Investigating How Voters Weigh Issues and Partisanship in Judicial Elections
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2012.33.0.295-321Abstract
Drawing on a 2009 statewide telephone poll of registered voters in Texas, this study investigates how voters react to politicized campaigning, judicial experience and partisan cues when voting for judge. We analyze individual-level data by employing an experimental design in which respondents were provided information about a hypothetical judicial candidate (varying in both campaign theme and in partisanship) and then asked about the likelihood of voting for that candidate. We found that in a partisan election state such as Texas, individuals rely heavily on party as a shortcut when evaluating judicial candidates, even when accounting for judicial experience. We also found that respondents with greater levels of political sophistication were more likely to be influenced by a candidate’s issue position on frivolous lawsuits.References
Abbe, Owen G., and Paul S. Herrnson. 2002. How Judicial Election Campaigns Have Changed. Judicature 85(6):286-295.
Arbour, Brian K., and Mark J. McKenzie. 2010. Has the 'New Style' of Judicial Campaigning Reached Lower Court Elections? Judicature 93(4):150-160.
Althaus, Scott L., 1998. Information Effects in Collective Preferences. American Political Science Review 92(3):545-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2585480
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shigeo Hirano, James. M. Snyder Jr., and Michiko Ueda. 2006. Party and Incumbency Cues in Voting: Are They Substitutes? Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(2):119-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00000008
Aspin, Larry T. 1998. Campaigns in Judicial Retention Elections: Do They Make a Difference? Justice System Journal 20(1):1-15.
Aspin, Larry T. 1999. Trends in Judicial Retention Elections, 1964-1998. Judicature 83(2):79.
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 40:194–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111700
Baum, Lawrence. 1987a. Explaining the Vote in Judicial Elections: The 1984 Ohio Supreme Court Elections. Western Political Quarterly 40(2):361-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298704000213 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448318
Baum, Lawrence. 1987b. Information and Party Voting in 'Semipartisan' Judicial Elections. Political Behavior 9(1):62-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00987279
Baum, Lawrence, and David Klein. 2007. Voter Responses to High-Visibility Judicial Campaigns. In Running for Judge: The Rising Political, Financial, and Legal Stakes of Judicial Elections, ed. Matthew J. Streb. New York: New York University Press.
Blais, Andre, and Mathieu Turgeon. 2004. How Good are Voters at Sorting Out the Weakest Candidate in Their Constituency? Electoral Studies 23(3):455-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00031-3
Bonneau, Chris W. 2007. The Dynamics of Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections. In Running for Judge: The Rising Political, Financial, and Legal Stakes of Judicial Elections, ed. Matthew J. Streb. New York: New York University Press.
Bonneau, Chris W., and Melinda Gann Hall. 2009. In Defense of Judicial Elections. New York: Routledge.
Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall. 1995. Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States. Political Research Quarterly 48(1):5-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800101
Brambor, Thomas, William R. Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14(1):63-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Tom S. Clark. 2009. Judicial Independence and Nonpartisan Elections. Wisconsin Law Review 1:21-65.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A Stimson. 1980. The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 74(1):78-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1955648
Champagne, Anthony, and Greg Thielemann. 1991. Awareness of Trial Court Judges. Judicature 74(5)271-276.
Cheek, Kyle, and Anthony Champagne. 2005. Judicial Politics in Texas: Partisanship, Politics and Money in State Courts. New York: Peter Lange Publishing, Inc.
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1989. Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes. American Journal of Political Science 33(4):912-940 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111115
Cobb, Michael D., and James H. Kuklinski. 1997. Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41(1):88-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111710
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dubois, Philip L. 1979. The Significance of Voting Cues in State Supreme Court Elections. Law & Society Review 13(3):757-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053185
Dubois, Philip L. 1980. From Ballot to Bench: Judicial Elections and the Quest for Accountability. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Dubois, Philip L. 1984. Voting Cues in Nonpartisan Trial Court Elections: A Multivariate Assessment. Law and Society Review 1(3):395-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053430
Druckman, James. 2004. Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25:577-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00388.x
Gibson, James L. 2008. Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts: Legitimacy Theory and 'New-Style' Judicial Campaigns. American Political Science Review 102(1):59-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080015
Griffin, Kenyon N., and Michael J. Horan. 1983. Patterns of Voting Behavior in Judicial Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices in Wyoming. Judicature 67(2):68-77.
