Pub Date : 2020-11-05DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1843092
Piotr Staszkiewicz, Sylwia Morawska, P. Banasik, B. Witkowski, Richard Staszkiewicz
Abstract The aim of this study is to discern whether, by delegating judges from the court to the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Justice influences the results of courts in terms of adjudication. The study used a unique set of data for the Polish judicial system over a period of five years. The research results indicate that there are three reasons for delegating judges. Firstly, the delegation system serves to fill staff shortages among administrative staff at the Ministry of Justice. Secondly, the delegation system allows for inefficient judges to be moved. Thirdly, the system serves as an indirect control mechanism affecting the independence of courts. The results show that delegation has a positive short-term impact on judicial performance.
{"title":"Do Judges’ Delegations Affect Judicial Performance? A Transition Economy Evidence","authors":"Piotr Staszkiewicz, Sylwia Morawska, P. Banasik, B. Witkowski, Richard Staszkiewicz","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1843092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1843092","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of this study is to discern whether, by delegating judges from the court to the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Justice influences the results of courts in terms of adjudication. The study used a unique set of data for the Polish judicial system over a period of five years. The research results indicate that there are three reasons for delegating judges. Firstly, the delegation system serves to fill staff shortages among administrative staff at the Ministry of Justice. Secondly, the delegation system allows for inefficient judges to be moved. Thirdly, the system serves as an indirect control mechanism affecting the independence of courts. The results show that delegation has a positive short-term impact on judicial performance.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77726154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1869443
Amy Steigerwalt
Welcome to the final issue of Volume 41 for the Justice System Journal (JSJ). JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the journal’s aims & scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. I want to begin by offering a special thanks to the usually faceless individuals who volunteer their time and effort to make this journal a success: our many reviewers. Included in this issue is a list of everyone who reviewed a manuscript for JSJ in 2020. Reviewing is a thankless job, but also a vital one; peer review is the backbone of the scholastic enterprise, and this journal would not exist without all of you. In a year marked by tremendous uncertainty, sickness and loss, the willingness of the members of this community to devote their time to reading and offering thoughtful feedback on each other’s work (and a not insignificant number reviewed multiple times this year)—and everyone’s patience and understanding as we all dealt with a multitude of challenges—was a very welcome reminder of the reasons why we chose to join this academic community. My sincerest thank you to everyone for your help in supporting our academic community. Leading off this final issue of 2020, we begin with “The impact of retention systems on judicial behavior: a synthetic controls analysis of state supreme courts” by Kristen M. Renberg (Duke University). Renberg delves into the question of the impact of judicial retention system on judicial behavior by asking whether and how judicial behavior may change if the method by which a judge is selected changes. Utilizing a relatively novel methodology for analyzing judicial behavior, synthetic controls, Renberg assesses whether a change from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections on a state court leads to changes in behavior by the judges of those courts, as compared to state courts where no such institutional design changes were implemented. This method allows for a more direct causal test of whether structural changes, as opposed to other forces, are what truly account for potential changes in judicial behavior. Notably, she finds that one important byproduct of a move toward nonpartisan judicial elections is a subsequent increase in the rate of dissensus. These findings have important implications for our continuing debates over how best to select judges for the highest courts throughout the United States. We continue our examination of state court elections with “Have state supreme court elections nationalized?” by Aaron Wein
{"title":"Letter from the Editor","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1869443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1869443","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the final issue of Volume 41 for the Justice System Journal (JSJ). JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the journal’s aims & scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. I want to begin by offering a special thanks to the usually faceless individuals who volunteer their time and effort to make this journal a success: our many reviewers. Included in this issue is a list of everyone who reviewed a manuscript for JSJ in 2020. Reviewing is a thankless job, but also a vital one; peer review is the backbone of the scholastic enterprise, and this journal would not exist without all of you. In a year marked by tremendous uncertainty, sickness and loss, the willingness of the members of this community to devote their time to reading and offering thoughtful feedback on each other’s work (and a not insignificant number reviewed multiple times this year)—and everyone’s patience and understanding as we all dealt with a multitude of challenges—was a very welcome reminder of the reasons why we chose to join this academic community. My sincerest thank you to everyone for your help in supporting our academic community. Leading off this final issue of 2020, we begin with “The impact of retention systems on judicial behavior: a synthetic controls analysis of state supreme courts” by Kristen M. Renberg (Duke University). Renberg delves into the question of the impact of judicial retention system on judicial behavior by asking whether and how judicial behavior may change if the method by which a judge is selected changes. Utilizing a relatively novel methodology for analyzing judicial behavior, synthetic controls, Renberg assesses whether a change from partisan elections to nonpartisan elections on a state court leads to changes in behavior by the judges of those courts, as compared to state courts where no such institutional design changes were implemented. This method allows for a more direct causal test of whether structural changes, as opposed to other forces, are what truly account for potential changes in judicial behavior. Notably, she finds that one important byproduct of a move toward nonpartisan judicial elections is a subsequent increase in the rate of dissensus. These findings have important implications for our continuing debates over how best to select judges for the highest courts throughout the United States. We continue our examination of state court elections with “Have state supreme court elections nationalized?” by Aaron Wein","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74512753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1869442
