Pub Date : 2024-06-14DOI: 10.1177/10659129241260413
Sam Zacher
Political scientists agree that most Americans are “operationally liberal.” However, economic preferences have traditionally been measured as opinions on public spending, independent from the “costs” of public policies. In reality, redistributive economic policies often impose costs on some actors while delivering benefits to others. When a policy’s costs and benefits are both apparent, what types of redistribution do Americans prefer? This paper’s novel survey evidence shows that preferences for policy benefits are indeed sensitive to which subgroups would bear the policy’s costs (and vice versa). American majorities do support a wide range of redistributive economic policy packages—as long as the wealthy are footing the bill or the costs are hidden. When the size of the group facing the policy cost (e.g., tax) increases, overall support declines. Preference differences between Republicans of varying economic statuses are large, while divisions within the Democratic coalition are subtler but still clear on certain policies. Overall, this paper shows that measuring preferences for a policy's costs (e.g., taxation) are crucial to truly understanding voters’ holistic economic policy demands. Further, the lack of enactment by political elites of the forms of redistribution consistently supported by the public casts research on democratic representation in new light.
{"title":"What Forms of Redistribution Do Americans Want? Understanding Preferences for Policy Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs","authors":"Sam Zacher","doi":"10.1177/10659129241260413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241260413","url":null,"abstract":"Political scientists agree that most Americans are “operationally liberal.” However, economic preferences have traditionally been measured as opinions on public spending, independent from the “costs” of public policies. In reality, redistributive economic policies often impose costs on some actors while delivering benefits to others. When a policy’s costs and benefits are both apparent, what types of redistribution do Americans prefer? This paper’s novel survey evidence shows that preferences for policy benefits are indeed sensitive to which subgroups would bear the policy’s costs (and vice versa). American majorities do support a wide range of redistributive economic policy packages—as long as the wealthy are footing the bill or the costs are hidden. When the size of the group facing the policy cost (e.g., tax) increases, overall support declines. Preference differences between Republicans of varying economic statuses are large, while divisions within the Democratic coalition are subtler but still clear on certain policies. Overall, this paper shows that measuring preferences for a policy's costs (e.g., taxation) are crucial to truly understanding voters’ holistic economic policy demands. Further, the lack of enactment by political elites of the forms of redistribution consistently supported by the public casts research on democratic representation in new light.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141338662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-12DOI: 10.1177/10659129241262340
Philip Chen, Amanda Savage
Public trust and perceptions of institutional legitimacy are vital to the functioning of the federal court system, and recent work challenges the long-standing belief that these attitudes are relatively stable in the populace. We posit that one threat to perceptions of trust and legitimacy is the lack of representation for women in the federal judiciary. Using a series of experiments, we show that, while women desire descriptive representation, this is an insufficient condition for preserving support for the institution. Substantive representation on issues critical to women leads to significantly increased trust and legitimacy and lowered perceptions of institutional bias among women. While female judges may bring their own social identities to bear in their decision-making, our work suggests that efforts to diversify the federal judiciary, while important, are unlikely to bolster public support for the courts if the new judges and justices fail to substantively represent the communities of interest.
