies. It might also sug-
gest that women are doing more with less, a common occurrence in the
business sector (e.g., Frankel 2004).
Local party leaders often struggle to create a full slate of com-
mitteepersons. A “full slate” is often a sign of a strong committee and a
good leader. Equal numbers of men and women party leaders (14 per-
cent) had a full slate of precinct workers, however. Taken together with
the relative equality of budgets and facilities (Republican differences
not withstanding), this evidence provides little support for the gender
disparity expectation. Rather, these results lead us to conclude that
women are heading operations very similar to those of men, at least in
74 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

terms of raw materials. Where this gets interesting is the combination of

equal resources with disparate goals. Men and women controlling simi-
lar amounts of resources with divergent goals would make the presence
of women party leaders significant for organizational outcomes.
Outlook of Members. The survey asked respondents to assess the
political leanings of the members of their party committee, that is, are
their party activists mostly “very liberal,” “liberal,” “moderate,” and so
forth. An interesting finding was revealed: Democratic women tended
to supervise party committees perceived to be more ideological than the
committees run by men. Among Democrats, women (29 percent) were
nearly twice as likely as men (16 percent) to suggest their membership
was “very liberal” or “liberal.” At the other end of the ideological spec-
trum there was no difference between the sexes. Among Republicans,
men (65 percent) were just as likely as women (67 percent) to suggest
their membership was “conservative” or “very conservative.” These
differences were statistically significant, and, they were not surprising.
We would expect liberal committees to be more likely to attract and en-
gage women leaders. What might be surprising is that Republican
women were not more likely than Republican men to be found in “mod-
erate” committees. This suggests that women leaders at both ends of the
spectrum are leading ideologically strong committees, a finding consis-
tent with the previously mentioned research demonstrating women to
be more ideologically driven (responsible) than men.

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN?

NOWHERE IN PARTICULAR

As noted earlier, there were plenty of reasons to suspect that women

would be found leading certain types of committees in certain types
of locations. The descriptive cross-tabulation above yielded few differ-
ences between the committees run by men and the committees run by
women. When combined with partisan, regional, and community demo-
graphics, differences are still elusive. Table 3 presents a multivariate
analysis of the most likely variables for independent effects: party, re-
gion, and budget size. In this logit analysis, the dependent variable was
the gender of the local party leader. In other words, we were trying to
predict the gender of the local party leader using those variables where a
significant difference had emerged. Because region and budget size also
had a partisan element, interactive variables were included. The model
provides evidence for the independent effect of party in predicting the
 Gender and Local Politics 75

TABLE 3. Logit Analysis of Gender and Local Party Leadership

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Party identification ⫺1.153 .477 5.851 1 .016 .316
Region ⫺.320 .226 2.009 1 .156 1.000
Budget .000 .000 .085 1 .770 1.000
Party * Region .238 .154 2.393 1 .122 1.268
Party * Budget .000 .000 .160 1 .689 1.000
Constant .501 .676 .550 1 .458 1.650

Note: Chi-square (significance) = 11.360 (.045); ⫺2 Log Likelihood ⫽ 760.868; Nagelkerke R = .024;
2

N = 689.

likelihood of a party leader being female. In contrast, region and budget

did not have a significant independent effect. Furthermore, the fit of the
model was fairly low (R2 = .024), and the model was unable to predict
the presence of women party leaders accurately.
Our original formulation of the project expected to find women party
leaders doing different activities in predictably different places than
men party leaders. Women are not in locations significantly different
than men, however, unless they are Republican women operating with
lower budgets, or Democratic women concentrated in the West. Other
than that, women are not found in less competitive or more progressive
areas. The overall data support the null finding: women are not located
in particular places or overseeing particular types of local party organi-
zations. Most importantly, this means that if women party leaders are
different from men in terms of attitudes and activities, they are having
an impact in all types of areas on all types of committees and in all types
of party contexts. The next section examines attitudinal differences
among men and women local party leaders. As the findings will demon-
strate, it is not where women are that matters but who they are, and how
they feel and what they do.

