州最高法院意识形态的公共空间措施

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS Journal of Law Economics & Organization Pub Date : 2015-08-01 DOI:10.1093/JLEO/EWU016
Adam Bonica, Michael J. Woodruff
{"title":"州最高法院意识形态的公共空间措施","authors":"Adam Bonica, Michael J. Woodruff","doi":"10.1093/JLEO/EWU016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We introduce a new method to measure the ideology of state Supreme Court justices using campaign finance records. In addition to recovering ideal point estimates for both incumbent and challenger candidates in judicial elections, the method’s unified estimation framework recovers judicial ideal points in a common ideological space with a diverse set of candidates for state and federal office, thus facilitating comparisons across states and institutions. After discussing the methodology and establishing measure validity, we present results for state supreme courts from the early 1990s onward. We find that the ideological preferences of justices play an important role in explaining state Supreme Court decision-making. We then demonstrate the greatly improved empirical tractability for testing separation-of-powers models of state judicial, legislative, and executive officials with an illustrative example from a recent political battle in Wisconsin that ensnared all three branches.","PeriodicalId":47987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","volume":"11 1","pages":"472-498"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"63","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology\",\"authors\":\"Adam Bonica, Michael J. Woodruff\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JLEO/EWU016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We introduce a new method to measure the ideology of state Supreme Court justices using campaign finance records. In addition to recovering ideal point estimates for both incumbent and challenger candidates in judicial elections, the method’s unified estimation framework recovers judicial ideal points in a common ideological space with a diverse set of candidates for state and federal office, thus facilitating comparisons across states and institutions. After discussing the methodology and establishing measure validity, we present results for state supreme courts from the early 1990s onward. We find that the ideological preferences of justices play an important role in explaining state Supreme Court decision-making. We then demonstrate the greatly improved empirical tractability for testing separation-of-powers models of state judicial, legislative, and executive officials with an illustrative example from a recent political battle in Wisconsin that ensnared all three branches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Economics & Organization\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"472-498\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"63\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Economics & Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLEO/EWU016\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLEO/EWU016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

摘要

我们介绍了一种利用竞选财务记录来衡量州最高法院大法官意识形态的新方法。除了恢复司法选举中现任和挑战者候选人的理想点估计外,该方法的统一估计框架还恢复了具有不同州和联邦办公室候选人的共同意识形态空间中的司法理想点,从而促进了各州和机构之间的比较。在讨论了方法和建立措施有效性之后,我们展示了自20世纪90年代初以来各州最高法院的结果。我们发现,法官的意识形态偏好在解释州最高法院的决策中起着重要作用。然后,我们以威斯康星州最近的一场政治斗争为例,证明了在测试州司法、立法和行政官员的三权分立模型时,大大提高了经验可追溯性。
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
A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology
We introduce a new method to measure the ideology of state Supreme Court justices using campaign finance records. In addition to recovering ideal point estimates for both incumbent and challenger candidates in judicial elections, the method’s unified estimation framework recovers judicial ideal points in a common ideological space with a diverse set of candidates for state and federal office, thus facilitating comparisons across states and institutions. After discussing the methodology and establishing measure validity, we present results for state supreme courts from the early 1990s onward. We find that the ideological preferences of justices play an important role in explaining state Supreme Court decision-making. We then demonstrate the greatly improved empirical tractability for testing separation-of-powers models of state judicial, legislative, and executive officials with an illustrative example from a recent political battle in Wisconsin that ensnared all three branches.
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
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Organization of the State: Home Assignment and Bureaucrat Performance The Behavioral Effects of (Unenforceable) Contracts† Unintended Consequences of Products Liability: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Market* Is a Corruption Crackdown Really Good for the Economy? Firm-Level Evidence from China Voter Turnout and City Performance: Evidence from Italian Municipalities
×
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