Kristen M. Renberg
{"title":"Money Talks, but is Prior Pay Silenced Under the Equal Pay Act? Rizo v. Yovino","authors":"Kristen M. Renberg","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1869442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1869442","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74325606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-21DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1820920
Brent D. Boyea
Abstract Following the decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, questions about the impact of unlimited independent expenditures on state supreme court elections emerged. For those critical of the decision, an area of concern was how elected state courts could be adversely affected by outside group spending. Utilizing data from thirteen states that required disclosure of money spent by outside groups between 2006 and 2016, this research explores patterns of independent expenditures to determine if fears about spending in judicial elections were justified. Using both descriptive and regression analyses, the results indicate that independent expenditures have been on the rise, though important differences exist across the states and by sector. Where states once limited outside groups, their spending activity increased in the post-Citizens United era. Where state laws were not affected, outside group spending declined. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision therefore is most clearly observed in states that once sought to limit the influence of outside groups.
{"title":"Citizens United and Independent Expenditures in State Supreme Court Elections","authors":"Brent D. Boyea","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1820920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1820920","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Following the decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, questions about the impact of unlimited independent expenditures on state supreme court elections emerged. For those critical of the decision, an area of concern was how elected state courts could be adversely affected by outside group spending. Utilizing data from thirteen states that required disclosure of money spent by outside groups between 2006 and 2016, this research explores patterns of independent expenditures to determine if fears about spending in judicial elections were justified. Using both descriptive and regression analyses, the results indicate that independent expenditures have been on the rise, though important differences exist across the states and by sector. Where states once limited outside groups, their spending activity increased in the post-Citizens United era. Where state laws were not affected, outside group spending declined. The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision therefore is most clearly observed in states that once sought to limit the influence of outside groups.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81194999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-14DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1803776
Jennifer Wilking, Gregory J. Love
Abstract Similar to many developing countries, the government of China has publicly committed itself to the rule of law. As part of the campaign to strengthen the rule of law, the government, media and academics have employed multiple justifications for the value of rule of law, including instrumental justifications such as economic growth and corruption reduction, and intrinsic or normative justifications like increased fairness and neutrality of judicial decisions. While various justifications for the rule of law abound, we know exceedingly little about why the public might value the rule of law. To understand mass attitudes toward the rule of law, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment using a national urban sample of 2,100 Chinese residents. We find instrumental justifications, especially corruption reduction, to have the largest effects, though several intrinsic justifications are also significant. Additionally, intergroup analysis shows that income and experience with the courts condition the type of justification that is most likely to be employed.
{"title":"Why the Rule of Law? Experimental Evidence from China","authors":"Jennifer Wilking, Gregory J. Love","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1803776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1803776","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Similar to many developing countries, the government of China has publicly committed itself to the rule of law. As part of the campaign to strengthen the rule of law, the government, media and academics have employed multiple justifications for the value of rule of law, including instrumental justifications such as economic growth and corruption reduction, and intrinsic or normative justifications like increased fairness and neutrality of judicial decisions. While various justifications for the rule of law abound, we know exceedingly little about why the public might value the rule of law. To understand mass attitudes toward the rule of law, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment using a national urban sample of 2,100 Chinese residents. We find instrumental justifications, especially corruption reduction, to have the largest effects, though several intrinsic justifications are also significant. Additionally, intergroup analysis shows that income and experience with the courts condition the type of justification that is most likely to be employed.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83900872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1785360
Y. Paat, Ed Hernandez, T. Hope, Jennifer Munoz, Hector Zamora, Michael H. Sanchez, Sonny Contreras
Abstract Using in-depth, face-to-face personal interviews of 25 formerly incarcerated participants, this study examines former inmates’ perceptions of prison gang affiliation, factors that shaped their decision to join, associate, and disengage from prison gangs, as well as the impact of gang involvement on their imprisonment adaptation. Overall, we found that inmates’ decisions about gang affiliation were linked to a variety of considerations – from personal safety, a sense of pride/belonging, to the consequences of gang affiliation for the prospect of release. Based on the narratives from our participants, two key themes emerge – contextual effects and individual selection effects, each with different policy implications. Findings from this study can be used to develop and improve research instruments for larger scale quantitative and qualitative studies to further understand the experiences of gang affiliated inmates.
