Jeff Yates - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Jeff Yates

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

... 10 References Bartels, Brandon L. 2008 “Beyond ʻFixed versus Random Effectsʼ: A Framework for... more ... 10 References Bartels, Brandon L. 2008 “Beyond ʻFixed versus Random Effectsʼ: A Framework for Improving Substantive and Statistical Analysis of Panel, Time-Series Cross-Sectional, and Multilevel Data.” Unpublished typescript. ... Brace, Paul and Melinda Gann Hall. 2002. ...

Political Behavior, 1999

Presidency scholars suggest that the federal bureaucracy has become “presidentialized” and that t... more Presidency scholars suggest that the federal bureaucracy has become “presidentialized” and that the federal agencies have become a primary tool for presidential policy implementation. However, in its review of federal agency litigation, the Supreme Court stands as an important monitor of executive bureaucratic action. Here, the conditions under which Supreme Court justices choose to facilitate executive bureaucratic action are assessed.

Bepress Legal Series, 2005

The issue of American litigiousness, especially in the area of tort litigation, has long been a t... more The issue of American litigiousness, especially in the area of tort litigation, has long been a topic of academic debate and political consternation. While some researchers argue over the existence of a 'litigation explosion' or its extent, others seek to understand the root causes of citizen legal mobilization and why governmental entities (states, municipalities, etc.) often have very different experiences concerning citizen legal mobilization and rates of litigation. A number of explanations for variance in state litigation rates have been offered, including political culture, socio-economic dynamics, and legislative intervention (e.g. tort reform), among others. Some of these studies find that litigation and citizens' use of the courts provide an alternative means of political mobilization when more traditional means of political participation may be perceived as less viable. While such studies have provided important insight into citizens' propensity to invoke the state courts to settle disputes, there remain unresolved questions in the literature concerning state litigation rates. In addressing the puzzle of state legal mobilization, existing studies have largely ignored an important theoretical consideration: the institutional structure of state court systems. We draw upon a well-established state politics literature to argue that the structural aspects of state judicial systems, specifically the professionalism of the courts and the method of judicial selection, have important implications for state citizen legal mobilization (litigiousness). We further suggest that the effects of these institutional structural characteristics do not work independently, but are conditioned upon the ideology of the citizenry in which they operate. We consider tort litigation rates in 10 states over 20 years to assess the proposition that these institutional structural characteristics of state court systems affect state citizen legal mobilization, expressed as litigation rates.

Political Research Quarterly, Sep 9, 2014

Understanding Public Perceptions of State Judicial Institutions and Legal Policy-Making, 2016

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 2013

In assessing how social forces may shape U.S. Supreme Court Justices' decision-making it has been... more In assessing how social forces may shape U.S. Supreme Court Justices' decision-making it has been presumed that there is a singular public opinion and that this opinion affects each individual Justice in largely the same fashion. We suggest that it is more likely the case that Justices' world views are informed and shaped by a myriad of social concerns and group identities upon which the Justices structure and process their experiences and develop and refine their personal schemas. While some have already begun to question the proposition of a monolithic public opinion influence on judicial behavior and have begun to think carefully about what we term the "micro-publics" that may inform Supreme Court Justices' decision-making, the more tangible questions of whether Justices respond to publics that are distinguishable from broad-based national public opinion and what those micro-publics might be remain largely unanswered. Our study focuses on the potential influence of localized and personal micro-publics and the possibility of partisan-based elite influence on judicial behavior. We test our hypotheses by analyzing the voting record of Supreme Court Justices on civil liberties cases from 1977 to 2003 and find encouraging initial support for our theory.

In assessing how social forces may shape U.S. Supreme Court justices' decision making it has been... more In assessing how social forces may shape U.S. Supreme Court justices' decision making it has been presumed that there is one, singular public opinion and that it affects the individual justices in largely the same fashion. We suggest that it is more likely the case that justices' world views are informed and shaped by a myriad of social concerns and group identities upon which these individuals structure and process their experiences and develop and refine their personal schemas. While some have already begun to question the proposition of a monolithic public opinion influence on judicial behavior and have begun to think carefully about what we term the "micro-publics" that may inform Supreme Court justices' decision making, the more tangible questions of whether justices respond to publics that are distinguishable from broad-based national public opinion and what those micro-publics might be remains largely unanswered. Our study focuses on the potential influence of localized and personal micro-publics and the possibility of partisan based elite influence on judicial behavior. We test our hypotheses by analyzing Supreme Court justice voting on civil liberties cases from 1977 to 2003 and find encouraging initial support for our theory. 2 Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'. --Bob Dylan -

Journal of Aging Social Policy, Sep 22, 2008

We assess the link between a program&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s volunteer support ... more We assess the link between a program&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s volunteer support and state social capital in the case of the joint implementation of the federal Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman Program by state and federal authorities. This program, which is designed to prevent elder abuse and ensure quality care in long-term facilities, is implemented at the state and local levels and relies heavily on volunteer staff. First, we find that volunteerism is vital to the efficacy of the program&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s monitoring and investigative functions. Second, we find that volunteerism in this program is tied to broader level conditions of a state&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s social capital. Last, we discuss the implications of our findings for volunteer-based programs devolved to the states.