{"title":"Amy Coney Barrett is Not Enough: How Descriptive and Substantive Representation Shape Trust and Legitimacy of the Federal Courts","authors":"Philip Chen, Amanda Savage","doi":"10.1177/10659129241262340","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241262340","url":null,"abstract":"Public trust and perceptions of institutional legitimacy are vital to the functioning of the federal court system, and recent work challenges the long-standing belief that these attitudes are relatively stable in the populace. We posit that one threat to perceptions of trust and legitimacy is the lack of representation for women in the federal judiciary. Using a series of experiments, we show that, while women desire descriptive representation, this is an insufficient condition for preserving support for the institution. Substantive representation on issues critical to women leads to significantly increased trust and legitimacy and lowered perceptions of institutional bias among women. While female judges may bring their own social identities to bear in their decision-making, our work suggests that efforts to diversify the federal judiciary, while important, are unlikely to bolster public support for the courts if the new judges and justices fail to substantively represent the communities of interest.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141354801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-12DOI: 10.1177/10659129241254551
Aric Dale Gooch
The group-centered theory of party development provides a new theoretical framework for understanding early party development. Specifically, it provides a logical framework to understand why early state legislators were motivated to engage in partisan gerrymandering during a period without national organizations. I use Pennsylvania as a case study to determine if partisanship influenced the creation of congressional district maps in 1802, 1812, and 1822. Using county-level congressional election returns and state legislative journals, I provide evidence of strategic partisan gerrymandering by the Democratic-Republicans during each apportionment year. I also show that the Federalist minority in Pennsylvania knew the national political impact of the process and attempted to influence congressional maps for their own partisan advantage. Lastly, I demonstrate how multi-member districts were the Democratic-Republicans’ weapon of choice to engage in partisan gerrymandering throughout the period. These results highlight the connection between state legislatures and congressional party politics during the first party era.
{"title":"Congressional Redistricting and Strategic Copartisans: Partisan Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, 1800–1824","authors":"Aric Dale Gooch","doi":"10.1177/10659129241254551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241254551","url":null,"abstract":"The group-centered theory of party development provides a new theoretical framework for understanding early party development. Specifically, it provides a logical framework to understand why early state legislators were motivated to engage in partisan gerrymandering during a period without national organizations. I use Pennsylvania as a case study to determine if partisanship influenced the creation of congressional district maps in 1802, 1812, and 1822. Using county-level congressional election returns and state legislative journals, I provide evidence of strategic partisan gerrymandering by the Democratic-Republicans during each apportionment year. I also show that the Federalist minority in Pennsylvania knew the national political impact of the process and attempted to influence congressional maps for their own partisan advantage. Lastly, I demonstrate how multi-member districts were the Democratic-Republicans’ weapon of choice to engage in partisan gerrymandering throughout the period. These results highlight the connection between state legislatures and congressional party politics during the first party era.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141352443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-03DOI: 10.1177/10659129241258728
William O’Brochta
How do legislators decide with whom to collaborate? I argue that legislative collaborations are shaped by ethnicity and gender, with legislators from dominant ethnic groups and men legislators having more opportunities to collaborate than non-dominant legislators. These dynamics are likely present even when the nature of the collaboration is not particularly electorally salient. I test this hypothesis using newly collected data on question-asking from local legislators in Delhi. Dominant caste men legislators tend to dominate question-asking collaborations as expected, with men legislators consistently having more collaboration opportunities. The results suggest that legislative power dynamics are present even in lower-stakes interactions and may mean that simply encouraging additional legislator collaborations does not address underlying discriminatory patterns in how dominant legislators select their collaborators.
{"title":"Lower-Stakes Legislative Collaborations, Ethnicity, and Gender","authors":"William O’Brochta","doi":"10.1177/10659129241258728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241258728","url":null,"abstract":"How do legislators decide with whom to collaborate? I argue that legislative collaborations are shaped by ethnicity and gender, with legislators from dominant ethnic groups and men legislators having more opportunities to collaborate than non-dominant legislators. These dynamics are likely present even when the nature of the collaboration is not particularly electorally salient. I test this hypothesis using newly collected data on question-asking from local legislators in Delhi. Dominant caste men legislators tend to dominate question-asking collaborations as expected, with men legislators consistently having more collaboration opportunities. The results suggest that legislative power dynamics are present even in lower-stakes interactions and may mean that simply encouraging additional legislator collaborations does not address underlying discriminatory patterns in how dominant legislators select their collaborators.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141270091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-19DOI: 10.1177/10659129241253204
Jacob R. Turner
In Brazil, police officers have increasingly competed in elections, mirroring expanded roles in government for coercive agents in cases such as the United States, the Philippines, and Mexico. In this paper, I develop a theory of how voters perceive these candidates. The symbol of the police officer represents the abstract idea of order and stability, more than just a crime fighter. Corruption scandals and insecurity in Brazil and Latin America have given rise to “order” in response to the chaos of politics as usual as a compelling electoral brand. I therefore expect that voters associate police officer candidates with strong, decisive leadership, social conservatism, a strong commitment to the rule of law, honesty in government, and a weak commitment to democracy. An image-based conjoint experiment fielded to a representative sample of Brazilian voters ( N = 3,098) finds support for the theoretical framework, but respondents did not perceive the police officer candidate as less democratic than other professional profiles. The results help to inform our understanding of electoral politics in post-transition democratic regimes, demonstrating how armed agents of the state might remain popular and influential within the context of a consolidated democracy.