{"title":"“Going Solo” or Joining Gangs while Doing Time: Perceptions of Prison Gangs among the Formerly Incarcerated","authors":"Y. Paat, Ed Hernandez, T. Hope, Jennifer Munoz, Hector Zamora, Michael H. Sanchez, Sonny Contreras","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1785360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1785360","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Using in-depth, face-to-face personal interviews of 25 formerly incarcerated participants, this study examines former inmates’ perceptions of prison gang affiliation, factors that shaped their decision to join, associate, and disengage from prison gangs, as well as the impact of gang involvement on their imprisonment adaptation. Overall, we found that inmates’ decisions about gang affiliation were linked to a variety of considerations – from personal safety, a sense of pride/belonging, to the consequences of gang affiliation for the prospect of release. Based on the narratives from our participants, two key themes emerge – contextual effects and individual selection effects, each with different policy implications. Findings from this study can be used to develop and improve research instruments for larger scale quantitative and qualitative studies to further understand the experiences of gang affiliated inmates.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81208849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-16DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186
Christopher M. Parker, Benjamin Woodson
Abstract With high profile cases being decided by 5-4 votes divided along ideological lines, there is a worry that frequent ideological disagreement over the Constitution will erode the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court and the public’s acceptance of its decisions. While other scholars have studied the effects of dissenting opinions on public acceptance of decisions, we engage in a more nuanced analysis that takes into account a person’s normative preferences for how the Court should reach decisions. More specifically, we explore whether the effect of a dissenting opinion on public acceptance is moderated by the style of the dissent, or by the normative preferences of the person reading the dissent. We predict that there is significant variation within the public regarding the degree to which politics and public opinion should influence Court decisions, and this variation is important in explaining how people respond to disagreement between the Court’s justices. Our experimental survey first measures the degree to which respondents feel that judges should utilize public opinion or ideological considerations when making decisions, and then provides respondents with a fictional Supreme Court decision either with or without a dissenting opinion. We find that the effect of a dissenting opinion on acceptance of the decision and institutional legitimacy depends upon the normative preferences of the respondent and not the content or rhetorical style of the dissent.
{"title":"Normative Preferences and Responses to Dissension on the U.S. Supreme Court","authors":"Christopher M. Parker, Benjamin Woodson","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768186","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With high profile cases being decided by 5-4 votes divided along ideological lines, there is a worry that frequent ideological disagreement over the Constitution will erode the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court and the public’s acceptance of its decisions. While other scholars have studied the effects of dissenting opinions on public acceptance of decisions, we engage in a more nuanced analysis that takes into account a person’s normative preferences for how the Court should reach decisions. More specifically, we explore whether the effect of a dissenting opinion on public acceptance is moderated by the style of the dissent, or by the normative preferences of the person reading the dissent. We predict that there is significant variation within the public regarding the degree to which politics and public opinion should influence Court decisions, and this variation is important in explaining how people respond to disagreement between the Court’s justices. Our experimental survey first measures the degree to which respondents feel that judges should utilize public opinion or ideological considerations when making decisions, and then provides respondents with a fictional Supreme Court decision either with or without a dissenting opinion. We find that the effect of a dissenting opinion on acceptance of the decision and institutional legitimacy depends upon the normative preferences of the respondent and not the content or rhetorical style of the dissent.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83184114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-15DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768185
Susan W. Johnson, R. Reid
Abstract The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has stronger norms of consensus and preferences for unanimous decisions than its American counterpart. Given this powerful preference for collegial and unanimous decisions, what causes it to break down? Previous literature has left this question largely unexamined, and no empirical research examines how gender affects decisions to dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada. This article thus fills this lacuna by analyzing the role of gender in dissenting behavior on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1984 to 2015. We analyze dissenting behavior in criminal and civil liberties cases, as well as sexual assault and equality cases, which may drive previously identified gender voting differences. We find that women dissent more frequently than their male peers, especially when their policy preferences diverge. Furthermore, we examine three competing theories of social dynamic panel effects to determine how the increased presence of women impact women’s decision to dissent. We find evidence of some self-silencing by women, where women become emboldened to dissent more as more women join the panel. Gender diversification explains dissenting behavior at the Canadian Supreme Court more accurately and across a broader array of case categories than institutional or case-specific legal factors.
