PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN TRIAL COURT ELECTIONS: Possibilities for Accentuating the Positive and Eliminating the Negative

A large part of the debate over state judicial selection has focused upon the lack of voter interest in and knowledge about judicial elections. This study investigates voter participation in the contested nonpartisan elections for California Superior Court judge from 1958–1978. Focusing upon the variations among and within the state's counties, the analysis attempts to assess the contributions of sociological, environmental, and institutional variables to the level of participation. An exploration of the policy implications of the findings suggests, among other things, that judicial elections in large metropolitan areas might well be abandoned and replaced with some system of gubernatorial appointment and reappointment of judges.     

Political Trust and Judicial Retention Elections

Retention elections are that part of the merit selection plan designed to hold judges accountable to the public. While more than one scholar has concluded that votes cast in a retention election are often not informed evaluations of the judge's qualifications and/or conduct on the bench, the few existing systematic empirical studies have failed to explain why people vote for or against retention. This study fills part of this void by testing the hypothesis that political trust is a major cue in judicial retention voting. In contrast to most previous work which was either limited to the appellate level or to elections in a single state, the data set consists of 1,864 retention elections held from 1964 through 1984 for major trial court judges. The national trends in political trust in the last two decades are found to be reflected in the trends in the mean vote for retention.     

Judicial Responsiveness to Valence Issues: An Event History Analysis of the Initial Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) Laws

Under what conditions does judicial responsiveness to the public's policy preferences compromise the court's role as a countermajoritarian institution? Scholars have yet to examine whether and how quickly state appellate court justices respond to valence issues. This study investigates the relationship between retention elections and judicial responsiveness to the initial sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws popularized in the 1990s. Findings show that judges who participated in nonpartisan retention elections exhibited greater democratic accountability by engaging in judicial review of SORN laws earlier than judges in other retention election systems. Valence issues create political challenges for nonpartisan judges who, like their counterparts in other retention systems, are expected to balance majoritarian interests with minority rights.     

Progressive Reform and the Decline of Democratic Accountability: The Popular Election of State Supreme Court Judges, 1850-1920

This essay probes the relationship among different kinds of political cultures, the conduct of judicial elections, and the extent of dissent on the state supreme courts of California, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas from 1850 to 1920. The introduction at the turn of the twentieth century of Progressive election reforms—most notably the secret ballot, the direct party primary, and the nonpartisan ballot—reduced levels of turnout in judicial contests and increased roll-off from major statewide political to judicial elections. These reforms made judicial elections the tail on the electoral kite and denied the public its best means of regulating judicial policy making. Yet these changes in the electorate's behavior were seemingly unrelated to variations in the rate of dissent in these four state courts, whose judges apparently viewed popular partisan election as more a potential than a real threat to their independence.     

The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Activism: Judicial Conduct of International Relations and Child Abduction

Judges are increasingly visible in their participation in activities off the bench. This may create difficulties in drawing the line between their duties in court and their other activities. However, if judges are not acutely aware of the importance of this line their extra-curial activities may interfere with their judicial duties. This article considers the failure to observe the importance of this differentiation in the context of international child abduction. It is argued that some judges, on and off the bench, have wrongly taken over the role of the executive in international relations and that such activity jeopardises the independence of the judiciary. This raises broader issues, in particular it suggests that some judges are being seduced into exceeding their proper judicial role, by working with government in policy-making and by their increasing contacts with judges from other countries.     

Voter Turnout,Felon Disenfranchisement and Partisan Outcomes in Presidential Elections, 1988–2012

States vary in their treatment of the voting rights of convicted felons through incarceration, probation, parole, and beyond. A few states permit even incarcerated felons to vote, while others rescind the right permanently, with most states’ policies located between those extremes. This paper analyzes the relationship among voter turnout, election outcomes, and levels of felon disenfranchisement by state. The results show a pattern of divergence around the 2000 election before which turnout, disenfranchisement, crime rates, and Republican or Democratic success in elections were unrelated and since which strong correlations are found. Disenfranchisement rates no longer bear a significant relationship to crime rates, and states won by Republicans have both lower overall turnout and higher levels of ineligible felons in the voting-age population. Partisan control of state legislatures does not predict these patterns, but there is a strong regional component to the data with disenfranchisement notably higher in Southern states regardless of partisan control. Overall the data support a need for further research on the disparate treatment of felon voting rights among states which may be contributing to broader trends emerging in political science research of a growing relationship between lower voter turnout and Republican electoral success.     

