Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-h6phd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-10T03:44:36.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Judging Judicial Review in the American States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Charles Crabtree*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Michael J. Nelson
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
*
Michael J. Nelson, The Pennsylvania State University, 232 Pond Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Email: mjn15@psu.edu

Abstract

Does the use of judicial review by unelected judges harm public support for their decisions? Scholars have often answered this question in the affirmative. We examine the extent to which the use of judicial review reduces the ability of judges to achieve acceptance of their decisions, arguing that decisions made by elected judges may be more palatable to the public. Our experimental evidence demonstrates that the public is less prone to accept both decisions made by appointed judges and judicial decisions that strike down laws. However, the public is no more likely to accept the use of judicial review by an appointed court than an elected court. The results have implications both for institutional design in the American states and the microfoundations of judicial independence.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Supplementary material: PDF

Crabtree and Nelson supplementary material

Appendix

Download Crabtree and Nelson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 363.6 KB