Public Opinion and State Supreme Courts (original) (raw)
Related papers
Case Visibility and the Electoral Connection in State Supreme Courts
American Politics Research, 2011
Critics traditionally portray state Supreme Court elections as low-information events that fail to accomplish the stated goal of engendering accountability to the public. Recent changes in the intensity of contestable judicial elections have led scholars to consider the effect of public opinion on state court decision making. We delineate necessary conditions for judicial responsiveness to public opinion, integrating research on state court decision making with the broader literature on representation. We then empirically test our framework for judicial responsiveness. Our findings suggest that the strength of the electoral connection between state supreme court justices and their constituents is quite dependent on method of judicial retention and the visibility of the case.
A Penny for the Court's Thoughts? The High Price of Judicial Elections
2008
In this article, Mr. Bronson Bills explores the meaning of the term "judicial independence," tracks the history of the concept in colonial America, and discusses the importance of judicial independence to free and just society. Mr. Bills then examines judicial elections in light of the 2006 Nevada Supreme Court election for Seat G-a judicial election in which the incumbent Justice
The Journal of Politics, 2008
There is wide scholarly agreement that the frequent replacement of justices has kept the Supreme Court generally attuned to public opinion. Recent research indicates that, in addition to this indirect effect, Supreme Court justices respond directly to changes in public opinion. We explore the two causal pathways suggested to link public opinion directly to the behavior of justices and the implications of the nature and strength of these linkages for current debates concerning Supreme Court tenure. The recent increase in the stability of Court membership has raised questions about the continued efficacy of the replacement mechanism and renewed debates over mechanisms to limit judicial tenure. Our analysis provides little evidence that justices respond strategically to public opinion but provides partial support for the idea that justices’ preferences shift in response to the same social forces that shape the opinions of the general public. Our analysis offers preliminary evidence that—even in the absence of membership change—public opinion may provide a mechanism by which the preferences of the Court can be aligned with those of the public.
Is Voting for State Judges a Flight of Fancy or a Reflection of Policy and Value Preferences?
Justice System Journal, 1994
Generally, judicial voters are viewed as either responding to hardly relevant cues or reacting randomly as they cast ballots for candidates for state benches. However, ifthe 1988 race for an open seat on the Oregon Supreme Court is any indication, when information is provided voters respond rationally. A tabulation of voters' responses recorded on the actual punch card ballots more than suggests that voters remain ideologically consistent in their responses to a series of ideologically divisive initiative measures and to contrasting candidates vying in nonpartisan races for the state's high bench. Perhaps the much maligned judicial voters deserve more credit than heretofore granted. Many debates over the preferred system by which state judges should be selected-.g., executive appointment, nonpartisan election, or the merit plan-turn on an appraisal of judicial voters (Wasmann, Lovrich, and Sheldon, 1986). If, as it is often argued, judicial voters produce ill-considered if not blindly cast ballots for judicial candidates, it would follow that judicial selection should be turned over to either the politicians, by means of gubernatorial or legislative appointment; to the experts, via lawyer nomination or bar association veto; or to some combination of group processes reflected in the merit plan (Vanderbiit, 1956; Winters, 1971). Indeed, most studies would seem to support this unfavorable impression about the voting citizenry; namely, they simply do not know about nor have much interest in judicial candidates (e.g., Klots, 1955). Typically, they either bypass the judicial races or quickly make a nonrational if not irrational choice while in the voting booth. As confirmed by the high roll-off experienced by judicial contests, many of the voters appear to care littleabout who sits on the state benches @ubois, 1980b). Some scholars do indeed argue, however, that the cause for such poor voter performance does not lie exclusively with voters (Baum, 1988189). Citizens need help to appraise candidates for judicial ofice from those who are most knowledgeable. Some voters urgently strive to cast an intelligent and responsive ballot, but meaningful information on candidates is either difficult to come by or is simply not available. The consequences of
Judicial activism and the American election process 1
This article analyses the phenomenon of judicial activism in the American electoral process. It tries to estimate whether the political system of the United States of America has become hostage to the law-making role of the judiciary, which actively controls the compliance of election laws with the Constitution, thus drawing courts into purely political processes, or whether the nature of the disputes settled by judges rather makes it impossible for them to avoid being influenced by and influencing issues of a political nature. The article analyses various legal acts and court decisions, mostly concerning the current status of federal campaign finance in the United States, and demonstrates that more spheres traditionally reserved for other branches of government are being appropriated by the judicial branch.
The Sources Of Public Confidence In State Courts
American Politics Research, 2003
Although much is known about public attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court, there is very little information about how citizens feel about courts in their own communities. This article hypothesizes that attitudes toward local courts are based primarily on four factors: (a) the actual experiences people have with these courts, (b) the methods by which local judges are selected, (c) the role of the mass media, and (d) various demographic factors. The authors find strong evidence that personal experience matters: Criminal jurors are more supportive of local courts, whereas defendants and those who have participated on either side of a civil case are not. Judicial selection methods, on the other hand, have no effect on citizens’ attitudes, except among some educated citizens. Finally, no media effects are apparent.
American Political Science Review, 2008
Institutional legitimacy is perhaps the most important political capital courts possess. Many believe, however, that the legitimacy of elected state courts is being threatened by the rise of politicized judicial election campaigns and the breakdown of judicial impartiality. Three features of such campaigns, the argument goes, are dangerous to the perceived impartiality of courts: campaign contributions, attack ads, and policy pronouncements by candidates for judicial office. By means of an experimental vignette embedded in a representative survey, I investigate whether these factors in fact compromise the legitimacy of courts. The survey data indicate that campaign contributions and attack ads do indeed lead to a diminution of legitimacy,in courts just as in legislatures. However, policy pronouncements, even those promising to make decisions in certain ways, have no impact whatsoever on the legitimacy of courts and judges. These results are strongly reinforced by the experiment'...