WOMEN PARTY LEADERS:

WHO ARE THEY?

Demographics. Women party leaders tended to be a bit older than

men party leaders, with women Republicans having larger numbers un-
der 44 and over 64. The average age of women respondents was 59
76 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

years old and for men it was 56 years. The modal age group for both
genders was 55-64 (29 percent of men and 39 percent of women). Men
(21 percent) were twice as likely to be under 45 years of age as women
(9 percent). This interesting finding–that women party leaders tend to
be a bit older than their male counterparts–may reflect the trend in other
institutions where many women delay involvement until they have
raised their families (Center for Women and Politics 2001).
With regard to race, only a small percentage of men (9.7 percent) and
women (8 percent) party leaders did not consider themselves white.
Some fourteen men and five women were black or African American,
seven men and seven women were Native American, and one man and
one woman were Asian. Perhaps not surprisingly, these data demon-
strate that party politics mirrors other institutions in our society where
the number of minority leaders continues to lag. Baer’s (1993) conten-
tion that women have fared better than other minority groups in inte-
grating party politics is supported by these data. They also suggest
women party chairs are slightly less likely to be from racial minorities
than are men party chairs. Put a bit differently, a party leader who is a
woman of color is rather rare in American politics.
In terms of religion, women party leaders were less conventional and
less involved than their male counterparts. While 80 percent of men and
85 percent of women said their religious affiliation was “Christian,” and
three percent of both genders were likely to be Jewish, women (13 per-
cent) were more likely than men (9 percent) to say they were non-Chris-
tian, Agnostic or Atheist, or nothing in particular. In terms of religious
activity, respondents were asked how often they attend religious ser-
vices. The average response for women was 3.19 (where a score of “3”
indicated once or twice a month) and for men it was 2.83 (where “2” de-
noted once a week). This difference is significant in a statistical com-
parison (t = 32.659, p ⱕ .0001), suggesting women party leaders were
less involved in religious institutions.
Women party chairs had strong credentials in terms of education and
occupation: 27 percent had a post-graduate or professional degree
and an additional 38 percent were college graduates. Yet, by contrast,
41 percent of men had post-graduate or professional degrees and an
additional 34 percent were college graduates. Women (63 percent) were
less likely than men (79 percent) to hold a job outside of their work
with the party. The top three occupations for women were professor/
teacher, lawyer, and business owner. The top three occupations for men
were the same, but in a slightly different order: lawyer (surely not a sur-
prise) business owner, and professor/teacher. These findings suggest that
 Gender and Local Politics 77

women might not represent qualitatively different sectors than men, at

least when those women have full-time jobs in addition to their leader-
ship position.
Ideological Differences. As Table 4 notes, women were twice as likely
to label themselves “liberal” or “very liberal” than were their male coun-
terparts. Conversely, men were almost twice as likely to call themselves
“conservative” than were women. Equal numbers of men and women,
however, characterized their views as “very conservative.” Even among
members of the same party, a gender gap emerged with regard to ideol-
ogy, as noted in Table 4. Among Democrats, women were twice as likely
as men to characterize themselves as “very liberal.” Furthermore, some
50 percent of female Democratic leaders characterized themselves as
“liberal” or “very liberal,” compared with only 31 percent of male Demo-
crats. However, this does not suggest that female party leaders are, on the
whole, more liberal. In fact, among Republicans an even stronger pattern

TABLE 4. Men and Women Party Chairs and Political Ideology

All Leaders Democrats Republicans

Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%)
How would you describe your own political views?
Very liberal 6 13 11 22 0 0
Liberal 10 16 20 28 ⬎1 ⬎1
Somewhat 12 13 25 22 ⬎1 ⬎1
liberal
Moderate 22 17 35 22 10 12
Somewhat 16 5 6 3 24 8
conservative
Conservative 25 21 2 2 44 48
Very conservative 12 13 ⬍1 ⬍1 22 32
TOTAL 595 205 280 121 315 84
Individuals
Chi-Square (Sig.)
32.353 (.000) 14.822 (.022) 11.923 (.036)
Likelihood Ratio
(Sig.) 33.123 (.000) 14.753 (.022) 13.866 (.016)
t-test 46.558 (.000)

Source: Tabulations of authors’ survey of party leaders, 2003.