{"title":"Speaking Up: Women and Dissenting Behavior in the Supreme Court of Canada","authors":"Susan W. Johnson, R. Reid","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1768185","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has stronger norms of consensus and preferences for unanimous decisions than its American counterpart. Given this powerful preference for collegial and unanimous decisions, what causes it to break down? Previous literature has left this question largely unexamined, and no empirical research examines how gender affects decisions to dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada. This article thus fills this lacuna by analyzing the role of gender in dissenting behavior on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1984 to 2015. We analyze dissenting behavior in criminal and civil liberties cases, as well as sexual assault and equality cases, which may drive previously identified gender voting differences. We find that women dissent more frequently than their male peers, especially when their policy preferences diverge. Furthermore, we examine three competing theories of social dynamic panel effects to determine how the increased presence of women impact women’s decision to dissent. We find evidence of some self-silencing by women, where women become emboldened to dissent more as more women join the panel. Gender diversification explains dissenting behavior at the Canadian Supreme Court more accurately and across a broader array of case categories than institutional or case-specific legal factors.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88932293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-27DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1768184
Damon M. Cann, Jeff Yates
Abstract A fundamental concern of government is getting citizens to comply with its laws and regulations. Yet, this topic has received relatively little attention in legal or social science scholarship. We explore the degree to which people are committed to the rule of law and legal obedience. We employ a structural equation model approach to assaying the factors that influence citizens’ beliefs regarding the importance of complying with government rules. We find that citizens’ perceptions on the legitimacy of legal institutions, justice system scandals, and social capital considerations can impact citizens’ beliefs on the importance of obeying the law.
{"title":"This Side of the Law: Evaluating Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Legal Compliance","authors":"Damon M. Cann, Jeff Yates","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1768184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1768184","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A fundamental concern of government is getting citizens to comply with its laws and regulations. Yet, this topic has received relatively little attention in legal or social science scholarship. We explore the degree to which people are committed to the rule of law and legal obedience. We employ a structural equation model approach to assaying the factors that influence citizens’ beliefs regarding the importance of complying with government rules. We find that citizens’ perceptions on the legitimacy of legal institutions, justice system scandals, and social capital considerations can impact citizens’ beliefs on the importance of obeying the law.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76925696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Over the past several years, scholars of political behavior have become increasingly interested in the nationalization of U.S. elections. Research has shown that there is now a strong connection between presidential vote patterns and voting in House, Senate, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections. In this article, we extend previous research by examining the role of the presidential vote in state supreme court elections. Using an original dataset containing county-level election results (N = 15,237) from 2000-2018 for all states that hold partisan or nonpartisan state supreme court elections, we examine the influence of presidential vote share in state supreme court elections. A number of important findings emerge. First, we find that presidential vote share influences voting in state supreme court contests. There is a statistically significant relationship in both partisan and nonpartisan elections even after controlling for incumbency, though the relationship is much stronger in states with partisan elections. Second, the relationship between presidential vote share and the state supreme court vote has been quite stable over time in states with partisan elections. Third, in states with states with nonpartisan elections, there has been some variability in the relationship between presidential and state supreme court voting patterns, although the data reveal an uptick in the strength of the relationship over time. Future research should continue to track the role of national political forces in state supreme court elections.
{"title":"Have State Supreme Court Elections Nationalized?","authors":"Aaron C. Weinschenk, Mandi Baker, Zoe Betancourt, Vanessa Depies, Nathan Erck, Quinne Herolt, Amanda Loehrke, Cameron Makurat, Hannah Malmberg, Clarice Martell, Jared Novitzke, Bradley T. Riddle, Tara Sellen, Leah Tauferner, Emily Zilliox","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1768187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1768187","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over the past several years, scholars of political behavior have become increasingly interested in the nationalization of U.S. elections. Research has shown that there is now a strong connection between presidential vote patterns and voting in House, Senate, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections. In this article, we extend previous research by examining the role of the presidential vote in state supreme court elections. Using an original dataset containing county-level election results (N = 15,237) from 2000-2018 for all states that hold partisan or nonpartisan state supreme court elections, we examine the influence of presidential vote share in state supreme court elections. A number of important findings emerge. First, we find that presidential vote share influences voting in state supreme court contests. There is a statistically significant relationship in both partisan and nonpartisan elections even after controlling for incumbency, though the relationship is much stronger in states with partisan elections. Second, the relationship between presidential vote share and the state supreme court vote has been quite stable over time in states with partisan elections. Third, in states with states with nonpartisan elections, there has been some variability in the relationship between presidential and state supreme court voting patterns, although the data reveal an uptick in the strength of the relationship over time. Future research should continue to track the role of national political forces in state supreme court elections.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84485742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：