《投票权法案》和由三名法官组成的地区法院小组的奇怪案件

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law & Policy Pub Date : 2022-04-06 DOI:10.1111/lapo.12186
Maxwell Mak, Andrew H. Sidman
{"title":"《投票权法案》和由三名法官组成的地区法院小组的奇怪案件","authors":"Maxwell Mak,&nbsp;Andrew H. Sidman","doi":"10.1111/lapo.12186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A major avenue through which Voting Rights Act (VRA) cases are adjudicated is three-judge district court panels. These panels mix district and circuit court judges and exist in federal law to force certain important legal questions to be decided in a multimember environment. Using an original dataset of VRA cases decided by three-judge district court panels, we find that these panels do not operate as intended. We find that the circuit court judges on these panels vote their own preferences consistently, unmoved by strategic or collegial considerations. District court judges, on the other hand, appear to defer to their circuit court brethren.</p>","PeriodicalId":47050,"journal":{"name":"Law & Policy","volume":"44 2","pages":"185-203"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Voting Rights Act and the curious case of three-judge district court panels\",\"authors\":\"Maxwell Mak,&nbsp;Andrew H. Sidman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lapo.12186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A major avenue through which Voting Rights Act (VRA) cases are adjudicated is three-judge district court panels. These panels mix district and circuit court judges and exist in federal law to force certain important legal questions to be decided in a multimember environment. Using an original dataset of VRA cases decided by three-judge district court panels, we find that these panels do not operate as intended. We find that the circuit court judges on these panels vote their own preferences consistently, unmoved by strategic or collegial considerations. District court judges, on the other hand, appear to defer to their circuit court brethren.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Policy\",\"volume\":\"44 2\",\"pages\":\"185-203\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lapo.12186\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lapo.12186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

《选举权法》案件裁决的一个主要途径是由三名法官组成的地区法院小组。这些小组由地区法院和巡回法院法官组成,在联邦法律中存在,以迫使某些重要的法律问题在一个由多名法官组成的环境中作出决定。使用由三名法官组成的地区法院合议庭裁决的VRA案件的原始数据集,我们发现这些合议庭并没有按照预期的方式运作。我们发现,这些小组中的巡回法院法官始终如一地按照自己的喜好投票,不受战略或合议考虑的影响。另一方面,地区法院的法官似乎服从他们的巡回法院同行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Voting Rights Act and the curious case of three-judge district court panels

A major avenue through which Voting Rights Act (VRA) cases are adjudicated is three-judge district court panels. These panels mix district and circuit court judges and exist in federal law to force certain important legal questions to be decided in a multimember environment. Using an original dataset of VRA cases decided by three-judge district court panels, we find that these panels do not operate as intended. We find that the circuit court judges on these panels vote their own preferences consistently, unmoved by strategic or collegial considerations. District court judges, on the other hand, appear to defer to their circuit court brethren.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: International and interdisciplinary in scope, Law & Policy embraces varied research methodologies that interrogate law, governance, and public policy worldwide. Law & Policy makes a vital contribution to the current dialogue on contemporary policy by publishing innovative, peer-reviewed articles on such critical topics as • government and self-regulation • health • environment • family • gender • taxation and finance • legal decision-making • criminal justice • human rights
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Life Sentences and Minor Offenses: Benchmarking, Recalibration, and the Culture of Collateral Consequence Reform Prosecutor-Led Bail Reform: An Observational Case Study in Philadelphia Issue Information Implementing Equality: State (Non)compliance With Judicial Revisions to Public Policy on Gay Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1