Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:04:03.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2021

Alex Badas Open the ORCID record for Alex Badas [Opens in a new window]  and
Elizabeth Simas
Alex Badas*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
Elizabeth Simas
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: abadas@uh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Judicial nominations, particularly those to the Supreme Court, have been a salient topic in recent presidential and senate elections. However, there has been little research to determine whether judicial nominations motivate political behavior. Across three studies we demonstrate the important role judicial nominations play in influencing political behavior. In Study 1, we analyze the extent to which voters perceive judicial nominations as an important electoral issue. We find that Republicans—and especially strong Republicans—are more likely to perceive judicial nominations as important. In Study 2, we analyze how congruence with an incumbent Senator's judicial confirmation votes influences voters’ decision to vote for the incumbent. We find that congruence with a Senator's judicial confirmation votes is a strong predictor of vote choice. Finally, in Study 3, we analyze data from an original conjoint experiment aimed at simulating a Senate primary election where voters must select among co-partisans. We find that Republican subjects are more likely to select a primary candidate who prioritizes confirming conservative Supreme Court nominees. Among Democratic subjects, however, we find that Democratic candidates who prioritize the Court might actually suffer negative electoral consequences. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of judicial nominations as an electoral issue.

Keywords

Electionsjudicial nominationspolitical behaviorSupreme Court
Type
Original Article
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 49 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Political Science Association

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

Abramowitz, AI (1995) The end of the Democratic era? 1994 and the future of congressional election research. Political Research Quarterly 48, 873–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, AI and Webster, S (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies 41, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S and Hersh, E (2012) Validation: what big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis 20, 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S and Jones, PE (2010) Constituents’ responses to congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science 54, 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, SD and White, A (2020) Policy, politics, and public attitudes toward the Supreme Court. American Politics Research 48(3), 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A (2016) The public's motivated response to Supreme Court decision-making. Justice System Journal 37, 318–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A (2019a) The applied legitimacy index: a new approach to measuring judicial legitimacy. Social Science Quarterly 100(5), 1848–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A (2019b) Policy disagreement and judicial legitimacy: evidence from the 1937 Court Packing Plan. The Journal of Legal Studies 42(2), 377–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A and Stauffer, KE (2018) Someone like me: descriptive representation and support for Supreme Court nominees. Political Research Quarterly 70, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badas, A and Stauffer, KE (2019) Voting for women in nonpartisan and partisan elections. Electoral Studies 57, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, M and Pope, JC (2019) Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review 113, 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, B. (2015) American gridlock: The sources, character, and impact of political polarization. In Yoshinaka, A and Thurber, JA (eds). The Sources and Consequences of Polarization in the US Supreme Court, pp. 171–200.Google Scholar
Bartels, BL and Johnston, CD (2012) On the ideological foundations of Supreme Court legitimacy in the American public. American Journal of Political Science 57, 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, A, Huber, GA and Lenz, GS (2012) Using Mechanical Turk as a subject recruitment tool for experimental research. Policy Analysis 20, 351–368.Google Scholar
Bickel, A (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Black, RC and Owens, RJ (2016) Courting the President: how Circuit Court judges alter their behavior for promotion to the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science 60, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, JL, Koger, G, Lebo, MJ and Young, E (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54, 598–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, PG and Bryan, AC (2018) Judging the vapid and hollow charade: citizen evaluations and the candor of US Supreme Court nominees. Political Behavior 40, 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, DP and Glick, DM (2015) Chief Justice Roberts’ health care decision disrobed: the microfoundations of the Supreme Court's legitimacy. American Journal of Political Science 59, 403–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, DP and Glick, DM (2019) Reassessing the Supreme Court: how decisions & negativity bias affect legitimacy. Political Research Quarterly 73(3), 637–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, S, Jewell, RM and Waggoner, PD (2015) Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics 2, 2053168015622072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A (2019) Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: a replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods 7(3), 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancey, L and Sheagley, G (2013) Heuristics behaving badly: party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science 57, 312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancey, L and Sheagley, G (2016) Inferences made easy: partisan voting in congress, voter awareness, and senator approval. American Politics Research 44, 844–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, MX and Keeter, S (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, DJ and Harbridge, L (2016) How partisan conflict in Congress affects public opinion: strategies, outcomes, and issue differences. American Politics Research 44, 875–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchino, F and Zucchini, F (2015) Voting in a multi-dimensional space: a conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, JL and Caldeira, GA (2009) Knowing the Supreme Court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the high court. The Journal of Politics 71, 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, JG, Wolpert, RM (1996) Opinion-holding and public attitudes toward controversial Supreme Court nominees. Political Research Quarterly 49, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JD, Newman, B and Nickerson, DW (2019) A God of vengeance and of reward? Voters and accountability. Legislative Studies Quarterly 44, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, M and Hopkins, DA (2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Hangartner, D and Yamamoto, T (2015) Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 2395–2400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Highton, B (2009) Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. The Journal of Politics 71, 1564–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, A (2015) Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kassow, BJ and Finocchiaro, CJ (2011) Responsiveness and electoral accountability in the US Senate. American Politics Research 39, 1019–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, JP, Lax, JR and Phillips, JH (2010) Public opinion and Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. The Journal of Politics 72, 767–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastellec, JP, Lax, JR, Malecki, M and Phillips, JH (2015) Polarizing the electoral connection: partisan representation in Supreme Court confirmation politics. The Journal of Politics 77, 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, PA and Coppock, A (2018) Candidate choice without party labels. Political Behavior 40, 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewson, CN, Owens, RJ (2021) Public support for judicial philosophies: evidence from a conjoint experiment. Journal of Law and Courts 9(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layman, GC and Carsey, TM (1998) Why do party activists convert? An analysis of individual-level change on the abortion issue. Political Research Quarterly 51, 723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, TJ, Hobolt, S and Tilley, J (2020) Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis 28(2), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, A and Zilis, MA (2018) Restraining the Court: assessing accounts of Congressional attempts to limit Supreme Court authority. Legislative Studies Quarterly 43, 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, L (2018) Ideologues without issues: the polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly 82, 866–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, B, McGhee, E, Sides, J, Masket, S and Greene, S (2012) One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research 40, 844–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Y and Burden, BC (2019) The contingent effects of candidate sex on voter choice. Political Behavior 41, 583–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, JC and Stone, AR (2019) How political contestation over judicial nominations polarizes Americans’ attitudes toward the Supreme Court. British Journal of Political Science 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0007123419000383.Google Scholar
Russell, A (2018) US Senators on Twitter: asymmetric party rhetoric in 140 characters. American Politics Research 46, 695–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, N and Miller, B (2009) The Federalist Society's influence on the federal judiciary. Political Research Quarterly 62, 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, M (2017) How political signals affect public support for judicial nominations: evidence from a conjoint experiment. Political Research Quarterly 70, 374–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, EN (2018) Perceptions of the heterogeneity of party elites in the United States. Party Politics 24, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, KA and Clifford, S (2017) Validity and Mechanical Turk: an assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior 77, 184–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, N, Burleigh, T, Kennedy, R and Clifford, S (2019) A Simplified Protocol to Screen Out VPS and International Respondents Using Qualtrics. Available at SSRN 3327274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, JR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Badas and Simas supplementary material

Badas and Simas supplementary material

Download Badas and Simas supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 669.3 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Badas and Simas Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XCQVO7
Link