Judicial Independence and Retention Elections *
نویسنده
چکیده
Judges face retention elections in over a third of U.S. state courts of last resort and numerous lower courts. According to conventional wisdom, these elections engender judicial independence and decrease democratic accountability. We argue that in the context of modern judicial campaigns, retention elections create pressure for judges to cater to public opinion on “hot-button” issues that are salient to voters. Moreover, this pressure can be as great as that in contestable elections. We test these arguments by comparing decisions across systems with retention, partisan, and nonpartisan contestable elections. Employing models that account for judgeand state-specific effects, we analyze new data regarding abortion cases decided by state supreme courts between 1980 and 2006. The results provide strong evidence for the arguments. (JEL D72, K40)
منابع مشابه
Judicial Elections and Judicial Independence: The Voter's Perspective
The relationship between judicial elections and judicial independence is receiving considerable scrutiny today. This article examines the impact of elections on judicial independence from the perspective of voters, since it is voters’ choices that ultimately determine the electoral fates of incumbent judges. The research on voting in judicial elections helps in understanding the circumstances t...
متن کاملAre Appointed Judges Strategic Too?
The conventional wisdom among many legal scholars is that judicial independence can best be achieved with an appointive judiciary; judicial elections turn judges into politicians, threatening judicial autonomy. Yet the original supporters of judicial elections successfully eliminated the appointive systems of many states by arguing that judges who owed their jobs to politicians could never be t...
متن کاملEnriching Judicial Independence: Seeking to Improve the Retention Vote Phase of an Appointive Selection System
This article discusses the problems and potential solutions with the system of judicial appointment in the state of Nebraska. The article focuses on how improving public awareness about the existing system, its goals, and its current weaknesses, and implementing steps to address those weaknesses, will help to keep everyone moving toward the best possible system. While changing attitudes and int...
متن کاملElections and Explanations: Judicial Elections and the Readability of Judicial Opinions
How do judicial elections affect the propensity of judges to write opinions that are understandable to the public? Drawing on a growing literature that analyzes the content of judicial opinions computationally, I examine the readability of all state supreme court search and seizure decisions from 2000-2010. I assess the hypothesis that, just as judicial elections increase judges’ propensities t...
متن کاملA Few Thoughts on Judicial Supremacy: a Response to Professors Carrington and Cramton
The efforts of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer to provoke examination of the vitality of the American judiciary’s independence have inspired two conferences,1 which in turn have produced many thoughtful papers and much commentary. I have been asked to respond to one such paper offered by Professors Paul Carrington of Duke and Roger Cramton of Cornell.2 These two distinguished sc...
متن کامل