Research

For legitimacy, a decision-making body must be demographically representative of the people that it governs. With the expansion of the administrative state, this consideration must include officials who guide the bureaucratic policymaking process. Such officials, however, are appointed through a partisan process of presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, which makes their representativeness dependent upon the politics and procedures of elected branches. How does this selection process influence diversity? Using data spanning 1981--2024, we investigate the institutional, contextual, and partisan influences of when presidents nominate people from underrepresented groups to high-level agency posts, as well as how these nominations progress (or not) toward confirmation. We find that while presidents are increasingly willing to nominate people from underrepresented groups, placements are still influenced by enduring group stereotypes.Furthermore, we demonstrate that the Senate is an obstacle to diversification.

The representativeness of decision-making bodies relative to the population governed is a crucial factor for legitimacy. Most often, this principle is applied to elected bodies, but it equally pertains to appointed public officials. American presidents nominate individuals to lead executive bureaucracies that, in turn, influence and implement policy. However, in order to serve in these positions, nominees must pass through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process. Using data from the full Biden administration, we explore how identity influences nominees' experience of the appointments process and ultimately impacts the representativeness of American bureaucracies. The Biden administration represents a unique case, where a campaign promise to promote diversity in appointments led to a historic shift in nomination practice. Within these favorable conditions, we show that the Senate still serves as an obstacle to appointing a diverse slate of high-level officials, both in terms of delaying and denying such appointments. Evidence also suggests that group stereotypes continue to influence appointee placements. Our findings demonstrate the influence of individual characteristics beyond ideology in appointment politics and advance our understanding of identity within American institutions.