The Complexity of Representation:
Impeachment of a President
Matt Cook & Sean Kelly
Understanding Representation
Data
Two conceptions of representation dominate the study of legislator responsiveness in democratic systems.
The “delegate model” holds that legislators are elected by their constituents to faithfully reflect constituents’
views when making legislative decisions. By contrast the “trustee model” suggests that members of Congress
will exercise their judgment—independent of their constituents—when making legislative decisions. A rich
political science literature has sought to determine which of these models provides a better model of
legislative decision-making by members of Congress. Most studies have sought to find correlations between
legislators’ votes and the opinions of their constituents across hundreds of legislators. A primary weakness
of these studies is the fact that constituency-level survey data is based on only a few respondents in each
district.
Our data are from the congressional collection of Harold T. “Bizz” Johnson. Representative Johnson
served in the House of Representatives between 1959 and 1980. A Democrat, he represented a 14
county area in Northern California. His congressional papers are archived at CSU Channel Islands. To
capture the “two-way” communication between a Representative and his district we used three types of
data from this collection:
1. Constituent correspondence. Letters to Johnson reflect the opinions of
his constituents who took the time to communicate in writing.This “activated
opinion” represents the views of the most vocal and, therefore, likely some
of the most influential voices in his constituency.
2.Annually the Johnson office sought opinion from constituents
through district questionnaires.Thousands of replies were carefully
tabulated by his staff and often communicated back to his district through
constituent newsletters.
3. Constituent newsletters, press releases, and other communications that
sought to inform the voters of his district about his positions on issues and
His accomplishments in office.
We use both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of these documents to better understand the
complexity of representation.
This research uses a case study approach. Using the archived papers of a member of Congress from
California—Harold “Bizz” Johnson (D-CA) who served in the House from 1959-1981—we seek to develop
a richer understanding of the constituency-legislator linkage. Focusing on the impeachment of President
Nixon we examine the relationship between constituency opinion and his legislative behavior
We legislative behavior surrounding impeachment involves a dialogue between the member and his
constituents that reflects elements of both models of representation. This research gives us insight into the
complexity of representation.
Nixon’s Resignation
"I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is
abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But As President, I must put the interest
of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress,
particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.
To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication
would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and
the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues
of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.
Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.
Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.
Nixon’s Official Resignation Letter.
Source: National Archives and Records
Administration
As I recall the high hopes for America with which we began
this second term, I feel a great sadness that I will not be here in this office
working on your behalf to achieve those hopes in the next 21/2 years. But in turning over direction of the Government to Vice
President Ford, I know, as I told the Nation when I nominated him for that office 10 months ago, that the leadership of America will
be in good hands.
In passing this office to the Vice President, I also do so with the profound sense of the weight of responsibility that will fall on his
shoulders tomorrow and, therefore, of the understanding, the patience, the cooperation he will need from all Americans." Richard M.
Nixon, 8/8/1974
Figure 2
Figure 1
Findings
Nixon, Watergate, and Impeachment
The Watergate scandal occurred in the United States in the 1970s as a result of the June 17, 1972 break-in at
the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the
Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement. The scandal eventually led to the resignation of
Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, on August 9, 1974—the only resignation of a U.S. president to
date. The scandal also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration of 43 people, dozens of
whom were Nixon's top administration officials.
The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) headquarters at the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
connected cash found on the burglars to a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President, the official organization of Nixon's campaign. In July 1973, as evidence mounted against the president's
staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee, it was revealed that President
Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and he had recorded many conversations. Recordings from these tapes implicated the president, revealing he
had attempted to cover up the questionable (and illegal) goings-on that had taken place after the break-in. After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the
U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president had to hand over the tapes to government investigators; he ultimately complied.
Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and a strong possibility of a conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August
9, 1974. His successor, Gerald Ford, then issued a pardon to him.
Figure 1 (left) displays the breakdown of letters to Johnson in 1974 regarding the impeachment of the
president. Letters were coded according to whether they supported impeachment of Nixon, opposed his
impeachment, or were undecided. Most writers expressed a definite point of view. Throughout the period
constituents favored impeachment,; on average across this period about 60% of writers supported
impeachment.
Figure 2 (above) displays constituent opinion based on questionnaires distributed and tabulated by
Johnson’s office staff over the course of several weeks. By the Spring of 1974, among those constituents
expressing an opinion, 55% of Johnson’s constituents supported impeachment and 45% opposed it.
In 1973, as the allegations against Nixon began taking shape, Johnson’s response was muted.
Acknowledging the gravity of the circumstances he vowed to keep an open mind (see image 1). However,
as district opinion moved toward majority support for impeachment Johnson’s tone turned notably
negative toward the president (see image 2). With Nixon’s “job approval” dropping in his district (from
47.2% in 1972 to 34% in the Spring of 1974), Johnson felt more comfortable supporting impeachment
and opposing the president.
Conclusions
On the sensitive issue of impeachment Johnson paid close attention to the views of his constituents. He
kept them informed as the issue moved forward, and ultimately he supported impeachment as did a
majority of his constituents. In the end, though, a substantial percentage of his constituents did not
support impeachment, and their views were left unrecognized by Johnson’s position. This is a difficulty
inherent in Democratic politics when a single member of Congress is expected to reflect the many
views of their constituency.
Bibliography
Starr, Kenneth. The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair. New York: Public Affairs, 1998.
Stewart, David O. Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston: Hilliard, Gray, 1833.
Sullivan, Terry. “Impeachment Practice in the Era of Lethal Conflict.” Congress & the Presidency 25, no. 2 (1998): 117-128.
Trefousse, Hans Louis. Impeachment of a President: Andrew Johnson, the Blacks, and Reconstruction. 2nd ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 1999.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Stepladder Program for Interdisciplinary Research and Learning (SPIRaL) grant for funding the teaching of this course., the John Spoor Broome Library and
Amy Wallace for making acquisition of the Johnson Papers possible., and the CI Student Research Steering Council for funding our participation at the Southern California
Council on Undergraduate Research conference.