The responsiveness of state legislatures and their agenda concerning gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender interests

Republicanism, as opposed to direct democracy, has been theorized to protect minority rights. Direct democracy with its majority rule is unlikely to serve the interests of minorities particularly if their interests are perceived to conflict with the majority's interests. However, Republican Institutions vary in features that affect their responsiveness to majoritarian preferences. This article examines whether specific legislative features associated with responsiveness (majoritarian participation, constituent ties and professionalism) affect the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) agenda in state legislatures. The findings suggest that the importance of these features is dependent on the ideological leanings of the state. The findings also suggest that some features expand both pro- and anti-GLBT agendas, and the effects of professionalism are ambiguous.