{"title":"The People’s Captain: Understanding Police Officers as an Electoral Brand","authors":"Jacob R. Turner","doi":"10.1177/10659129241253204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241253204","url":null,"abstract":"In Brazil, police officers have increasingly competed in elections, mirroring expanded roles in government for coercive agents in cases such as the United States, the Philippines, and Mexico. In this paper, I develop a theory of how voters perceive these candidates. The symbol of the police officer represents the abstract idea of order and stability, more than just a crime fighter. Corruption scandals and insecurity in Brazil and Latin America have given rise to “order” in response to the chaos of politics as usual as a compelling electoral brand. I therefore expect that voters associate police officer candidates with strong, decisive leadership, social conservatism, a strong commitment to the rule of law, honesty in government, and a weak commitment to democracy. An image-based conjoint experiment fielded to a representative sample of Brazilian voters ( N = 3,098) finds support for the theoretical framework, but respondents did not perceive the police officer candidate as less democratic than other professional profiles. The results help to inform our understanding of electoral politics in post-transition democratic regimes, demonstrating how armed agents of the state might remain popular and influential within the context of a consolidated democracy.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141124649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1177/10659129241249662
Matthew D. Simonson, Matthew J. Lacombe, Jon Green, James N. Druckman
The last decade has given rise to substantial concern about democratic backsliding in the U.S. Manifestations include decreased trust in government, conspiratorial beliefs, contentious protests, and support for political violence. Surprisingly, prior work has not explored how these attitudes and behaviors relate to gun-buying, an action that provides people with the means to challenge the state. We address this topic by focusing on the unprecedented gun-buying surge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a survey with over 32,000 respondents, we find that—relative to pre-existing gun owners (who did not buy during the pandemic) and the non-gun-owning public—pandemic gun-buyers are more likely to distrust government, believe in conspiracies, protest, and support political violence. These anti-government views and protest behaviors are especially likely among those who bought guns for political reasons. Our findings highlight a crucial dynamic underlying the recent spike in gun sales with consequences for American democracy.
{"title":"Guns and Democracy: Anti-System Attitudes, Protest, and Support for Violence Among Pandemic Gun-Buyers","authors":"Matthew D. Simonson, Matthew J. Lacombe, Jon Green, James N. Druckman","doi":"10.1177/10659129241249662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241249662","url":null,"abstract":"The last decade has given rise to substantial concern about democratic backsliding in the U.S. Manifestations include decreased trust in government, conspiratorial beliefs, contentious protests, and support for political violence. Surprisingly, prior work has not explored how these attitudes and behaviors relate to gun-buying, an action that provides people with the means to challenge the state. We address this topic by focusing on the unprecedented gun-buying surge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a survey with over 32,000 respondents, we find that—relative to pre-existing gun owners (who did not buy during the pandemic) and the non-gun-owning public—pandemic gun-buyers are more likely to distrust government, believe in conspiracies, protest, and support political violence. These anti-government views and protest behaviors are especially likely among those who bought guns for political reasons. Our findings highlight a crucial dynamic underlying the recent spike in gun sales with consequences for American democracy.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141127445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-24DOI: 10.1177/10659129241249171
Alex Keena
Studies show that the extraordinary growth in campaign expenditures is fueled by a small, elite subset of the donor population that gives generously to candidates across the country. It is often assumed that the wealthy influence policy outcomes through such gifts to politicians; however, the representational benefits of giving to politicians out-of-state are unclear. What do donors gain legislatively when they give to legislators living out-of-state? I study the campaign financing of US senators over three decades (1989–2018) and find that senators receive the most money from out-of-state donors when they face reelection and risk losing. In this context, donors invest in the collective benefits of party representation when they give money to out-of-state senators. However, when giving to senators “off cycle,” out-of-state donors behave as “consumers” who reward senators for the positions they have taken. Each bill sponsored by a senator when they are not up for reelection leads to a corresponding increase of about 1% in receipts from out-of-state donors. These results offer a more complete view of the legislative surrogacy that the wealthy receive when they give to politicians out-of-state and suggest possible links between campaign contributions and public policy outcomes.
