Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-7mfl8 Total loading time: 0.679 Render date: 2021-12-04T11:53:41.399Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Nominating Commissions, Judicial Retention, and Forward-Looking Behavior on State Supreme Courts: An Empirical Examination of Selection and Retention Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Ryan J. Owens*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Alexander Tahk
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Amanda C. Bryan
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
*
Ryan J. Owens, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, 214 North Hall, 1050 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706, USA. Email: rjowens@wisc.edu

Abstract

High-profile advocates are pushing states to move away from judicial elections and toward a “merit” method because it purportedly produces the best quality judges. Quality, however, is difficult to measure empirically. Rather than attempt to measure quality, we examine whether certain types of state supreme courts are more forward-looking than others. States are likely to desire forward-looking behavior among judges because it can protect judicial legitimacy, help states to control policy, and could be more efficient than myopic behavior. Using a recent innovation in matching called covariate-balancing propensity scores, we find that the U.S. Supreme Court is equally likely to review and reverse decisions by judges regardless of their selection or retention methods. These results suggest that state supreme court justices, no matter their paths of getting to (and staying on) their courts, are roughly equal in terms of forward-looking behavior.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
The Author(s) 2015

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.)

References

American Judicature Society. 2011. “Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status. http://www.judicialselection.com/uploads/Documents/Judicial_Merit_Charts_0FC20225EC6C2.pdf (accessed January 2, 2015).Google Scholar
American Judicature Society. n.d. “Merit Selection: The Best Way to Choose the Best Judges.” http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/documents/ms_descrip_1185462202120.pdf (accessed January 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Austin, Peter C. 2010. “The Performance of Different Propensity-Score Methods for Estimating Differences in Proportions (Risk Differences or Absolute Risk Reductions) in Observational Studies.” Statistics in Medicine 29 (20): 2137–48..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baye, Michael R., and Wright, Joshua D.. 2011. “Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals.” Journal of Law & Economics 54 (1): 124..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C. 2003. “Understanding Public Confidence in American Courts.” Journal of Politics 68 (3): 697707..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierman, Luke. 2002. “Beyond Merit Selection.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 29 (3): 851–72..Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J.. 2009a. “Agenda-Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1062–75..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J.. 2009b. “Join-3 Votes and Supreme Court Agenda Setting.” Unpublished manuscript on file with authors. http://www.judgesonmerit.org/2009/05/12/justice-oconnor-has-strong-word-for-judicial-elections/Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C., and Owens, Ryan J.. 2012. The Solicitor General and the United States Supreme Court: Executive Influence and Judicial Decisions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneau, Chris W., and Hall, Melinda Gann. 2009. In Defense of Judicial Elections. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 389411..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretz, Frank, Hothorn, Torsten, and Westfall, Peter. 2010. Multiple Comparisons Using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. http://books.google.com/books?id=U8Xc9zujgcsC (accessed January 2, 2015).Google Scholar
Caldarone, Richard P., Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Clark, Tom S.. 2009. “Partisan Labels and Democratic Accountability: An Analysis of State Supreme Court Abortion Decisions.” Journal of Politics 71 (2): 560–73..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. 1986. “Neither the Purse nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1209–26..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Wright, John R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 82 (4): 1109–27..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Clark, Tom S., and Park, Jee-Kwang. 2012. “Judicial Independence and Retention Elections.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 28 (2): 211–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon M. 2007. “Justice for Sale? Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisionmaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (3): 281–97..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, Damon M., and Yates, Jeff. 2008. “Homegrown Institutional Legitimacy: Assessing Citizens' Diffuse Support for State Courts.” American Politics Research 36 (2): 297329..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cass, Ronald A. 1995. “Judging: Norms and Incentives of Retrospective Decision-Making.” Boston University Law Review 75:941–96.Google Scholar
