A recent study provides evidence that state legislators who are highly effective at passing laws are nearly twice as likely to end up serving in the United States Congress compared to their less effective peers. This pattern tends to occur because successful lawmakers are more willing to run for higher office, rather than because voters specifically reward legislative skill at the ballot box. The findings were published in the American Political Science Review.
In the American political system, state legislatures often act as a training ground for future members of Congress. Between 1973 and 2025, about half of all federal representatives previously served in their home state’s legislative chamber. This pathway provides politicians with experience in drafting bills, debating policies, and running campaigns.
The United States operates under a system of federalism, where power is shared between the national government and state governments. This structure allows individual states to act as laboratories of democracy, testing out new policies and solutions on a smaller scale. Successful policies can then be adopted by other states or implemented at the national level.
When a politician decides to seek a higher, more prestigious office, political scientists refer to this concept as progressive ambition. The decision involves weighing the costs of giving up a current seat against the potential benefits of gaining a more powerful position. The system theoretically allows the best lawmakers to move up, creating a pipeline of talent from the states to the federal government.
“The Center for Effective Lawmaking is interested in understanding what factors contribute to certain legislators in the US Congress and state legislatures being better able to move bills through the legislative process,” said Sarah A. Treul, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We wanted to add to the literature on effectiveness by asking how our system of federalism might contribute to legislative effectiveness.”
Treul explained that if politicians gain practical experience at the state level and then successfully run for national office, it indicates a healthy democratic pipeline. “That is, if state legislators gain lawmaking experience at the state-level and then are more likely to run for and win a seat in the US Congress, this would suggest that state legislatures serve as important training grounds for national lawmaking,” she said.
To examine this dynamic, the researchers analyzed data from 97 state legislative chambers spanning the years 1993 to 2018. They utilized a dataset containing nearly 80,000 individual effectiveness scores for state legislators. These scores were generated by tracking every bill introduced in these chambers, matching each bill to its primary sponsor, and monitoring how far it advanced through the legislative process.
The scoring system assigned greater weight to bills that were substantive and significant, as opposed to minor or ceremonial resolutions. To ensure fair comparisons, the scientists adjusted these scores based on a legislator’s specific institutional circumstances. They accounted for factors that naturally provide lawmaking advantages, such as being a member of the majority party, having high seniority, or holding a committee chair position.
Legislators were then categorized based on whether they fell below expectations, met expectations, or exceeded expectations compared to similarly situated peers. The researchers also tracked whether these individuals chose to run for the United States House of Representatives. Finally, they documented whether these candidates won their primary and general elections.
The analysis indicates that lawmakers who meet or exceed expectations are significantly more likely to be elected to Congress. The researchers looked specifically at open seats in politically safe districts, which are districts without a running incumbent that heavily favor one political party. Under these favorable conditions, an ineffective state lawmaker has about a 2.8 percent probability of being elected to Congress. An average lawmaker has a 4.9 percent probability, and a highly effective lawmaker has a 5.3 percent probability.
The scientists found that this difference is driven almost entirely by the candidates’ own choices to enter the race. Ineffective state lawmakers seek a seat in the United States House of Representatives about 8 percent of the time when presented with an open, safe seat. Highly effective state lawmakers are much more likely to run, doing so at a 13.2 percent frequency.
The data provides evidence that less effective lawmakers tend to sit out these races, allowing their more skilled peers to advance. This might occur because ineffective lawmakers recognize their own limitations in passing policy. It could also happen because they fail to secure the necessary campaign contributions and support from party leaders who recruit candidates.
In the United States, candidates must typically navigate a two-step electoral process to reach Congress. They first compete in a primary election to secure their political party’s nomination, often facing challengers from within their own ranks. If successful, they advance to the general election, where they compete against the nominees of opposing parties for the final seat.
The researchers found no relationship between a candidate’s prior lawmaking effectiveness and their actual likelihood of winning either of these electoral contests. Whether courting highly partisan primary voters or the broader general electorate, candidates do not seem to gain an advantage from their legislative track records. “The fact that there is no relationship between a state legislator’s lawmaking effectiveness and their likelihood of winning a primary or general House election is fairly surprising,” Treul told PsyPost.
Treul noted that this finding points to the external forces required to elevate talented politicians. “This really shows the importance of institutional factors that might help encourage effective lawmakers to run for higher office,” she explained. The researchers explored these institutional factors by examining how the specific environment of the state legislature affects a politician’s ambition.
Some states have citizen legislatures, where members work part-time, have smaller staffs, and receive lower pay. Other states have highly professional legislatures that function much like a smaller version of Congress, offering full-time work, large staffs, and higher salaries. In part-time citizen legislatures, the scientists found that highly effective lawmakers are generally more likely to run for Congress than their less effective peers, regardless of the electoral circumstances.
The desire to move to a more prominent and well-resourced lawmaking body appears to be a strong motivator for these individuals. They are willing to challenge incumbents to achieve a higher position. A different pattern emerges in highly professional state legislatures, where members already have significant resources at their disposal.
In these environments, highly effective lawmakers are only more likely to run for Congress when an open seat is available. Lacking an open seat, only about 0.2 percent of highly effective legislators are willing to leave a professional legislature to seek higher office, which is no different from the rate of ineffective legislators. When a congressional seat opens up, however, highly effective lawmakers from professional legislatures are much more likely to take the leap.
The authors suggest that politicians in professional chambers already wield significant influence and enjoy their work. They appear unwilling to risk their current positions unless a highly favorable opportunity arises. The analysis also looked at other personal factors, such as a legislator’s gender, party status, and seniority. The scientists found that these specific personal characteristics do not seem to affect the overall likelihood of running for Congress.
“State legislators who are skilled at moving bills through the legislative process are more likely to run for the US Congress due to self-selection,” Treul told PsyPost. “This is encouraging, as it suggests that those legislators who know they are skilled at navigating the legislative process are also more likely to take these skills to the next level.” The researchers believe this self-selection is critical for improving the quality of national representation.
“Our article also demonstrates that voters are not always the best at discerning what lawmakers are the most effective at the state level,” Treul added. “This means that in order to benefit from the state-level experience of effective lawmakers, party recruitment and self-selection into a US Congress race is highly important. We need to think about ways to encourage the best state legislators to take their skills to the US Congress.”
There are some potential misinterpretations to avoid. A reader might assume that voters actively disregard a politician’s effectiveness out of apathy. It is equally possible that voters are simply uninformed, as objective metrics of legislative success are rarely highlighted in campaign materials or local news coverage.
One limitation of the study is that it relies on a specific mathematical metric of legislative effectiveness, which focuses primarily on the advancement of sponsored bills. Lawmakers might contribute to the legislative process in other ways, such as negotiating compromises behind closed doors or providing exceptional constituent services. These alternative forms of political work are harder to quantify and might influence a politician’s career trajectory differently.
Future research could explore whether providing voters with easily accessible, objective data about a state legislator’s effectiveness alters their voting behavior. Scientists might also investigate whether the skills that make a state legislator successful easily transfer to the federal level. Understanding how different state-level institutional rules prepare politicians for the unique challenges of the United States Congress remains an open question for future analysis.
The study, “Legislative Effectiveness, Progressive Ambition, and Electoral Success,” was authored by Danielle M. Thomsen, Sarah A. Treul, Craig Volden, and Alan E. Wiseman.