78 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

emerges. One-third of Republican women characterized themselves as

“very conservative,” while less than one-quarter of Republican men
claimed that characterization. These gender gaps, both in general and
among partisan colleagues, were statistically significant. The discovery
of these gaps certainly supports the conventional knowledge that women
are more ideological than their male counterparts.
Summary. Some of the results of our exploration into the back-
grounds of women party leaders seem counterintuitive. In the current
political climate, where feminism and political activism are associated
with younger, liberal women, we might expect party leader characteris-
tics would follow suit. Our results suggest a more complex picture.
Women party leaders are older than expected, and while women party
leaders are more liberal than men, they are also more conservative than
men. This finding may provide evidence for the way women become in-
volved in politics and political leadership. While men may find party
leadership an extension of other institutional leadership networks, such
as religious affiliation, civic membership, and workplace position, per-
haps women find party leadership an extension of the political activism
found in politically oriented networks. Perhaps women take leadership
roles with party committees because of purposive goals.

WHAT PARTIES SHOULD DO

Did women leaders have a different attitude about what party com-
mittees should do? One of the unique characteristics of party politics in
America is the degree of local autonomy, as noted above. One way to
chart this dimension is to compare overt activities, such as the extent to
which they aid candidates, mobilize voters, conduct voter registration
drives, and so on. Another track is to explore the perceptions regarding
the overall goals of party activity. “Rational-efficient” parties are de-
signed with the singular goal of wining elections, and “responsible”
parties set their sights first and foremost on changing public policy.
Where American parties line up has proved a vexing issue. As White
and Shea (2004) write, “Suggesting that American parties are ‘election
driven,’ ‘policy oriented,’ or searching for the ‘vital center’ assumes
that it has always been so, and that all party organizations scattered
across the nation follow a similar pattern” (32). Perhaps gender differ-
ence can shed light on this time-honored debate.
Overt Activities. We asked respondents to assess the “proportion of
your local organization’s effort” spent on a list of activities, including
 Gender and Local Politics 79

voter registration drives, GOTV efforts, campaign events such as rallies

and parades, candidate services such as mailings, and non-campaign
events such as dinners and picnics. A correlations matrix with gender
as the dependent variable was constructed. Once again the null hypothe-
ses could not be rejected. In fact, not a single coefficient in the table
approached statistical significance. It seems that committees run by
women did about the same types of things as parties run by men.
Overall Goals. Anticipating that the goals of party leaders would be
an important dimension of this research, we asked respondents three
“either/or” questions. We asked, “Which should be given priority by lo-
cal party organizations, helping candidates win election or helping vot-
ers develop long-term attachments to the party?” Second, should party
organizations “help candidates with broad electoral appeal or support
candidates with consistent issue positions.” Third, we asked if local
party committees should be managed by “party leaders and other ex-
perts or by rank-and-file party members.” Each of these questions ad-
dressed elements of the rational/responsible party debate.
At first glace it would seem that women party leaders were a bit more
rational-efficient than their male counterparts: Women (65 percent) were
more likely than men (62 percent) to think helping candidates should
take precedence over building long-term support among voters. How-
ever, as noted in Table 5, the type of candidate seems to make a big dif-
ference for women. Women leaders (69 percent) were much more likely
than men (56 percent) to suggest parties should support candidates with
consistent issue positions rather than broad electoral appeal. This find-
ing was statistically significant. Surprisingly, however, the women
party leaders were just as likely as men to suggest local parties should
be run by professionals (45 percent of men 44 percent of women).
When the party of the respondent is introduced as a control, differ-
ences regarding the types of candidates worthy of support became even
more pronounced. Democratic women chairs (35 percent) were a good
bit less supportive of “broad appeal” candidates than were male Demo-
cratic leaders (47 percent). However, it is within the GOP where we
found the greatest difference. While 43 percent of male Republican
leaders suggested it was more important to support candidates with
broad electoral appeal than those with consistent policy positions, only
27 percent of female GOP leaders agreed with this notion. Conversely,
nearly two-thirds of the female party leaders suggested supporting can-
didates with consistent policy positions was more important than help-
ing those that are likely to win.
80 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