... United States federal government. In doing so, we investigate how our model fares when ... re... more ... United States federal government. In doing so, we investigate how our model fares when ... remarkably successful record as a litigant before the US Supreme Court (Caldeira and Wright 1988; Caplan 1987; Sheehan, Mishler, and Songer 1992). While the office of the Solicitor ...

Bepress Legal Series, 2006

Two enormously influential perspectives on courts offer fundamentally different predictions about... more Two enormously influential perspectives on courts offer fundamentally different predictions about court outcomes and the effects of judge ideology on those outcomes. Wellknown to political scientists studying courts, the ideological voting (IV) literature argues that judge ideology is a strong predictor of court outcomes and that those outcomes should be proximate to the policy preferences of courts. Less known to political scientists but highly influential, the law and economics perspective (LE) focuses on settlement behavior of litigants who try to minimize costs and thus estimate likely outcomes in court, and settle simpler cases pre-trial. In this case selection process litigants respond to cues that signal likely outcomes with the result that only complex, less predictable cases make it to trial leading to win-rates that coalesce at fifty percent for plaintiffs or defendants. From this perspective, litigant strategies cancel out the effects of judge ideology and court outcomes do not correspond to judges' ideological preferences. We reconcile these perspectives by examining tort cases in state supreme courts from 1995 through 1998. The contrasting perspectives stem from the fundamental institutional processes upon which each perspective is based. The LE perspective dominates in states without lower appellate courts (LAC) where process of appeal in these state supreme courts is litigant-driven, with win-rates hovering at fifty percent and deviations from that norm accounted for by forces influencing litigant uncertainty. The ideological voting predicted by the IV literature occurs primarily in the context of state supreme court strategic reversals of LAC decisions---a process commensurate that operating with the U.S. Supreme Court. When it comes to judicial outcomes, institutional structure is a critical element shaping the influence of litigant strategy and judge ideology.

Maryland Law Review, 2005

In this Article we assess competing interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act's aggr... more In this Article we assess competing interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act's aggravated felony provisions, specifically the determination of what state drug offenses properly constitute aggravated felonies, thus subjecting noncitizens to deleterious collateral immigration consequences, including deportation. This issue is considered within the broader political and social context of the nation's "war on drugs" and wide-ranging trends in American immigration policy. We argue that state drug offenses should be analogous to the traditional ftderal characterizations of a felony (i.e., yielding more than a year of imprisonment) in order to be appropriately considered aggravated felonies. We conclude that interpretations of the aggravated felony provisions that allow offenses falling below this threshold to be considered aggravated felonies are misguided, lead to unwarranted collateral immigration consequences for noncitizens, and fit within a broader pattern of inordinate burden sharing by historically disempowered groups in the war on drugs.

Washington and Lee Law Review, 2001

The BushAdministration will likely have the opportunity to make a number of appointments to the S... more The BushAdministration will likely have the opportunity to make a number of appointments to the Supreme Court; however, such nominations may lead to contentious confirmation hearings in the Senate. When such an appointment opportunity does present itself, questions are bound to arise concerning the appropriate role ofthe United States Senate in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees under the "advice and consent" provisions ofArticle H of the United States Constitution. Disputes over the Senate 'sproper role and scope ofinquiry seem to emerge whenever a nominee has faced the confirmation process and have been a timeworn subject oflegal debate. In this Article, we assess the proposition that the Senate should have an active role in the confirmation process, which includes investigation into a nominee's ideological beliefs and constitutional philosophy. We begin by examining the background of the Constitution's "advice and consent"phraseology and consider early applications of the confirmation process by senators during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We then discuss the struggle for judicial selection power between the Senate and the President and conclude by suggesting the needfor an active Senate response to executive nominations.

Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 2009

judges. We test this integrated model of decision-making on case outcomes in the United States Su... more judges. We test this integrated model of decision-making on case outcomes in the United States Supreme Court and employ an interactive specification to assess the influence of judicial ideology on Supreme Court outcomes, simultaneously accounting for litigants' and justices' case selection (sorting) behavior.