The 26 percent rule

Looking for some illustrations of how the 26 percent rule described in the book Upside Down would work? Here's some examples from 2004:

Women made up forty-seven percent of the Washington State Senate and thirty-two percent of the House in 2004. The combined percentage of both chambers remained the highest in the nation, even though they have dipped slightly since their peak in 1994. In theory, the Senate could use the twenty-six percent rule unmodified. The House could use just over half of thirty-two percent, or women’s votes equal to at least seventeen percent of the total number of House members. Because women constituted a much higher percentage of Democratic legislators than of Republicans, and Democrats controlled the House while Republicans controlled the Senate, the consequences of the rule for the two chambers would be quite different. These results illustrate two ways in which the rule would affect a number of other states.

To pass legislation in the ninety-eight member House using the rule at seventeen percent, Democrats would need just seventeen votes. There were twenty female Democrats in 2004. To affect women’s influence in the House, the rule would have to be introduced at twenty-one percent. This way, the Democrats would have to strike a bargain with at least one Republican woman in order to pass bills. After an increase of just one Democratic woman, House Democrats would be freed from their obligation to seek support from Republican women for two years. After that, either the failsafe provision or growth in the number of female legislators would keep raising the bar. For the Republicans, a gain of just four more seats, coming from either gender, would give them control of the House. However, they would need to increase the women in their ranks from the existing number of eleven to at least ten more to earn a two-year respite from having to seek support from Democratic women in order to pass bills.

In the forty-nine member Senate, Republicans had a one vote majority in 2004, but Democrats had more than twice as many women. Using the twenty-six percent rule unmodified would require Republicans to routinely beg six Democratic women to join in their votes, which would severely limit their ability to govern. Lowering the introductory percentage to just eighteen instead would force them to get support from only two Democratic women, which would make it possible to forge reasonable compromises on legislation and fulfil the purpose of the rule. As the Washington example illustrates, the rule’s initial percentages would have to be tailored to the circumstances of each state legislature.

There are seventeen states in which, unlike Washington, the twenty-six percent rule could be enacted by a majority of voters. For most legislative chambers the rule initially would be adjusted to begin one to three percentage points above half the current percentage of women’s representation in that chamber.

In states where the majority party has a lopsided majority, a high percentage of women legislators, or both, implementation at just above half the existing overall percentage of women in each chamber would not change present practices. In the Democratic controlled California Senate, implementation of even the unmodified twenty-six percent rule would not immediately change anything. Out of a total of forty members, there were eleven women in 2004 – all Democrats. The rule would serve only to encourage the minority party to work harder to increase the number of women legislators in its ranks in preparation for a return to power. The value of highlighting the opposition’s lack of attention to women’s issues, combined with the erection of a device that would reduce the risk of a reversal of political fortunes, might make the rule attractive to Democratic Senators.

In the California Assembly, and in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature, the unmodified twenty-six percent rule would force their Democratic leaders to work with one Republican woman. Just over half the total percentage of women in the California Assembly in 2004 was sixteen percent, but the rule would not be effective unless introduced at twenty-six percent because most of those women were Democrats.

In Republican controlled Arizona, North Dakota (House only) and South Dakota, and Democratic controlled Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma (Senate only) and Nevada (House only), legislatures faced situations similar to the Washington House. Introducing the rule at a percentage just a point or two above half the existing percentage of women in each chamber would change nothing. It would take an increase of approximately five percentage points above half the existing percentage to force the majority party to seek agreement with one woman from the minority party. The Nevada House would have to start the rule at least eight points above the normal modification for it to have an impact. (As in Washington State, a different party controlled each of the two chambers in Nevada’s legislature in 2004.)

Other legislatures were comparable to the Washington Senate, where the majority party had a lower percentage of women than the minority party. In those states, implementation of the rule adjusted to just above half the overall percentage of women in a chamber would require the majority party to negotiate with four or more women from the minority party. Lowering the number of women needed to just two would reduce the risk of gridlock. To accomplish this, the rule percentage would have to be set below half the existing overall percentage of women. States with at least one chamber affected in this manner included Republican controlled Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Montana. The 2004 Colorado Senate had nine Democratic women and only one Republican woman.

The thirty member Oregon Senate was evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats in 2004. With six Democratic women and only one Republican woman, it presented a special case. If Democrats were facing the rule, it would have to be introduced substantially higher than half the existing overall percentage to have an effect, whereas for Republicans it would have to be substantially lower to be viable. Probably, the fairest solution would be to base it on the Republicans’ circumstances.

In the remaining states allowing constitutional amendment by voter initiative, introducing the rule at just over half the existing percentage of women in each chamber would be the right number to help shape policy to be more favorable to women’s needs. The majority party would have to bargain with one or two women from the minority party in order to pass legislation. These states included Republican controlled Florida, Ohio, Oregon (House only) and Nevada (Senate only), and Democratic controlled Oklahoma (House only).

Finally, there is Nebraska, with non-partisan elections and only one chamber in its legislature. Just over eighteen percent of its legislators were women. Introduced at ten percent, the rule would give Nebraska women a greater voice in decision making.