TABLE 5. Men and Women Party Chairs and Party Goals

All Leaders Democrats Republicans

Men Women Men Women Men Women
Support Candidates w/broad appeal OR consistent issue positions?
Percent saying 56 69 55 65 58 74
“consistent”
t-test 14.885 (.000)
Chi-Square 8.675 (.003) 2-sided
Who should run the Party: Party leaders OR rank-in-file?
Percent saying 55 54 58 55 54 50
“rank-in-file”
t-test 12.391 (.000)
Chi-Square .532 (.466) 2-sided
Parties should: Help candidates win elections OR help voters develop party attachments?
Percent saying 38 35 42 38 35 30
“attachments”
t-test 5.035 (.000)
Chi-Square .803 (.370)

Source: Tabulations of authors’ survey of party leaders, 2003.

This finding has significant implication for the motivations of wom-

en party leaders. Running a local party organization can be a difficult,
time-consuming, thankless job. Historically, many take the post be-
cause they want to make a difference; to change the course of govern-
ment and to help bring good people into service. Others are anxious to
advance their political careers or to simply boost their stature in their
community. These data, consistent with much of the research previ-
ously cited above, imply that women party leaders are very concerned
with public policy and that they believe parties should make a differ-
ence in the conduct of government. They are interested in winning elec-
tions, but not in supporting just any candidate. For women party leaders,
policy matters.

DISCUSSION

The role of women as party leaders in 21st century America is impor-

tant. Our findings are a mix of surprises and confirmed expectations in
 Gender and Local Politics 81

terms of who these women are, where they are located, what types of
committees they oversee, and what kinds of goals they pursue.
In several significant aspects, women party leaders are nothing like
the stereotypes or the conventional wisdom. These women are liberal
and conservative. These women are young and old, particularly Repub-
lican women. These women are working outside the home and not
working outside the home. They are in charge of urban and rural party
committees. They are found in all kinds of socio-economically defined
communities and in all different sorts of party environments. It would
seem that hasty generalizations of women party leaders would prove
hazardous.
At the same time, there are significant differences between women
party leaders and their male counterparts. As we might have guessed,
women party leaders are found in the same region of the country where
we also find the highest number of women elected officials: the West.
Perhaps a bit more noteworthy, it appears that women, especially in the
Republican Party, head party organizations that have fewer resources.
One explanation for this might be women party operatives are less
skilled at raising funds. It might also be the case that women are more
interested in helping with amateur party organizations. We suspect that
there may be some sort of glass ceiling at work, where the leadership of
vibrant, well-funded organizations is reserved for men. Either way, this
is an important question, worthy of additional research. Likewise, the
question of the extent to which women are leading state and national
party organizations is also worthy of further attention. While women
have made great strides at the local level, it is not clear what those gains
have meant for women at higher levels of party organization. Here, too,
we might find important differences between men and women party
leaders.
Our study underscores the importance of ideology and policy concerns
among women party leaders. Some time ago Kelly, Hulbary, and Bow-
man (1989) found that the women who ran local Democratic committees
tended to be more liberal than the men who ran similar organizations.
Yet, they did not find female Republican leaders more conservative than
their male counterparts. Our findings suggest both Democratic and Re-
publican women leaders are much more ideological than male party lead-
ers, and, if anything, the gender gap is greater in the GOP. The women
who run local Republican organizations, particularly in the South, are a
conservative lot–to be sure.
Gender-based differences extend to perceptions regarding the goals
of local party committees. When pushed to choose whether their parties
82 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

