CONFIDENTIALITY REVISITED:California Style

Stewart and I have lived through the legal adversary system and we know what havoc it could have wrought on our family…. We were nuts. We were crazy. We were your average psychotic divorcing parents…. What you do not see is we get well. We bailed out of the adversary court system because we could see it was no help to us. We were the lucky ones…. There are thousands like us who could use your help before the war gets started.
—Parent at the 1978 Midwinter Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, Los Angeles.     

MEDIATING JUDICIAL POLICY

Despite the widespread use of mediation to resolve public policy disputes, there is little written on the mediation of judicial rule disputes. A successful mediation of a dispute over proposed court rules to govern mediation of certain family law cases involving domestic violence concerns is reviewed. The authors conclude that the mediation provided (a) a confidential venue for disputing judges to respectfully disagree with one another, (b) an opportunity for collaborative problem solving, (c) an opportunity to reduce conflict among judicial colleagues. (d) a format for dialogue with other stakeholders, and (e) greater degree of influence with regard to the outcome of the dispute. Specific recommendations to encourage the effective use of judicial policy mediation are offered.     

Using Bayesian Aldrich‐McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens' Ideological Preferences and Perceptions

Aldrich‐McKelvey scaling is a powerful method that corrects for differential‐item functioning (DIF) in estimating the positions of political stimuli (e.g., parties and candidates) and survey respondents along a latent policy dimension from issue scale data. DIF arises when respondents interpret issue scales (e.g., the standard liberal‐conservative scale) differently and distort their placements of the stimuli and themselves. We develop a Bayesian implementation of the classical maximum likelihood Aldrich‐McKelvey scaling method that overcomes some important shortcomings in the classical procedure. We then apply this method to study citizens' ideological preferences and perceptions using data from the 2004–2012 American National Election Studies and the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our findings indicate that DIF biases self‐placements on the liberal‐conservative scale in a way that understates the extent of polarization in the contemporary American electorate and that citizens have remarkably accurate perceptions of the ideological positions of senators and Senate candidates.