Are special elections really “special,” and if so, in what ways? On the one hand, special elections occur in relative isolation and send members to Congress to serve only partial terms. For these reasons, special elections may be peculiar but not that special. On the other hand, special elections often generate considerable media attention, can serve as a testing ground for parties and candidates, and are thought to predict the next general election’s results. Yet despite their potential importance, little published work examines special elections as a distinct and worthwhile type of electoral contest. Not only have elections scholars tended to ignore specials focusing instead on general elections but also leading textbooks make no mention of special elections at all.

My own interest in this topic was sparked in December 2012 when Jim DeMint resigned his Senate seat, sending Tim Scott from the House to the Senate, thus triggering a special election in my district. In the special, Republican Mark Sanford—the ex-governor who left office for having an extramarital affair—faced off against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch—the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert. Needless to say, the 2013 special in SC 1 generated considerable media attention, resulting in numerous calls from local, state, and national reporters. Looking for answers to their questions, I quickly discovered that the literature on special elections was both scant and dated.

I really wish this book had been available back then! Indeed, Charles Bullock and Karen Owen have written the go-to volume on this topic for academics, journalists, and other political observers. It is both sophisticated and accessible for a lay audience, using a nice blend of data analysis and well-written case studies, and it fills a large void in the election literature. Given the unconventional yet important nature of special elections, a book of this type was desperately needed.

In the first chapter, Bullock and Owen make the case for studying special elections. First, special elections are not that infrequent; roughly eight new members are elected to each Congress via a special. Aided by their victory and partial incumbency, these members often win the next general election, making the cumulative effect of these contests substantial. For example, Bullock and Owen’s data show that roughly 50 members in a typical Congress were first elected in a special election. Second, special elections are unique in their ability to diversify Congress. Bullock and Owen report that underrepresented groups (primarily women but also racial and ethnic minorities) are more likely to win a special than a general election. Nancy Pelosi and the aforementioned Tim Scott are two examples. And third, special elections have developed alongside general elections in notable ways. As in general elections, turnout and campaign spending have increased in recent special election cycles. Likewise, most observers posit that special elections have nationalized over the past three decades, often serving as a referendum on the sitting president.

Chapters 2 and 3 then explore one of the most important special elections in history: the 2017 contest in GA 6 between Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel. Breaking records for campaign spending in any House race, Democrats hoped an Ossoff win would repudiate Donald Trump and show the party how to win deep red suburban districts in future election cycles. In these chapters, Bullock and Owen offer fresh data and keen insights to help contextualize this critical race. A critique of the book—a very minor one—is the decision to dedicate two chapters to this one race. Although expertly researched and enjoyable to read, the focus on the GA 6 special detracts somewhat from the broader examination of special elections.

In chapter 4, Bullock and Owen present seven case studies, one for each special in the 2017–18 cycle. At the conclusion they draw lessons from the perspective of the underdog party in a special election. Bullock and Owen identify a notable paradox—that even though special elections occur in a fluid environment and have the potential to diversify Congress, the dominant party is often better positioned to field a high-quality candidate. For this reason, one of the main suggestions Bullock and Owen offer for improving the process is for the out-of-power party to work hard to recruit high-quality candidates and for national party organizations to spend money early in the race. Chapter 5 then takes a deeper look at another key factor in special elections—campaign spending—revealing a few notable results. First, spending has increased dramatically in recent decades. Although this increase parallels that in general elections, it is important to remember that most special elections occur in reliably red or blue districts, where spending is typically quite low. Second, they note that increased spending does not always yield a sizable return on investment. Money matters certainly, but spending alone does not yield success.

In chapter 6, my favorite one in the book, Bullock and Owen address two critically important questions: What factors explain candidate success in special elections, and are special elections a barometer of subsequent general election outcomes? Unlike the prior chapters, here Bullock and Owen rely on hard data and quantitative analysis. On the first question, Bullock and Owen’s data largely confirm the qualitative conclusions in earlier chapters. High-quality and better-funded candidates often have an advantage in special elections, according to their statistical results. However, and contrary to past work, they find limited evidence that presidential politics (either presidential approval or shared party affiliation with the president) influences special election outcomes. On the second question, their data show mixed evidence for the common claim that special elections are a barometer of future outcomes. Unlike prior work and the conventional wisdom among journalists, special elections only weakly predict defeat or victory for the president’s party in the next general election cycle.

Although chapter 6 answers important questions about special elections, I have two general critiques of it. First, a common thread running through the results is that special elections are not connected to presidential politics, despite what prior scholars and most observers believe. This presents an intriguing puzzle that could have been explored in greater depth. Second, and related, although the statistical analyses are well executed, the data mostly update prior authors’ findings, often with subtle modeling changes, raising questions about whether their divergent findings are methodological in nature. In fairness, Bullock and Owen acknowledge the latter issue, and both critiques are of the minor variety.

All in all, this excellent book fills a substantial gap in the literature and is required reading for those interested in elections. Sophisticated, well written, and compelling, Special Elections is the definitive book on this important topic. Although special elections will always generate substantial intrigue and raise questions about the state of American politics, they will no longer be mysterious thanks to this book.