should support candidates with broad electoral appeal or with a consis-

tent policy platform, women leaders were much more likely than men to
prefer the latter. All told, it appears that women take charge of local par-
ties because they care about the direction of government, and because
they are anxious to use party resources to help like-minded candidates.
What difference would it make that women party leaders are more
“responsible?” We believe a great deal. On one hand, the shift to more
ideological party politics might contribute to the polarization that is so
often bemoaned. One can imagine, for instance, a highly ideological
party committee withdrawing its support for a candidate that does not
toe the line. Compromise, a key aspect of policy formation in America,
might be seen as failure, scorned by party leaders, and become even
rarer. “Do nothing” legislatures would become all-too-common. But on
the other hand, support for a set of ideas and a desire to help like-minded
candidates does not necessarily imply rigidity or an unwillingness to
find common ground. Numerous gender-based studies of legislative poli-
tics suggest women are more likely to be both ideological and amenable
to compromise (see, for example, Rosenthal 1998; Reingold 1996). Also,
many voters, especially young voters, have become cynical about elec-
toral politics because candidates too often shift their positions with the
winds of public opinion. George Wallace’s contention that “there is not
a dime’s worth of difference between the parties” is echoed every two
years (Pearson 1998).
We also believe that these findings may contribute to the long-term
stability of parties in American politics. Over 50 years ago, students of
American politics were reminded of the special role that responsible
parties play in a democracy. The 1950 American Political Science As-
sociation Report, Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System, ar-
gued that parties are a critical piece of a democracy, and that offering
voters a coherent set of policies, a clear choice between competing al-
ternatives, is essential. Parties during that period were deemed “unprin-
cipled,” so the report called for changes in elite political behavior and
the internal operation of party organizations. Since the report the num-
ber of non-partisan voters has grown (perhaps because parties did not
heed this recommendation) and there is now a strong incentive to mute
policy difference and for candidates and parties to court voters at the
middle of the ideological spectrum. Women party leaders seem ready to
fight this inclination and to push their parties to offer voters a clear
choice on Election Day. This may create more partisan voters and draw
more citizens into party headquarters. We might not want to go so far as
to suggest women may prove to be the saviors of responsible parties in
 Gender and Local Politics 83

America, but the authors of the 1950 report would likely be pleased with
these findings.

NOTES
1. The survey was conducted as part of a grant from Center for Information and Re-
search on Civic Learning and Engagement to Daniel M. Shea and John C. Green. Shea
and Green were primarily interested in the extent to which local party committees seek
to mobilize young voters. As part of the study, however, they incorporate a broad range
of questions, including the gender of the respondent (i.e., of the party leader).
2. The gender of the respondent was not determined in five cases, and these cases
were omitted from the study.

REFERENCES
American Political Science Association Committee on Political Parties 1950. Toward
a More Responsible Two-Party System. New York: Rinehart.
Baer, Denise. 1993. “Political Parties: The Missing Variable in Women and Politics
Research.” Political Research Quarterly 46: 547-576.
Baer, Denise L. and David A. Bositis. 1988. Elite Cadres and Party Coalitions: Repre-
senting the Public in Party Politics. New York: Greenwood Press.
Boneparth, Ellen. 1977. “Women in Campaigns: From Lickin’ and Sticken’ to Strat-
egy,” American Politics Quarterly 5 (July): 289-300.
The Book of the States (36th ed.). 2004. Council of State Governments.
Breckenridge, Sophonisba. 1933. “Women in the Twentieth Century.” In Recent So-
cial Trends in the United States. New York: President Hoover’s Research Commit-
tee on Social Trends.
Broder, David. 1971. The Party’s Over: The Failure of Politics in America. New York:
Harper and Row.
Burrell, Barbara. 1994. “Women’s Political Leadership and the State of the Parties.” In
The State of the Parties ed. Daniel M. Shea and John C. Green. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Center for American Women and Politics 2001. Women State Legislators: Past, Pres-
ent, and Future. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics,
Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Clarke, Harold D. and Allan Kornberg. 1979. “Moving Up the Political Escalator:
Women Party Officials in the United States and Canada.” The Journal of Politics
41: 442-477.
Cotter, Cornelius P., James L. Gibson, John F. Bibby, and Robert J. Huckshorn. 1989.
Party Organizations in American Politics. New York: Praeger.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Cathy Marie Johnson. 1990. “Gender and Style in Bureau-
cracy.” Women and Politics 10: 67-120.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1994. The American Mosaic: The Impact of Space, Time, and Culture
on American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.
84 JOURNAL OF WOMEN, POLITICS & POLICY

