Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government

Kelleher, Christine A.; Wolak, Jennifer

doi:10.1177/1065912907304496

Cited by 133 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wenzel et al (2003) reach a null finding in their study of this relationship, noticing that the method of judicial selection has no effect on public support for state courts for those other than the highly-educated. The work of Kelleher and Wolak (2007) supports this null finding, concluding that the presence of partisan and nonpartisan judicial elections has no statistically significant effect on public trust of the state judiciary.…”

Section: The Determinants Of Public Opinion On the Judiciarysupporting

confidence: 72%

“…Cann and Yates (2008) find that the level of the voters' concern about the level of campaign contributions in judicial elections has-not unexpectedly-a negative effect on public trust of state courts. Kelleher and Wolak (2007) find that females, Latinos, and those with a higher level of "news consumption" possess higher levels of confidence in their state judiciaries; African Americans and those living in states with higher rates of government corruption and higher ratios of women and African Americans in office demonstrate lower levels of confidence.…”

Section: Factors Influencing Public Trust In the Judiciarymentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electing to Trust: An Exploration of the Relationship between Public Opinion and Localized Processes on Judicial Selection

Peterson¹,

Hare²,

Wrighton³

2012

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public trust in government depends largely on the belief that institutions are fair and respond to the will of the governed. We expand on past research on the relationship between public opinion and state courts by studying how selection methods for both state and local courts influence popular attitudes about the judicial branch. Employing individual-level survey data on the responsiveness and fairness of state supreme courts and local trial courts, we find that respondents in states using elections to choose judges for state courts believe the judicial system is fairer. Further, the use of non-partisan elections for local trial courts has a positive effect on public evaluations of judicial fairness. However, views on judicial responsiveness are unaffected by means of selection at either the state or local level. Thus, nonpartisan or even partisan judicial elections do not have a negative effect on our measures of trust; indeed, when elections do have an effect, it is a positive one.

show abstract

Section: The Determinants Of Public Opinion On the Judiciarysupporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Factors Influencing Public Trust In the Judiciarymentioning

confidence: 95%

Electing to Trust: An Exploration of the Relationship between Public Opinion and Localized Processes on Judicial Selection

Peterson¹,

Hare²,

Wrighton³

2012

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the case of the courts, it is emphasized by Benesh (2006: 699) that the public may be sensitive to the potential (or even assumed) effects of institutions and therefore view some institutional models of courts more favorably than others. Other scholars also show how institutional models influence confidence in courts (Bühlmann/Kunz 2011, Kelleher/Wolak 2007.…”

Section: Explanations For Public Confidence In Conciliation Authoritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidence in Alternative Dispute Resolution: Experience from Switzerland

Schwenkel¹

2014

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Alternative Dispute Resolution plays a crucial role in the justice system of Switzerland. With the unified Swiss Code of Civil Procedure, it is required that each litigation session shall be preceded by an attempt at conciliation before a conciliation authority. However, there has been little research on conciliation authorities and the public's perception of the authorities. This paper looks at public confidence in conciliation authorities and provides results of a survey conducted with more than 3,400 participants. This study found that public confidence in Swiss conciliation authorities is generally high, exceeds the ratings for confidence in cantonal governments and parliaments, but is lower than confidence in courts.Since the institutional models of the conciliation authorities (meaning the organization of the authorities and the selection of the conciliators) differ widely between the 26 Swiss cantons, the influence of the institutional models on public confidence is analyzed. Contrary to assumptions based on New Institutional-ism approaches, this study reports that the institutional models do not impact public confidence. Also, the relationship between a participation in an election of justices of the peace or conciliators and public confidence in these authorities is found to be at most very limited (and negative). Similar to common findings on courts, the results show that general contacts with conciliation authorities decrease public confidence in these institutions whereas a positive experience with a conciliation authority leads to more confidence.

show abstract

“…Thus, the model gives a theoretical basis for two recent findings that have puzzled empirical researchers, and indeed seem contradictory at first sight. First, voters trust their politicians less in states with direct democratic institutions (Kelleher and Wolak 2007). More importantly, direct democracy appears to improve legislators' reelection chances (Bali and Davis 2007).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since direct democracy allows a wider range of incumbents to be reelected, the average policy distance between voters and politicians increases. This suggests a theoretical basis for one finding that has puzzled empirical researchers: voters trust their politicians less in states with direct democratic institutions (Kelleher and Wolak 2007). The effect of direct democracy on representative characteristics is an interesting avenue for empirical research.…”

Section: Table Of Contents 1 Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Institutional Change: Why Elected Politicians Implement Direct Democracy

Hugh-Jones

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In existing models of direct democratic institutions, the median voter benefits, but representative politicians are harmed since their policy choices can be overridden. This is a puzzle, since representative politicians were instrumental in creating these institutions. I build a model of direct democracy that explains why a representative might benefit from tying his or her own hands in this way. The key features are (1) that voters are uncertain about their representative's preferences; (2) that direct and representative elections are complementary ways for voters to control outcomes. The model shows that some politicians benefit from the introduction of direct democracy, since they are more likely to survive representative elections: direct democracy credibly prevents politicians from realising extreme outcomes. Historical evidence from the introduction of the initiative, referendum and recall in America broadly supports the theory, which also explains two empirical results that have puzzled scholars: legislators are trusted less, but reelected more, in US states with direct democracy. I conclude by discussing the potential for incomplete information and signaling models to improve our understanding of institutional change more generally. JEL Classification: D72

show abstract

Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government

Cited by 133 publications

References 45 publications

Electing to Trust: An Exploration of the Relationship between Public Opinion and Localized Processes on Judicial Selection

Electing to Trust: An Exploration of the Relationship between Public Opinion and Localized Processes on Judicial Selection

Confidence in Alternative Dispute Resolution: Experience from Switzerland

Explaining Institutional Change: Why Elected Politicians Implement Direct Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About