JUDGES' UNEQUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN IMPRISONMENT*

How do judges in the same court system contribute differentially to extralegal disparities in sentencing? Analyses of felony sentencing in an urban Ohio trial court uncovered two distinct but equal-sized groups of judges that differed in the magnitude of extralegal correlates to imprisonment. Within the group of judges reflecting substantive extralegal correlates to prison sentences, demographic correlates (based on defendants' race, sex, age, and the interaction between them) were more pervasive across judges relative to social demographic correlates (based on education, residence length, and means of financial support). The directions of significant relationships involving a defendant's race, age, and means of support also were inconsistent across judges. These interjudge differences suggest that analyses of cases pooled across judges at either the jurisdiction or the state level might over- or understate the relevance of particular attribution theories of sentencing disparities.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

Lawyers about Mixed Tribunals: Do Croatian Professional Judges, State Attorneys, and Private Attorneys Share the Same View?

In this paper, I examine opinions about mixed tribunals, a form of lay participation used widely in the criminal justice systems across Europe. The distinguishing feature of mixed tribunals is the fact that professional and lay judges decide the guilt and sentence jointly. I explore the differences of opinion among lawyers about mixed tribunals in general and about lay judges in particular. Using the theoretical underpinnings of status characteristics theory, I study the impact of the lawyers' role in the criminal justice system and the type of court/office at which they serve or practice law on their opinion about mixed tribunals. The dataset I analyze in this paper consists of questionnaires filled out by Croatian professional judges, state attorneys, and private attorneys.     

The Impact of District Magnitude on Voter Drop‐Off and Roll‐Off in American Elections

This study demonstrates that multimember districts (MMDs) complicate ballots, reduce voter information, and increase incentives for strategic voting in ways that reduce voter participation. Using data from three states that elect members of at least one legislative chamber from both single‐member districts (SMDs) and MMDs, we test hypotheses about the impact on MMDs on ballot drop‐off (selecting fewer candidates for an office than permissible) and roll‐off (not voting in down‐ballot races). We find support for both sets of hypotheses, with the strongest results related to ballot drop‐off. The results have broad implications for voter participation, representation, and election administration in the many states and localities that use MMDs to elect public officials.     

FAMILY COURT REFORM IN SIX PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES

This article describes judicial behavior in local family court reform movements, vis-à-vis six case studies, as part of a larger study on the implementation of court-connected custody mediation in Pennsylvania. Research findings provide new insight into the initiation of change by judges at the local court level. When motivated to do so, family court judges in Pennsylvania bring about local reform independently and expeditiously. Judges who desire alternative methods to litigation of custody disputes implement court change with few organizational constraints: They decide how and when reform is to be implemented, and they assign nonjudicial professionals to assist in reform implementation. Finally, judges establish their own criteria for assessing the success of change initiated. Throughout reform movements, judges take on a variety of roles in bringing about change—first as reform activists, then as leaders in reform movements, and finally, as advisors in reform implementation. These case studies reveal the diversity in judicial style when court change is implemented; at the same time, similar court goals and objectives are obtained.     

An Experimental Investigation of How Judicial Elections Affect Public Faith in the Judicial System

Judicial scholars have often speculated about the impact of elections on the administration of justice in the state courts. Yet relatively little research has concerned itself with public perceptions of state court selection methods. Of particular interest is the concept of legitimacy. Do elections negatively affect public perceptions of judicial legitimacy? Bonneau and Hall (2009) and Gibson (2012) answer this question with an emphatic “No.” Judicial elections, these studies show, are not uniquely troublesome for perceptions of institutional legitimacy. This article aims to extend the findings of Bonneau and Hall and Gibson via a laboratory experiment on the effects of elections on public perceptions of judicial legitimacy. In the end, we find that because elections preempt the use of the other main selection method—appointment—they actually enhance perceptions of judicial legitimacy rather than diminish them.     

Ideological Congruence: Illusion or Imperfection?

Paul Warwick ( 2016 ) argues that much of the research on ideological congruence leaves the erroneous impression that a close match of median left‐right voter opinions and government ideological positions usually emerges from elections. I propose further clarifications. I offer a “natural metric” based on the average distances from the median voter of the most distant and the closest parties competing in all these countries’ elections. I suggest that by these standards average ideological congruence in the Western liberal democracies in the last 20 years has been fairly successful, but not as successful as it could be.     

The Federal/State Criminal Prosecution Nexus: A Case Study in Cooperation and Discretion

Contemporary studies of prosecutorial decision making at the state level are infrequent, and even fewer studies examine the discretionary decisions of federal prosecutors. In addition, virtually no scholarly literature examines the growing overlap between federal and state criminal jurisdiction. This paper advances both theoretical and empirical understandings of the organizational and political contexts in which prosecutorial discretion takes place by exploring the nexus between federal and state criminal jurisdictions. Drawing on interview research in a large urban area with several active federal/state cooperative prosecution programs, we suggest that these cooperative relations open new avenues of discretion for local and federal prosecutors; limit the authority of other court actors, including state judges; and erode the distinctions between federal and local criminal jurisdiction.     