Fisher, Marguerite J. and Betty Whitehead. 1944. “Women and National Party Organi-
zation.” The American Political Science Review 38: 895-903.
Flammang, Janet A. 1997. Women’s Political Voice: How Women are Transforming
the Practice and Study of Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Fowlkes, Diane L., Jerry Perkins, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart. 1979. “Gender Roles and
Party Roles.” The American Political Science Review 73: 772-780.
Frankel, Lois P. 2004. Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office: 101 Unconscious Mis-
takes Women Make in the Workplace. New York: Warner Books.
Freeman, Jo. 2000. A Room at a Time: How Women Entered Party Politics. New York:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Frendreis, John and Alan R. Gitelson. 1999. “Local Parties in the 1990s: Spokes in the
Candidate-Centered Wheel.” In The State of the Parties, 3rd edition. eds. John C.
Green and Daniel M. Shea. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hurwitz, J. and Smithey S. 1998. “Gender and Differences on Crime and Punishment.”
Political Research Quarterly 51: 89-115.
Jennings, M. Kent and Barbara G. Farah. 1981. “Social Roles and Political Resources:
An Over-Time Study of Men and Women Party Elites.” American Journal of Politi-
cal Science 25: 462-482.
Kathlene, Lyn. 2001. “Words That Matter: Women’s Voice and Institutional Bias in
Public Policy Formation.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Susan J.
Carroll. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kayden, Xandra and Eddie Mahe, Jr. 1985. The Party Goes On: The Persistence of the
Two Party System in the United States. New York: Basic Books.
Kelly, Anne E., William E. Hulbary, and Lewis Bowman. 1989. “Gender, Party, and
Political Ideology: The Case of Mid-Elite Party Activism in Florida.” Journal of
Political Science 17 (Spring): 6-18.
Kornberg, Allan, Joel Smith, Mary-Jane Clarke, and Harold D. Clarke. 1973. “Partici-
pation in Local Party Organizations in the United States and Canada.” American
Journal of Political Science 17: 23-47.
Margolis, Diane. 1980. “The Invisible Hands: Sex Roles and the Division of Labor in
Two Local Political Parties.” In Women in Local Politics, ed. Debra W. Stewart,
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 22-41.
Mayhew, David. 1986. Placing Parties in American Politics: Organization, Electoral
Settings, and Governmental Activity in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Paddock, Joel and Elizabeth Paddock. 2004. “Ideological Differences Between Female
and Male County Party Chairs.” Social Science Journal 41: 225-234.
Pearson, Richard. 1998. “Former Alabama Governor George C. Wallace Dies.” The
Washington Post. September 14, p. A1.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Com-
munity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ranney, Austin. 1976. “Parties in State Politics.” In Politics in the American States
(3rd ed.). Herbert Jacobs and Kenneth Vines. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Reingold, Beth. 1996. “Conflict and Cooperation: Legislative Strategies and Concepts
of Power among Female and Male State Legislators.” Journal of Politics 58:
464-485.
 Gender and Local Politics 85

Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998. “Determinants of Collaborative Leadership: Civic

Engagement, Gender, or Organizational Norms?” Political Research Quarterly 51:
847-868.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women’s
Place. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1994. Political Parties and the Winning of Elections. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
White, John Kennith and Daniel M. Shea. 2004. New Party Politics: From Jefferson
and Hamilton to the Information Age, 2nd edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wilson, James Q. 1962. The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.

doi:10.1300/J501v28n01_04