Scholars recognize that both citizens and elites may alter their behavior in response to salient stimuli. Epstein and Segal's (2000) measure of salience for the United States Supreme Court provided a valid and reproducible way to assess the political salience of cases. No comparable measure exists for state high courts. The authors introduce a measure of case salience for state supreme courts that is comprehensive and similar to the Epstein-Segal measure. We discuss the utility of this measure, compare it to several alternatives, provide descriptive statistics, and discuss the relationship between case salience and judicial behavior in state supreme courts.
Critics traditionally portray state Supreme Court elections as low-information events that fail to accomplish the stated goal of engendering accountability to the public. Recent changes in the intensity of contestable judicial elections have led scholars to consider the effect of public opinion on state court decision making. We delineate necessary conditions for judicial responsiveness to public opinion, integrating research on state court decision making with the broader literature on representation. We then empirically test our framework for judicial responsiveness. Our findings suggest that the strength of the electoral connection between state supreme court justices and their constituents is quite dependent on method of judicial retention and the visibility of the case.
Objective. In this article, we investigate the decision of media in the U.S. states to give high-profile coverage to state supreme court decisions. While research on the U.S. Supreme Court has forged an association between media coverage and the political salience of court decisions, scholars have been unable to examine such coverage in the increasingly important state courts of last resort. Methods. Utilizing new data of high-profile coverage over time in these courts, we examine the extent to which case characteristics, judicial behavior, and institutional variation influence media attention. Our empirical model covers 28,045 state supreme court cases over all 50 states, between the years 1995-1998. Results. Our findings indicate that the likelihood of high-profile coverage increases when certain case characteristics, particularly declarations of unconstitutionality, are present, in addition to dissent within a court. Despite the importance of institutional differences among state supreme courts, front-page coverage is not affected by this variation. Conclusions. In our conclusions, we evaluate those scenarios in which high-profile media coverage is more likely for state supreme court cases, and the possible implications this may have for judicial politics.
Objective. In the U.S. states, policy development can occur in multiple venues. In fact, the likelihood of policy success may be directly related to the policy arena chosen by advocates. In this article, we examine those conditions under which policy reform results in success within education finance reform. Method. We model the likelihood that successful reform may take place via courts, legislatures, or referenda, and whether it occurs over multiple policy events. We simultaneously estimate the relative probability of the occurrence of different possible policy events (judicial action, legislative action, and referendum) in a given state and year. Our data comprise an exhaustive analysis of all litigation and policy events in education finance over time , for all states. Results. Our findings indicate court-ordered policy reform will most likely take place when judicial ideology supports it, while legislativeordered reform is meaningfully influenced by the passage of time. We also find that policy reform via direct democracy has a resounding and constraining effect on the other branches of government. Conclusion. In our conclusions, we evaluate those scenarios in which reform will most likely occur within a specific policy venue, and the possible implications this may have for policy change in the states.An essential component for policy change is not only the definition of a policy problem and mobilization of actors, but also a receptive policy arena in which alteration of the status quo has a potential likelihood of success. Although there is yet no consensus on the extent to which multiple policy venues may help or hinder policy development, many scholars have agreed that venue shopping itself is integral to the policy process (Baumgartner, 1989;
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.