Hall, Melinda Gann. 2001. State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform. American Political Science Review 95(2):315-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401002234
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Chris W. Bonneau. 2006. Does Quality Matter? Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections. American Journal of Political Science 50(1):20-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00167.x
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Paul Brace. 1989. Order in the Courts: A Neo-Institutional Approach to Judicial Consensus. The Western Political Quarterly 42(3):391-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298904200311 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448434
Lodge, Milton, and Ruth Hamill. 1986. A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing. American Political Science Review 80(2):505-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958271
Hasen, Richard L., and Dahlia Lithwick. 2010. Evil Men in Black Robes. Slate. October 26. http://www.slate.com/id/2272086/ (accessed September 14, 2011).
Hojnacki, Marie, and Lawrence Baum. 1992. 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns and the Voters: Economic Issues and Union Members in Ohio. Western Political Quarterly 45(4):921-948. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500407 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448818
Ifill, Sherrilyn. 2010. Big Money Set to Flood into Judicial Elections. Salon. March 18. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/03/18/electing_judges_open2010/index.html (accessed on September 14, 2011).
Johnson, Charles A., Roger C. Schaefer, and R. Neal McKnight. 1978. The Salience of Judicial Candidates and Elections. Social Science Quarterly 59(2):371-378.
Kaufmann, Karen M., John R. Petrocik, and Daron R. Shaw. 2008. Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and Myths about American Voters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kiel, L. Douglas, Carole Funk, and Anthony Champagne. 1994. Two-party Competition and Trial Court Elections in Texas. Judicature 77(6):290-293.
Klein, David, and Lawrence Baum. 2001. Ballot Information and Voting Decisions in Judicial Elections. Political Research Quarterly 54(4):709-728. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400402
Long, J. Scott, and Jeremy Freese. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Lovrich, Nicholas P., John C. Pierce, and Charles H. Sheldon. 1989. Citizen Knowledge and Voting in Judicial Elections. Judicature 73(1):28-33.
McDermott, Monika L. 1997. Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections. American Journal of Political Science 41(1):270-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111716
McDermott, Monika L. 1998. Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections. Political Research Quarterly 51(4):895-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449110 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100403
McDermott, Monika L. 2005. Candidate Occupations and Voter Information Shortcuts. Journal of Politics 67(1):201-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00314.x
McKenzie, Mark J. 2009. Attitudes Toward Electoral College Reform: Understanding Opinion Formation on Complicated Public Policy Issues. Politics & Policy 37(2): 265-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00172.x
McKenzie, Mark J., and Michael A. Unger. 2011. 'New Style' Campaigning, Citizen Knowledge, and Sources of Legitimacy for State Courts: A Case Study in Texas. Politics & Policy 39(5):813-814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00317.x
McKnight, R. Neal, Roger Schaefer, and Charles A. Johnson. 1978. Choosing Judges: Do the Voters Know What They Are Doing? Judicature 62(2):94-99.
Mondak, Jeffrey J. 2001. Developing Valid Knowledge Scales. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):224-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669369
Nelson, Thomas E., and Donald Kinder 1996. Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. Journal of Politics 58(4):1055-1078. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2960149
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37(2):472-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111381
Ramsey, Ross, and Morgan Smith. 2010. Insurgents Beat Veterans in Several Texas Runoffs. The Texas Tribune April 14. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-legislativerunoffs/insurgents-beat-veterans-in-several-texas-runoffs/ (accessed online Nov. 20, 2011).
Reid, Trashel V. 1999. The Politicization of Retention Elections: Lessons from the Defeat of Justices Lamphier and White. Judicature 83(2):68, 70-71.
Rock, Emily, and Lawrence Baum. 2010. The Impact of High-Visibility Contests for U.S. State Court Judgeships: Partisan Voting in Nonpartisan Elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10(4):368-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153244001001000405
Schotland, Roy A. 2010. Iowa's 2010 Judicial Election: Appropriate Accountability or Rampant Passion? Court Review 46:118-128.
Schultz, (2006). Politicizing Courts Threatens Independence. Saint Paul Pioneer Press, March 23, p. B11.
Squire, Peverill, and Eric R.A.N. Smith. 1988. The Effect of Partisan Information on Voters in Nonpartisan Elections. Journal of Politics 50(1):169-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131046
Sulzberger, A.G. 2010. Voters Moving to Oust Judges Over Decisions. The New York Times, September 24. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/us/politics/25judges.html?_r=1&hp (accessed September 14, 2011)
Wold, John T., and John H. Culver. 1987. The Defeat of the California Justices: The Campaign, the Electorate, and the Issue of Judicial Accountability. Judicature 70(6):348-355.
Zaller, John, 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818691
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
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.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
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:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
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.