The Role of Ideology in State Legislative Elections

In this article, I examine the effect of incumbent ideology on elections in 45 state legislatures, showing that ideological extremists are more likely to be opposed in the general election than are moderates and that extremists tend to do worse in challenged elections than moderates do. I also explore the intervening role of legislative professionalism, finding that in the majority of state legislatures moderation is rewarded, though in the most professionalized legislatures, incumbents are actually rewarded for extremism. These results show that despite the informational disadvantage of the electorate, the ideology of state legislators is an important factor in elections.     

Issue Voting and Partisan Defections in Congressional Elections

In every election cycle the fate of some candidates is determined by partisans who defect from their usual voting habits to cast a ballot for the candidate of the opposing party. Defections in congressional elections have been attributed to incumbency, presidential approval, partisan strength, and factors related to individual voters. Our systematic assessment of the impact of issues on voter defections shows that party‐owned issues and performance issues associated favorably with one party affect the likelihood of partisan defections. The results suggest that congressional candidates can use issues to draw supporters away from the opposing party and to keep partisan voters loyal.     

HOW JUDGES THINK ABOUT RACIAL DISPARITIES: SITUATIONAL DECISION‐MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

Researchers have theorized how judges’ decision‐making may result in the disproportionate presence of Blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system. Yet, we have little evidence about how judges make sense of these disparities and what, if anything, they do to address them. By drawing on 59 interviews with state judges in a Northeastern state, we describe, and trace the implications of, judges’ understandings of racial disparities at arraignment, plea hearings, jury selection, and sentencing. Most judges in our sample attribute disparities, in part, to differential treatment by themselves and/or other criminal justice officials, whereas some judges attribute disparities only to the disparate impact of poverty and differences in offending rates. To address disparities, judges report employing two categories of strategies: noninterventionist and interventionist. Noninterventionist strategies concern only a judge's own differential treatment, whereas interventionist strategies concern other actors’ possible differential treatment, as well as the disparate impact of poverty and facially neutral laws. We reveal how the use of noninterventionist strategies by most judges unintentionally reproduces disparities. Through our examination of judges’ understandings of racial disparities throughout the court process, we enhance understandings of American racial inequality and theorize a situational approach to decision‐making in organizational contexts.     

“The roughest form of social work:” How court officials justify bail decisions

Growing research has analyzed quantitative patterns of bail decisions and outcomes, but we know far less about how court officials justify their bail decisions. To enhance understanding of how bail decisions—and their resulting pretrial outcomes—are generated, we interviewed 104 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in a northeastern state. Court officials in our study reported three primary justifications at bail: ensuring defendants return to court, preventing crime, and lessening harm. The first two justifications have been suggested in the literature, but the latter is novel and encompasses two secondary justifications: lessening criminal legal system harm and lessening societal harm. We show how these justifications and the decisions they enable blend risk management with rehabilitation and emerge from court officials’ shared assumption of defendants’ social marginality but varied beliefs about what to do about such marginality pretrial. Each justification allows for distinct, but at times overlapping, bail decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of court official decision-making, research on racial and socioeconomic inequality, and bail reform policy.     

UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION TRIAL COURT JUDGES

An examination is made of the extent to which limited jurisdiction trial court judges make unique contributions to court policies. The methodology and political implications of minor court research differs from those in higher courts. Analysis of variance found that minor court judges in multiple-judge courts differed in the level and uniformity of fines and costs assessed in misdemeanor cases. Binary tests for regression discontinuity found that judges in single-judge courts initiated policy changes upon entering office. Such knowledge of unique judicial contributions would enable citizens and court officials to make informed decisions in judge selections and court reforms.     

“<Emphasis Type="Italic">Peer effects</Emphasis>” or “<Emphasis Type="Italic">quasi</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">peer effects</Emphasis>” in Spanish labour court rulings

The current work seeks to ascertain whether rulings on dismissal cases issued by incumbent judges in Spanish labour courts are influenced by whether they are acting alone in their own court or sharing duties with other judges such as replacement judges, support judges or incumbent judges from other courts. We consider that a court is treated when more than one judge rules in it. Then, an analysis is conducted so as to determine the effect of such a treatment on the percentage of cases ruled in favour of the dismissed worker. The data used in the research are taken from the information recorded at court level provided by the statistics kept by the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary. A total of 2888 observations were available, corresponding to the period spanning 2004 to 2012. As regards the findings, it may be concluded that there is a significant positive impact on the number of dismissal cases ruled in favour of workers when incumbent judges are not acting alone in their court, particularly when the incumbent judge solves cases together with another professional judge.