Electing Judges

The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy

James L. Gibson

• Publisher: University of Chicago Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9780226291109
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In Electing Judges, leading judicial politics scholar James L. Gibson responds tothe growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence and even the rule of law. While many people have opinions on the topic, few have supported them with actual empirical evidence. Gibson rectifies this situation, offering the most systematic and comprehensive study to date of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts—and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial. Gibson finds that ordinary Americans do not conclude from campaign promises that judges are incapable of making impartial decisions. Instead, he shows, they understand the process of deciding cases to be an exercise in policy making, rather than of simply applying laws to individual cases—and consequently think it's important for candidates to reveal where they stand on important issues. Negative advertising also turns out to have a limited effect on perceptions of judicial legitimacy, though the same cannot be said for widely hated campaign contributions. Taking both the good and bad into consideration, Gibson argues persuasively that elections are ultimately beneficial in boosting the institutional legitimacy of courts, despite the slight negative effects of some campaign activities. Electing Judges will initiate a lively debate inside both the halls of justice and the academy.

INDEX

abortion policy as an election issue, 59, 192–93nn1–4

ads. See attack ads and political ads

Alaska, 144

Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldman, 144

Alito, Samuel, 16, 26, 68, 108, 203n4

American Association for Justice, 2

American National Election Study, 29

Ansolabehere, Stephen, 27, 184n18

Arkansas, 144

Aronson, Elliot, 189n20

attack ads and political ads: campaign activity’s influence on citizens’ opinions, 23–24, 27, 187nn6–8; evidence that attack ads have few consequences, 49, 53–54, 135; in experimental vignettes, 34; impact on court and legislative legitimacy, 41, 54; nature of, 27–28; reaction to ads politicized by interest groups, 63; respondents’ assessments of broadcasted ads, 62–63, 193nn6–7; text of ads, 61–62

authority versus legitimacy, 10, 86, 88, 183n8

Baird, Vanessa, 7–8, 197n15, 199–200n7, 201n18

Baum, Lawrence, 183n4, 183n7

Benesh, Sara, 14, 81, 90, 184n19, 185n27, 191n36, 191n38, 199n4

Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), 29

Bonneau, Chris, 128, 140, 187n9, 199n3, 199n5, 199n6, 203n6, 204n8

Bopp, James, 143, 144, 186n32

Bowler, Shaun, 184n19

Boyea, Brent, 188n16

Brace, Paul, 188n16

Brandenburg, Bert, 88

Brehm, John, 110

Brennan Center, NYU, 2, 107

Brooks, Deborah Jordan, 23–24

Bush v. Gore, 6, 9, 16, 26, 108

Bybee, Keith, 91, 199n12

Caldeira, Gregory, 5, 7–8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 35, 63, 68, 96, 108, 183n9, 185nn26–27, 186n30, 188n15, 196n12, 197n14, 198n5, 198n8, 199n1, 201n18, 203n4, 204n9

campaign activity crossing the line study: activities represented, 59–60, 192–93nn1–4; attack ads’ influence on citizens, 27–28, 187nn6–8; campaign content experiment, 64–69, 194nn8–11; campaign contributions’ influence on citizens, 28–29, 187–88nn9–15; conventional wisdom about, 23–24; hypothesis about the impact of politicized campaign activity, 27; hypothetical vignettes use, 58; impact of a candidate making a specific policy promise, 60–61, 193n5; policy commitments and prejudgments’ influence on citizens, 29; reaction to politicized ads by interest groups, 63; respondents’ assessments of broadcasted ads, 62–63, 193nn6–7; study design, 57–58; text of ads, 61–62; threats to impartiality from campaign activity, 58–61

campaign content appropriateness experiment: differences in judged appropriateness according to the importance of the issue, 66–67, 194n10; relevance of a particular institution on judgments of appropriateness, 67–68, 194n11; study design, 63–64, 194n8; study findings, 68; views of appropriateness of any candidate making policy promises, 64–66; why citizens object to policy promises, 64–66, 194n9

campaign contributions: appearance of corruption and, 28–29, 187–88nn9–15; belief in a connection to decisions, 28; evidence of negative consequences from, 135–36; in experimental vignettes, 31; impact on court legitimacy, 53; legal developments since the White decision, 143–45

Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), 112, 183n6, 200n8, 201n19

Campbell, Donald, 189n18, 193n5

Cann, Damon, 14, 199n4

Canon 5B(1)(c), Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, 186n32

Carlson, Neil, 110

Caufield, Rachel Paine, 105, 144

Choi, Stephen, 139, 199n5

Citizens United, 107

CMAG (Campaign Media Analysis Group), 112, 183n6, 200n8, 201n19

Coleman, John, 188n14

commitment to an in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Copyright
• Title Page
• Series Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• ONE The “New Style” Judicial Elections in the American States
• TWO Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and Perceptions of Judicial Impartiality
• THREE Can Campaign Activity Cross the Line?
• FOUR Diffuse Support for a State Supreme Court: Judicial Legitimacy in Kentucky
• FIVE Expectancy Theory and Judicial Legitimacy
• SIX Judges, Elections, and the American Mass Public: The Effects of Judicial Campaigns on the Legitimacy of Courts
• SEVEN Judicial Campaigns, Elections for Judges, and Court Legitimacy: Do Judicial Elections Really Stink?
• APPENDIX A Legal Developments Post-White
• APPENDIX B The Surveys
• APPENDIX C Experimental Vignettes
• APPENDIX D Question Wording
• APPENDIX E The Distributions of Key Analytical Variables
• APPENDIX F Interactive Analysis
• APPENDIX G Measuring Support for Democratic Institutions and Processes
• APPENDIX H Question Wording
• APPENDIX I Adding Control Variables
• Notes
• References
• Index