{"title":"Out-Of-State Donors and Legislative Surrogacy in the U.S. Senate","authors":"Alex Keena","doi":"10.1177/10659129241249171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241249171","url":null,"abstract":"Studies show that the extraordinary growth in campaign expenditures is fueled by a small, elite subset of the donor population that gives generously to candidates across the country. It is often assumed that the wealthy influence policy outcomes through such gifts to politicians; however, the representational benefits of giving to politicians out-of-state are unclear. What do donors gain legislatively when they give to legislators living out-of-state? I study the campaign financing of US senators over three decades (1989–2018) and find that senators receive the most money from out-of-state donors when they face reelection and risk losing. In this context, donors invest in the collective benefits of party representation when they give money to out-of-state senators. However, when giving to senators “off cycle,” out-of-state donors behave as “consumers” who reward senators for the positions they have taken. Each bill sponsored by a senator when they are not up for reelection leads to a corresponding increase of about 1% in receipts from out-of-state donors. These results offer a more complete view of the legislative surrogacy that the wealthy receive when they give to politicians out-of-state and suggest possible links between campaign contributions and public policy outcomes.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140665831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-23DOI: 10.1177/10659129241248586
Jake S. Truscott
An economic model of news contends that the pressures of limited column space and market competition force media actors to be strategic concerning which notable events receive exhaustive coverage, if any at all. Applying this framework to the Supreme Court can explain why coverage of the Justices’ decision-making has historically been sensationalized and reserved for decisions sure to have a pronounced effect on public discourse. However, the emergence of social media as a practical alternative for mass media dissemination raises notable questions, chief among them being whether the economic framework fully extends to this newer medium. In this study, I analyze media coverage of the Court’s decisions using Twitter and observe important distinctions among environments for news dissemination. I argue that the apparent reduction in the economic costs associated with coverage dissemination and consumption on social media platforms like Twitter requires viewing Supreme Court news in these environments through an amended theoretical framework.
{"title":"A Social Media Platform Model of Supreme Court News","authors":"Jake S. Truscott","doi":"10.1177/10659129241248586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241248586","url":null,"abstract":"An economic model of news contends that the pressures of limited column space and market competition force media actors to be strategic concerning which notable events receive exhaustive coverage, if any at all. Applying this framework to the Supreme Court can explain why coverage of the Justices’ decision-making has historically been sensationalized and reserved for decisions sure to have a pronounced effect on public discourse. However, the emergence of social media as a practical alternative for mass media dissemination raises notable questions, chief among them being whether the economic framework fully extends to this newer medium. In this study, I analyze media coverage of the Court’s decisions using Twitter and observe important distinctions among environments for news dissemination. I argue that the apparent reduction in the economic costs associated with coverage dissemination and consumption on social media platforms like Twitter requires viewing Supreme Court news in these environments through an amended theoretical framework.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140666440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-22DOI: 10.1177/10659129241248406
Evelien Willems, Bart Maes, S. Walgrave
This study examines the micro-level foundations of how policy responsiveness may come about. Our study builds on the assumption that elected officials' information source use shapes their policy actions. We analyze the variation in information sources elected officials rely on for agenda-setting and policy formulation, distinguishing between public opinion sources, advocacy sources, and expert sources. Additionally, we examine how elected officials' public opinion sources vary across individuals, parties, and political systems. Based on a 2015 survey with 345 Members of Parliament in Belgium and Canada, the results indicate that the actions of elected representatives are more affected by public opinion sources like citizens and the mass media when they initially prioritize issues for policy action, while interest groups are prominent in both stages, and parties and expert sources are more used in the policy formulation phase. Furthermore, politicians in majoritarian systems, those belonging to the opposition and members of populist parties, tend to rely more on public opinion sources than their peers in proportional systems, those in the majority and non-populist parties.