Caufield, Rachel Paine. 2010. “What Makes Merit Selection Different?Roger Williams University Law Review 15:765–92.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin. 1988. “Evaluating Judicial Candidates.” Southern California Law Review 61:1985–94.Google Scholar
Choi, Stephen J., Mitu Gulati, G., and Posner, Eric A.. 2010. “Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather than Appointed Judiciary.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 26 (2): 290336..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom S. 2009. “The Separation of Powers, Court-Curbing and Judicial Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 971–89..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comparato, Scott A., and McClurg, Scott D.. 2007. “A Neo-institutional Explanation of State Supreme Court Responses in Search and Seizure Cases.” American Politics Research 35 (5): 726–54..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, J. Andrew. 2002. “Pennsylvanians Should Adopt a Merit Selection System for State Appellate Court Judges.” Dickinson Law Review 106 (4): 755–68..Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B., and Lindquist, Stefanie A.. 2009. “Judging the Judges.” Duke Law Journal 58:1383–437.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6 (2): 279–95..Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Ho, Daniel E., King, Gary, and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 2005. “The Supreme Court during Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-war Cases.” New York University Law Review 80 (1): 1116..Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 2007. “Digital Archive of the Papers of Harry A. Blackmun. http://epstein.wustl.edu/blackmun.php (accessed January 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. 1991. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101 (2): 331455..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Brian T. 2009. “The Politics of Merit Selection.” Missouri Law Review 74:675710.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1989. “Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance.” Law & Society Review 23 (3): 469–96..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2012. Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2011. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?Law & Society Review 45 (1): 195219..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, Henry R., and Emmert, Craig. 1987. “Selection Systems and Judicial Characteristics: The Recruitment of State Supreme Court Justices.” Judicature 70:228–35.Google Scholar
Goelzhauser, Greg, and Cann, Damon M.. 2014. “Judicial Independence and Opinion Clarity on State Supreme Courts.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 14:123–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. 2014. “The Semiconstrained Court: Public Opinion, the Separation of Powers, and the U.S. Supreme Court's Fear of Nonimplementation.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (2): 352–66..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2014. Attacking Judges: How Campaign Advertising Influences State Supreme Court Elections. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Bonneau, Chris W.. 2013. “Attack Advertising, the White Decision, and Voter Participation in State Supreme Court Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 66:115–26.Google Scholar
Hardin, Peter. 2013. “Backers Push for Merit Selection of Minnesota Judges Is Spotlighted.” Gavel Grab, October 3. http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=63884 (accessed January 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Harrison, Mark I., Swisher, Keith, and Grabel, Meghan H.. 2007. “On the Validity and Vitality of Arizona's Judicial Merit Selection System: Past, Present, and Future.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 34 (1): 239–64..Google Scholar
Helland, Eric, and Tabarrok, Alex. 2002. “The Effect of Electoral Institutions on Tort Awards.” American Law and Economics Review 4:341–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirano, Keisuke, Imbens, Guido W., and Ridder, Geert. 2003. “Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score.” Econometrica 71 (4): 1161–89..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Gordon, Stanford C.. 2004. “Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind When It Runs for Office?American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 247–63..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iaryczower, Matias, Lewis, Garrett, and Shum, Matthew. 2013. “The Elect or Appoint? Bias, Information, and Responsiveness of Bureaucrats and Politicians.” Journal of Public Economics 97:230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and Ratkovic, Marc. 2014. “Covariate Balancing Propensity Score.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 76:243–63.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R., and Martin, Andrew D.. 1998. “The Public's Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 299309..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David, and Morrisroe, Darby. 1999. “The Prestige and Influence of Individual Judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” The Journal of Legal Studies 19 (4): 371–91..Google Scholar
Kosaki, William S. 2003. “The Politics of Judicial Decision-Making in Educational Policy Reform Litigation.” Hastings Law Journal 55:1077–233.Google Scholar
Krivosha, Norman. 1990. “In Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Merit Selection.” Judicature 74 (3): 128–32..Google Scholar
