Burning the Midnight Oil: Clandestine Behavior, Hard Work, or Strategic Rush in Congressional Voting?

Authors

  • Phillip J. Ardoin

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2009.30.0.229-250

Abstract

While the vast of majority voting in Congress occurs during regular working hours, two percent of the recorded votes and eleven percent of Key Votes each session over the last 15 years have occurred late into the evening. The purpose of this research is to examine this unique set of votes that members of Congress cast while burning the midnight oil. Although these late night votes represent only a small percentage of roll-call votes, they are clearly important to members of Congress, or at least their leaders, who are extremely busy. Roll-call votes scheduled late in the evening undoubtedly interfere with members’ regular schedules, and no member wants to spend their night on the hill after a long day of Washington work. The results of our analyses indicate the majority of late night voting can be explained by the strategic rush hypothesis which suggests members burn the midnight oil prior to long recesses and also later in the week in order to return to their constituents. We also find late night voting may be the result of an over burdened legislature. Finally, our results confirm the growing power of Congressional leaders, particularly in the House, to utilize and even abuse the legislative schedule to meet their policy and reelection goals.

References

Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226012773.001.0001

Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rhode. 2001. The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection. In Congress Reconsidered, 7th ed., eds. Lawrence C. Dodd. and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Anderson, Jennifer L., and Adam J. Newmark. 2002. A Dynamic Model of U.S. Senator Approval, 1981-2000. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2:298-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000200200306

Cameron, Colin A., and Pravin K. Trivedi. 1998. Regression Analysis of Count Data: Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814365

Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1991-2006. Congressional Quarterly Almanac. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly News Features.

Cox, Gary W., and Mathew McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek. 2004. Congress and Its Members, 9th ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Durr, Robert H., John B. Gilmour, and Christina Wolbrecht. 1997. Explaining Congressional Approval. American Journal of Political Science 41:175-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111713

King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 1999. Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data. Department of Government, Harvard University.

Mann, Thomas E., Norman J. Ornstein, Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnyland, and Annenberg Public Policy Center. 2006. The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mayhew, David R. 1974. The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Oleszek, Walter J. 2004. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 1985. Changing Time Constraints on congress: Historical Perspectives on the Use of the Cloture. In Congress Reconsidered, 3rd ed., eds. Lawrence C. Dodd. and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Poole, Keith T. 2007. Voteview Website 2007 [cited July 1 2007]. Available from http://www.voteview.com/.

Rhode, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226724058.001.0001

Sinclair, Barbara. 1994. House Rules and the Institutional Design Controversy. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19:477-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/440169

Sinclair, Barbara. 2000. Unorthodox Lawmaking. New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Yackee, Susan Webb. 2003. Punctuating the Congressional Agenda: Strategic Scheduling by House and Senate Leaders. Political Research Quarterly 56:139-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3219893 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600203

Downloads

Published

2009-11-01

Issue

Vol. 30: Fall 2009

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.