Most often, scholars of African American representation in legislative bodies have used the US Congress as the subject of their studies. This is logical given the critical importance of Congress in the US political system. In Gaining Voice, however, Christopher Clark makes a persuasive case that we would derive greater theoretical purchase if we more often refocused our analytical lenses on blacks elected to state legislatures. Clark asks this question: What constitutes meaningful descriptive representation for African Americans such that it has an impact on the quality of black political incorporation and policy outputs that sync with black policy interests? Although Clark implies that he is confining his examination to descriptive representation—how much representatives share demographic or other background characteristics with those they represent—the richness of his study actually says quite a bit about substantive representation. He explains, “When considering how black descriptive representation relates to black policy presentation, black political involvement, and black public opinion, it can be stated that one considers the political consequences of blacks gaining voice in state legislatures” (p. 7; emphasis mine). Clark advances what he calls a “multifaceted approach to studying black descriptive representation” through his extensive examination of the effects of two key indicators: black seat share and the black representation ratio. Black seat share is a measure of the influence that black state legislators have within their respective legislatures, because it is the percentage of the total number of seats held by black legislators. The black representation ratio is an indicator of how well African American citizens/voters are represented in the legislature: it is a measure of parity between the percentage that blacks comprise of a state’s population and the percentage of seats held by black legislators. Although I do not consider only two indicators robust enough of a concept operationalization to label his a “multifaceted” approach, I believe Clark nicely hypothesizes and tests at least two interesting poles or nodes along a possibly larger continuum.

Throughout this volume, Clark builds a persuasive case for why the state level is the ideal level of analysis, and his reasons are quite familiar to students of state and local politics. For example, to understand the impact of legislative caucuses at the national level, a researcher can only examine the activities of a single case: the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Yet, at the state level, there are presently some 32 black legislative caucuses whose examination clearly provide a larger sample, with all the useful variation and validity that accompany it.

Across a range of questions, Clark examines how black seat share and the black representation ratio are and are not significantly associated with the quality of “black descriptive representation, black policy representation, black political involvement, and black public opinion” (p. 7.) The first set of chapters in Clark’s book examines the causes of black legislative representation. In chapter 2, he examines what variables help explain a state’s black seat share and representation ratio and finds that black seat share has a positive and linear relationship with the percentage of a state’s black population. Yet the black representation ratio has a positive but curvilinear relationship with percentage black population. Among other findings, Clark claims that he clearly can debunk the “demographics as destiny” explanation for the conditions under which black legislators are elected and, equally importantly, the politics of drawing minority-majority districts that make such election outcomes more likely. Certainly, V. O. Key’s (Southern Politics in State and Nation, 1949) “racial threat” theory provides a useful and pithy explanation of the limits of increases in black population resulting in increased numbers of state legislators. In chapter 3, Clark conducts an aggregate analysis of the factors explaining the founding (or presence) of state legislative black caucuses. He finds that a threshold or critical mass of at least six black state legislators is necessary for the formation of these caucuses. This chapter has implications for the formation of caucuses among women and Latinos, even though the group identities and political solidarities of those groups greatly differ from those of African Americans.

The second set of chapters examines the outcomes of black descriptive representation. In chapter 4, Clark analyzes the relationship between black seat share, the black representation ratio, and two policy domains: education (as in per pupil education spending) and public welfare (welfare-to-work rule restrictiveness). An expected result is that black seat share is positively related with per pupil spending and less rigid welfare-to-work requirements, whereas the black representation ratio is not significantly associated with either measure. But a truly curious result is that a state’s Democratic as opposed to Republican seat share is associated with greater welfare-to-work requirements. This education versus public welfare finding does suggest that black representation is a “double edged sword” (p. 96). African Americans may confront an “electoral capture” problem (see Paul Frymer, Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America, 1999) or “white backlash” problem where centrist Democratic Party leaders seek to court white moderates who view welfare through racialized lenses because it is perceived as benefiting blacks. In chapter 5, Clark finds important empowerment effects: black seat share is positively associated with higher African American political interests and voter turnout, as compared to political involvement effects among nonblacks. In chapter 6, Clark examines and finds that black seat share is positively associated with black opposition to photo ID laws and new (and currently illegal) literacy requirements, which has important implications for civil rights and voting rights advocacy in states like North Carolina. It is substantively and theoretically interesting that the black representation ratio is, again, not significantly associated with any forms of reported political involvement or public opinion questions analyzed.

In conclusion, Clark has provided a quite noteworthy contribution to our empirical understanding of how—and in what context—descriptive representation matters in affecting policy and political outcomes. I commend him for providing extensive evidence for the claim that black descriptive representation matters (or most matters) at the state and conceivably local levels; in theory, there are up to 50 states and some 89,000 local units of government that provide many more “all politics is local” opportunities for African Americans to be represented.

However, Clark could make a stronger case regarding black descriptive representation. Across a wide range of measures, black seat share has greater explanatory power than does the black representation ratio. Clearly, the total percentage of all votes in a chamber that African Americans command is a stronger indicator of influence or leverage than is the match between the percentage blacks have of all legislative seats and the percentage of a state’s black population. I conclude that black seat share is a concept that sits at the intersection of descriptive and substantive representation. It is a form of kinetic political power, because it reflects the potential that blacks broadly have to influence policy and other outcomes. Given that African Americans have gained state legislative voices, to paraphrase Clark, black seat share is the potential for their voices to be heard.