Although much is known about public attitudes toward the U.S. Supreme Court, there is very little information about how citizens feel about courts in their own communities. This article hypothesizes that attitudes toward local courts are based primarily on four factors: (a) the actual experiences people have with these courts, (b) the methods by which local judges are selected, (c) the role of the mass media, and (d) various demographic factors. The authors find strong evidence that personal experience matters: Criminal jurors are more supportive of local courts, whereas defendants and those who have participated on either side of a civil case are not. Judicial selection methods, on the other hand, have no effect on citizens’ attitudes, except among some educated citizens. Finally, no media effects are apparent.

Objective. We examine how the immigration policy preferences of Anglos and Latinos vary according to ethnic context. Specifically, we hypothesize that immigration policy attitudes are a product of both Latino immigrant and Latino native born group size. In contrast to previous work, which found that Latinos and Anglos react to contextual forces in an identical manner, we argue that Latino group size produces opposite reactions for Anglos and Latinos. Methods. These hypotheses are tested using an original state‐wide survey of Anglos and Latinos in Texas conducted during 2006, which is supplemented with data from the 2000 Census. Results. Our findings show that residing in a heavily Latino area produces more liberal immigration attitudes among Latinos and more conservative attitudes among Anglos. However, this result is driven not by the size of the foreign‐born Latino population, but by the size of the native‐born Latino population. Conclusion. Anti‐immigrant sentiments among Anglos appear to result, at least in part, from ethnic concerns.

The objectives of this article are to examine the impact of acculturation on the levels of trust in both the national and local governments in a long-term minority-majority community and to consider the effect on Mexican Americans' level of trust of long-term co-ethnic control of local government. Copyright (c) 2006 Southwestern Social Science Association.

Objectives Few studies have examined the impact of the descriptive representation of Latinos on evaluations of the judiciary. This study helps to fill that gap by examining the effect of the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor on Latinos’ and Anglos’ evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court. Methods Using repeated measures from surveys conducted in Texas in 2006 and 2011, we use ordered logit analysis to estimate the impact of the Sotomayor appointment on approval of the U.S. Supreme Court among Latinos and Anglos. Results At all levels of political knowledge, Latinos were more aware of the Sotomayor appointment than Anglos. Moreover, Latinos’ approval of the Court increased dramatically after the appointment, while Anglos’ approval was unchanged. Conclusions We find a political empowerment effect among Latinos, but find no evidence that Anglos considered the appointment a threat. Additionally, given that the Latinos in our sample are overwhelmingly of Mexican origin and Justice Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, we find evidence of pan‐ethnic effects.

No abstract