Abstract
Descriptive representatives often sponsor legislation that advances their groups’ policy interests, but it remains unclear how successful they are passing such legislation. Colleagues might defer and support group-relevant measures from descriptive representatives, perceiving them to have greater expertise and legitimate claims to address the issues than outgroup members. However, colleagues might also oppose those measures in an act of backlash against those groups (especially historically marginalized groups) making new claims on the political system. To answer the question of descriptive representative success, we review 3,401 pieces of legislation related to Native American issues introduced at the state level between 2010 and 2020. We find that measures related to Native affairs are no more likely to pass if sponsored by a Native lawmaker than if sponsored by a non-Native lawmaker. However, symbolic measures of Native concern are more likely to pass than substantive measures regardless of the identity of the sponsor. With more Native Americans running for office than ever before, our findings have important implications for considering the effects of increased descriptive representation in state legislatures.