It has been nearly a half century since the Civil Rights era, and there are today hundreds of black state legislators in the United States. Until now, however, no comprehensive examination of their contemporary legislative influence has been conducted. The need for such a study is clear, and Tyson King-Meadows and Thomas Schaller's research—part of the SUNY Series in African American Studies—is rooted in an interesting set of political trends. Since the Reagan Revolution of the early 1980s and the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, devolution (or new federalism) has pushed much power and many resources (though some would argue not enough resources) to the states. At the same time, since the early 1980s the number of black state legislators has increased substantially. The authors want to know whether these two trends have resulted in greater real (as opposed to symbolic or descriptive) representation of African American interests in state policy. They suggest that the answer generally is that it has not.

This study is soundly developed, and the narrative reads easily because the authors' descriptive and empirical analysis is woven together very well. King-Meadows and Schaller draw on a diverse set of both quantitative and qualitative data, including interviews with many black legislators. The writing is clear and coherent, chapters are organized logically, and the methodology is generally sound. Where there are potential questions with the operationalization and measurement of variables (such as in Chapter 6 with the operationalization of black political incorporation at the state level), the authors are clear and frank about the limitations of their work. The book is divided into eight chapters, but three main points emerge from the project as a whole.

First, the authors show that contemporary black legislators are a rather monolithic group who came into office at a time when Republicans were ascendant (Reagan's revolution, the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and the election of many Republican governors around the country) and when conservative principles both fiscally and socially were dominant. As a group they, like their white counterparts, do not look like the people they represent. Black legislators are members of the political, social, and economic elite. Most are from the South, most are Democrats, and most are highly educated with law, business, and education making up the largest occupational categories. They represent districts that are mostly urban, very geographically dense, and far less advantaged (in terms of socioeconomic status) than they are.

Second, the authors show that while black legislators vote rather cohesively on legislation that directly affects their constituents, such as that related to crime and punishment, economic development, and welfare-to-work reform, white legislators who also represent racial minorities are less likely to vote as cohesively with them on these issues. King-Meadows and Schaller argue that while not predictive, racial identity acts as a powerful influence on black legislative roll-call voting behavior, but at the same time, black legislative caucuses are not very effective at building coalitions beyond that point. The apparent discord between black and white legislators on bills important to both their constituents, and to the black legislators particularly, is in part what helps explain the ineffectiveness of black legislative caucuses at the state level. The other factors that limit the effectiveness of black legislative caucuses are the legislative context of the state and the size of the caucus. As the authors show, in states where the black legislative caucus is small and the legislative context is restrictive, it is more difficult for black legislators to build meaningful coalitions and thus the promotion and protection of black interests is difficult at best. However, in states where the black legislative caucus is large(r) and the legislative context is less restrictive, it is easier for black legislators to build meaningful coalitions, and thus the promotion and protection of black interests is easier.

Third, the authors use the particular case of welfare reform to show how difficult it is for black state legislators to exercise power over a policy area in the age of devolution. Because welfare reform affects their constituents more than most, black state legislators have a vested interest in seeing it work at the state level. Yet, finding strong empirical evidence of successful black legislative influence on state expenditures for particular programs or categories of welfare most associated with African American interests is difficult at best. Instead, the authors show that a state's political context and economic condition have a much stronger influence on the course of welfare policy than does black legislative power.

King-Meadows and Schaller conclude that devolution has not resulted in increased power in areas of policy where black legislators would have been expected to find it. In order to benefit from the opportunity presented to black state legislators by devolution, those legislators and their constituents have to recognize and exploit the opportunity, which they have not done. In addition, while black state legislators are having a hard time exploiting opportunities to shape public policies (such as those concerning welfare policies), they are increasingly taking the blame for those policies when they go bad. Such are the dangers of devolution, the authors conclude, and they will shape the future of black state politics.

Devolution and Black State Legislators is a valuable contribution to the study of state politics, African American politics, welfare policy, and devolution (or new federalism), and is highly recommended to scholars of these fields as well as for graduate courses in these fields.