Maitra, Pushkar, and Smyth, Russell. 2004. “Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court.” European Journal of Law and Economics 17:209–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElwain, Edwin. 1949. “The Business of the Supreme Court as Conducted by Chief Justice Hughes.” Harvard Law Review 63 (1): 526..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, Aman L. 2007. “A Comparison of the Criminal Appellate Decisions of Appointed State Supreme Courts: Insights, Questions, and Implications for Judicial Independence.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 34 (1): 343–62..Google Scholar
Nelson, Michael J., Caufield, Rachel Paine, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2013. “OH, MI: A Note on Empirical Examinations of Judicial Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13 (4): 495511..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Sandra Day. 2009. “The Essentials and Expendables of the Missouri Plan.” Missouri Law Review 74:479–94.Google Scholar
Owens, Ryan J., and Wohlfarth, Patrick C.. 2014. “State Solicitors General, Appellate Expertise, and State Success before the U.S. Supreme Court.” Law & Society Review 48 (3): 657–85..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 1991. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Podgers, James. 2009. “O'Connor on Judicial Elections: ‘They're Awful. I Hate Them.‘” ABA Journal, May 9.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2000. “Is the Ninth Circuit Too Large? A Statistical Study of Judicial Quality.” The Journal of Legal Studies 29 (2): 711–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2005. “Judicial Behavior and Performance: An Economic Approach.” Florida State University Law Review 32:1259–80.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. 1906. “The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.” American Law Review 40:729–49.Google Scholar
Ratkovic, Marc, Imai, Kosuke, and Fong, Christian. N.d. “CBPS: R Package for Covariate Balancing Propensity Score.” http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CBPS (accessed January 2, 2015).Google Scholar
Reddick, Malia. n.d. “Judging the Quality of Judicial Selection Methods: Merit Selection, Elections, and Judicial Discipline.” Unpublished study. http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/documents/Judging_the_Quality_of_Judicial_Sel_8EF0DC3806ED8.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rehnquist, William H. 1984. “Oral Advocacy: A Disappearing Act.” Mercer Law Review 35:1015–28.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 1984. “The Consequences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable that Has Been Affected by the Treatment.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General) 147 (5): 656–66..Google Scholar
Salzberger, Eli, and Fenn, Paul. 1999. “Judicial Independence: Some Evidence from the English Court of Appeal.” Journal of Law & Economics 42 (3): 831–47..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schanzenbach, Max, and Tiller, Emerson H.. 2007. “Strategic Judging under the United States Sentencing Guidelines: Positive Political Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 23 (1): 2456..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Joseph L., and Tiller, Emerson H.. 2002. “The Strategy of Judging: Evidence from Administrative Law.” The Journal of Legal Studies 31 (1): 6182..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, Elizabeth A. 2010. “Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward.” Statistical Science 25 (1): 121..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabarrok, Alexander, and Helland, Eric. 1999. “Court Politics: The Political Economy of Tort Awards.” Journal of Law & Economics 42:157–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiller, Emerson H., and Spiller, Pablo T.. 1999. “Strategic Instruments: Legal Structure and Political Games in Administrative Law.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 15 (2): 349–77..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Rasinski, Kenneth. 1991. “Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson.” Law & Society Review 25 (3): 621–30..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, Peter D. 1995. “Selection and Retention of Judges: Is There One ‘Best’ Method?Florida State University Law Review 23:142.Google Scholar
Wenzel, James P., Bowler, Shaun, and Lanoue, David J.. 2003. “The Sources of Public Confidence in State Courts: Experience and Institutions.” American Politics Research 31 (2): 191211..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlfarth, Patrick C. 2009. “The Tenth Justice? Consequences of Politicization in the Solicitor General's Office.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 224–37..Google Scholar
7
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Nominating Commissions, Judicial Retention, and Forward-Looking Behavior on State Supreme Courts: An Empirical Examination of Selection and Retention Methods
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Nominating Commissions, Judicial Retention, and Forward-Looking Behavior on State Supreme Courts: An Empirical Examination of Selection and Retention Methods
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Nominating Commissions, Judicial Retention, and Forward-Looking Behavior on State Supreme Courts: An Empirical Examination of Selection and Retention Methods
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *