Representative Bureaucracy and Partisanship: The Implementation of Election Law

Studies of representative bureaucracy argue that public administrators hold attitudes that are generally representative of the public and will implement policy in accordance with those attitudes. However, studies of representative bureaucracy generally have not considered the partisanship of local administrators. Many local election officials affiliate with a political party, and there is concern that partisan officials will manipulate election procedures to help their party. The authors analyze a survey of local election officials about their attitudes toward provisional voting. Findings show that Democratic local election officials have significantly more positive attitudes toward provisional voting programs in highly Democratic jurisdictions and significantly less positive attitudes in highly Republican jurisdictions. No such relationship occurs for Republican administrators. In addition, positive attitudes toward provisional voting are associated with more provisional votes being cast and counted in the 2004 presidential election. This work questions whether representative bureaucracy—when it concerns partisanship—is always a desirable outcome.     

Contemporary Prevalence and Prevention of Micronutrient Deficiencies in Refugee Settings Worldwide

Scant research has been conducted that systematically evaluatesinterventions to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in refugeepopulations, despite documentation of considerable prevalenceand continued outbreaks of micronutrient deficiency among thesepopulations. Refugees are especially at-risk for micronutrientdeficiency given their circumstances of origin, current residentialenvironment, and typical dependence upon food aid. Interventionspromoting reduction of micronutrient deficiency in refugee settings,including food fortification and dietary diversification, arerarely systematically evaluated for impact in reducing micronutrientdeficiency in refugee populations. As a result, little is knownabout the most effective prevention strategies for reductionof micronutrient deficiency in refugees. In fact, evidence suggestsperhaps that nutritional interventions with demonstrated effectivenessin other populations and locales may not be readily adaptableto refugee situations. Sustainable prevention interventionsaimed at reducing micronutrient deficiency in refugee populationsneed to be implemented and tested systematically to create anevidence base for good practice.     

Diluting the evidence required to show unfair advantage and detriment?

The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has asked the ECJwhether it is sufficient, for a finding of a link and/or unfairadvantage and/or detriment, that the earlier mark is uniqueand famous and calls to mind the later mark on dissimilar goods.     

EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:

This article proposes a four-level model of clinical inferences to analyze the psychological evaluation process in custody matters. At each level the authors summarize the status of the relevant psychological literature and conclude that, as clinicians respond to the ultimate issues (e.g., who should be the custodial parent) the empirical foundation for such conclusions is tenuous or non-existent. A jurisprudence argument is also made that such opinions should be routinely excluded from the fact-finding process. Given the significant potential for specific custody recommendations to limit personal liberties and the trajectory of a child's life, the paucity of relevant research available in this area, and profound evidentiary issues, such recommendations should be viewed as ethically inappropriate. A model for what clinicians can ethically say to courts is proposed.     

Passing and Strategic Voting on the U.S. Supreme Court

Analyzing strategic aspects of judicial decisionmaking is an important element in understanding how law develops. In this article, we examine sophisticated voting on the U.S. Supreme Court by empirically modeling justices' decisions to pass when it is their turn to vote during conference discussions. We argue that, due to the opinion assignment norm, the chief justice may pass when one of the key conditions necessary for sophisticated voting—certainty about the views held by other justices and the agenda—is lacking. By passing, the chief can view his colleagues' votes in order to determine which vote will allow him to assign the majority opinion and, ultimately, forward his policy preferences. Using data from Justice Lewis F. Powell's conference notes, we show that the chief passes for this purpose, and that doing so is an effective strategy. In addition, we show that the senior associate justice in a case, who has a nontrivial chance of assigning the majority opinion, also passes for strategic reasons. As we expect, the data indicate that the remaining associates seem not to pass for strategic purposes.     

Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines

The argument that curbing judicial sentencing discretion generates more prosecutorial discretion at earlier decision points in case processing received little empirical attention beyond Miethe's (1987) before/after study of the Minnesota guidelines. This article presents an examination of whether Ohio's sentencing reform resulted in significant changes in prosecutorial decisions related to indictment severity, dropped charges, charge reductions, and overall plea bargains. The implementation of determinate sentencing guidelines corresponded with a significant yet modest increase in the likelihood of charge reductions only. Some changes also occurred in the specific effects of various defendant characteristics on some of the outcomes examined, but these changes did not uniformly result in harsher dispositions for defendants facing greater social and economic disadvantage. Similar to Miethe's observation regarding Minnesota's sentencing scheme, any increase in levels of prosecutorial discretion that might have occurred under Ohio's latest scheme had not resulted in substantive extra-legal disparities in case dispositions.