{"title":"Mechanisms of Political Responsiveness: The Information Sources Shaping Elected Representatives' Policy Actions","authors":"Evelien Willems, Bart Maes, S. Walgrave","doi":"10.1177/10659129241248406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241248406","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the micro-level foundations of how policy responsiveness may come about. Our study builds on the assumption that elected officials' information source use shapes their policy actions. We analyze the variation in information sources elected officials rely on for agenda-setting and policy formulation, distinguishing between public opinion sources, advocacy sources, and expert sources. Additionally, we examine how elected officials' public opinion sources vary across individuals, parties, and political systems. Based on a 2015 survey with 345 Members of Parliament in Belgium and Canada, the results indicate that the actions of elected representatives are more affected by public opinion sources like citizens and the mass media when they initially prioritize issues for policy action, while interest groups are prominent in both stages, and parties and expert sources are more used in the policy formulation phase. Furthermore, politicians in majoritarian systems, those belonging to the opposition and members of populist parties, tend to rely more on public opinion sources than their peers in proportional systems, those in the majority and non-populist parties.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140676053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-17DOI: 10.1177/10659129241247554
Michael K. Romano, Nickelette M. Justice
Increased focus on the judicial qualifications of female U.S. Supreme Court nominees prompts an examination of barriers obstructing women's rise to this apex position. Contrary to scholars who emphasize “pipeline” theories of how increased women in the law will de facto increase the number of women in the judiciary, or that ideology as the primary predictor of confirmation votes regardless of gender, we argue that women nominees appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee must also clear an additional gendered hurdle. Incorporating the literature on the double bind and gender norm theories of women in leadership, we scrutinize all formal opening statements from Supreme Court nominees between 1981 and 2022 to decipher challenges female nominees' encounter. Using a structural topic model approach to compare opening statements from men and women nominees, we demonstrate how societal constructs compel women nominees to navigate a precarious path toward confirmation. We find that women nominees must fashion themselves as both strong legal advocate and soft, feminine wife and mother, exemplifying gendered social roles and the double bind for women in leadership. These findings bear significance for comprehending women's underrepresentation in the judiciary and how gender biases permeate the hearing process beyond Senatorial bias.
{"title":"May It Please the Senate: Gender Norms and the Double Bind of US Supreme Court Confirmations","authors":"Michael K. Romano, Nickelette M. Justice","doi":"10.1177/10659129241247554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241247554","url":null,"abstract":"Increased focus on the judicial qualifications of female U.S. Supreme Court nominees prompts an examination of barriers obstructing women's rise to this apex position. Contrary to scholars who emphasize “pipeline” theories of how increased women in the law will de facto increase the number of women in the judiciary, or that ideology as the primary predictor of confirmation votes regardless of gender, we argue that women nominees appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee must also clear an additional gendered hurdle. Incorporating the literature on the double bind and gender norm theories of women in leadership, we scrutinize all formal opening statements from Supreme Court nominees between 1981 and 2022 to decipher challenges female nominees' encounter. Using a structural topic model approach to compare opening statements from men and women nominees, we demonstrate how societal constructs compel women nominees to navigate a precarious path toward confirmation. We find that women nominees must fashion themselves as both strong legal advocate and soft, feminine wife and mother, exemplifying gendered social roles and the double bind for women in leadership. These findings bear significance for comprehending women's underrepresentation in the judiciary and how gender biases permeate the hearing process beyond Senatorial bias.","PeriodicalId":51366,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140691393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：