Examining the Role of Professional Associations in Policy Diffusion: The Case of Intermediate Appellate Courts

Authors

  • Kyle Scott

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2008.29.0.135-151

Abstract

While research exists that explains how institutions impact judicial decision-making at the state level, less is known about what affects the creation and reform of institutions at the state level. This paper provides an exploratory investigation into why states choose to create Intermediate Appellate Courts (IAC). This paper finds that organized legal interests have a significant impact on policy adoption and the explanation that IACs are created to relieve the workload of the state’s highest appellate court finds no support. The findings refute some previously held assumptions about state judicial reform and in doing so provide insight for policy scholars interested in the role organized interests play in institutional reform.

References

American Bar Association. 1974. Standards Relating to Court Organization. Chicago: American Bar Association.

Balla, Steven J. 2001. Interstate Professional Associations and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations. American Politics Research 29:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01293001

Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan C. Stam III. 1996. The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985. American Political Science Review 90:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082882

Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1990. State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event-History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963526

Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1992. Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity. American Journal of Political Science 36:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111588

Bienen, Henry, and Nicolas van de Walle. 1992. A Proportional Hazard Model of Leadership Duration. Journal of Politics 54:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2132307

Bierman, Luke. 2005. From the Benches and Trenches: Three View of State Appellate Courts. Justice System Journal 26:1.

Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Bradford S. Jones. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790874

Brace, Paul, and Melina Gann Hall. 2001. .Haves. versus. Have Nots. in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases. Law & Society Review 35:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3185407

Brace, Paul, and Melina Gann Hall. 1995. Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the States. Political Research Quarterly 48:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800101 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449117

Cannon, Bradley C., and Lawrence Baum. 1981. Patterns of Adoption of Tort Law Innovations: An Application of Diffusion Theory to Judicial Doctrines. American Political Science Review 75:4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962297

Champagne, Anthony, and Judith Haydel, ed. 1993. Judicial Reform in the States. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

Clayton, Cornell W., and Howard Gillman, ed. 1999. Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Daley, Dorothy M., and James C. Garand. 2005. Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion, and Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policymaking, 1989-1998. American Politics Review 33:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04273416

De Figueiredo, John M., and Emerson H. Tiller. 1996. Congressional Control of the Courts: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Expansion of the Federal Judiciary. Journal of Law and Economics 39:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/467355

Dubois, Philip L. 1990. The Politics of Innovation in State Courts: The Merit Plan of Judicial Selection. Publius 20:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3330360

Fair, Daryl R. 1971. State Intermediate Appellate Courts: An Introduction. Western Political Quarterly 24:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/446911

Flango, Victor Eugene, and Nora F. Blair. 1980. A New Appellate Court: Does it Reduce the Caseload of a State's Highest Court. Judicature 64:2.

Georgia Bar Association Reports Annual Meeting. 1902. The Judicial System of Georgia: Its Defects, What Changes Are Necessary to Bring About a More Harmonious and Orderly System and to Relieve the Supreme Court?

Georgia Bar Association Reports Annual Meeting. 1895. Symposium on Relief of the Supreme Court of Georgia: Is the Remedy One or More Intermediate Courts?

Glick, Henry R. 1983. Courts, Politics, and Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Glick, Henry R. 1981. Innovation in State Judicial Administration: Effects on Court Management and Organization. American Politics Quarterly 9:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8100900103

Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery. 1998. Representational Concentration and Interest Community Size: A Population Ecology Interpretation. Political Research Quarterly 54:4.

Grattet, Ryken, Valerie Jenness, and Theodore R. Curry. 1998. The Homogenization And Differentiation of Hate Crime Law in the United States, 1978 to 1995: Innovation and Diffusion in the Criminalization of Bigotry. American Sociological Review 63:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657328

Hall, Melinda Gann, and Paul Brace. 1989. Order in the Courts: A Neo-Institutional Approach to Judicial Consensus. Western Political Quarterly 42:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448434

Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform. American Political Science Review 95:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401002234

Hanssen, F. Andrew. 2004. Learning About Judicial Independence: Institutional Change in the State Courts. Journal of Legal Studies 33:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/421572

History of Kansas Appellate Courts. 2007. http://www.kscourts.org/history.htm.

Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. 2007. How it Works, Why it Matters: Judicial Selection in the States. Denver, CO: American Judicature Society.

Kagan, Robert A., Bliss Cartwright, Lawrence M. Friedman, and Stanton Wheeler. 1978. The Evolution of State Supreme Courts. Michigan Law Review 76:6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1287860

Karch, Andrew. 2007. Emerging Issues and Future Directions in State Policy Diffusion Research. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700104

Keith, Timothy Z. 2006 Multiple Regression and Beyond. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kingdon, John, 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Langer, Laura. 2002. Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Livingston, J., ed. 1955. A History of the Alabama Judicial System, 1891-1991. http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/judicial_history.pdf.

McNeal, Ramona, Caroline J. Tolbert, Karen Mossberger, and Lisa J. Dotterweich. 2003. Innovating in Digital Government in the American States. Social Science Quarterly 84:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00140

McVoy, Edgar C. 1940. Patterns of Diffusion in the United States. American Sociological Review 5:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2083637

Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 1998. Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Educational Reform. Journal of Politics 60:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2648004

Mintrom, Michael. 1997. Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation. American Journal of Political Science 41:3. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111674

Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. Modeling Regional Effect on State Policy Diffusion. Political Research Quarterly 54:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400106 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449210

Neubauer, David W. 2005. America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson and Wadsworth.

Puro, Marsha, Peter J. Bergeson, and Steven Puro. 1985. An Analysis of Judicial Diffusion: Adoption of the Missouri Plan in the American States. Publius 15:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3330044

Roberts, Nancy C. 1992. Public Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Review of Policy Research 11:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1992.tb00332.x

Sapat, Alka .2004. Devolution and Innovation: The Adoption of State Environmental Policy Innovations by Administrative Agencies. Public Administration Review 64:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00356.x

Scott, Kyle. 2008. Why States Adopt the Merit Plan: A Research Note. Florida A&M University Law Review 3.2.

Thomas, Clive S., and Ronald J. Hrebenar. 1992. Changing Patters of Interest Group Activity: A Regional Perspective. In The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed, ed. Mark P. Petracca. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

There Shall be a Court of Appeals. 1997. http://www.nycourts.gov/history/pdf/Library/ Courts/There_Shall_Be.pdf.

Volden, Craig. 2006. States as Policy Laboratories: Emulating Success in the Children's Health Insurance Program. American Journal of Political Science 50:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00185.x

Watson, Richard A., Ronald G. Downing, and Frederick C. Spiegel. 1967. Bar Politics, Judicial Selection, and the Representation of Social Interests. The American Political Science Review 61:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953875

Downloads

Published

2008-07-01

Issue

Vol. 29: Summer 2008

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.