Explaining the Vote in Judicial Elections: the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court Elections

Baum, Lawrence

doi:10.1177/106591298704000213

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In pathbreaking work, several political scientists have documented that, at least under certain conditions, judicial elections reflect informed judgments by the electorate (e.g., Baum 1987;Dubois 1980;Lovrich and Sheldon 1983;Scheb 1983). In pathbreaking work, several political scientists have documented that, at least under certain conditions, judicial elections reflect informed judgments by the electorate (e.g., Baum 1987;Dubois 1980;Lovrich and Sheldon 1983;Scheb 1983).…”

Section: The Judicial Selection Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform

Hall¹

2001

Am Polit Sci Rev

178

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I address the controversy over how judges should be selected by analyzing the electoral fortunes of incumbents on supreme courts from 1980 through 1995 in the 38 states using elections to staff the bench. Court reformers argue that partisan elections fail to evidence accountability, while nonpartisan and retention elections promote independence. Thus, issue-related or candidate-related forces should not be important in partisan elections, and external political conditions should not be important in nonpartisan and retention elections. Results indicate that reformers underestimated the extent to which partisan elections have a tangible substantive component and overestimated the extent to which nonpartisan and retention races are insulated from partisan politics and other contextual forces. On these two fundamental issues, arguments of reformers fail. Moreover, the extraordinary variations across systems and over time in how well incumbents fare with voters, which bear directly upon the representative nature of elected courts, merit further explanation. for their assistance in collecting portions of the data. All errors are my sole responsibility. 1 States use partisan elections, nonpartisan elections (no party labels in the general election), and the Missouri Plan to select judges. Under the Missouri Plan, nominees for each vacancy are identified by a commission appointed by the governor, who makes the initial appointment from the list provided by the commission. The newly appointed justice immediately assumes office and then appears in the next general election to seek a regular term. Of course, variations from state to state occur with all three methods. 2 I will use "state supreme court" and "court of last resort" interchangeably. 3 Lowry, Alt, and Ferree (1998) provide a recent example of this approach. They define accountability as a relationship between changes in aggregate public revenues and spending, on the one hand, and vote and seat share in state gubernatorial and legislative elections, on the other.

show abstract

Section: The Judicial Selection Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform

Hall¹

2001

Am Polit Sci Rev

178

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Voters in nonpartisan judicial elections in Oregon and Washington in 1980 were better informed and stronger advocates for an independent judiciary than the public at large (Lovrich and Sheldon 1983). In Ohio Supreme Court races in 1984, ideology and party identification were important influences on the vote, even when candidate party affiliation did not appear on the ballot (Baum 1987). Union membership and economic issues were also found to play an important role in explaining vote choice in these races (Hojnacki and Baum 1992).…”

Section: Electionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State of State Politics Research

Brace

Jewett

1995

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewers of the state of state politics research often lament the field's lack of theoretical progress and its fragmented character These conditions persist yet a review of this research published in the professions top journals over the past decade reveals a substantively rich and often methodologically sophisticated body of scholarship. Applying an inclusive approach, this essay examines all research published on state politics over the last decade in the profession's six top journals: APSR, AJPS, JOP, PRQ Polity and SSQ. Trends in substantive focus and the findings of this research are described, as are methodological approaches and innovations. The study takes stock of the progress the field has made and identifies promising avenues for future inquiry. The subfield could advance by emphasizing its unique comparative analytical advantages. These advantages provide an excellent opportunity to evaluate the impact of institutional and environmental contexts on political behavior, processes and outcomes. The field needs to emphasize the importance of modeling political behavior across contexts, and interactively across contextual and individual levels of analysis. By so doing, the subfield can show how states matter and also assess the generality of models that focus too often on behavior or process within single contexts.Reviews of the state politics subfield typically deplore the field's lack of progress and complain about the disunity in approaches and subject matter that characterize the field's research. On one level, this review departs from that tradition. Studies appearing in the professioris top journals make clear that there has been notable progress in the study of state politics over the past decade. Those laboring in the field have contributed to knowledge about state politics including the interplay of states within a national setting, the effects NOTE: Aubrey Jewett provided enormous assistance in compiling the bibliography used in this essay. His diligent and extraordinary efforts were instrumental in the completion of this study. The study benefited as well from the thoughtful input of John Geer and the anonymous reviewers he selected.

show abstract

“…Baum (1987) surveyed voters following the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court election, asking them to cite the reasons for their vote choice. Baum (1987) surveyed voters following the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court election, asking them to cite the reasons for their vote choice.…”

Section: The Justice System Journalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election

Clopton

Peters

2013

Justice System Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explaining the Vote in Judicial Elections: the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court Elections

Cited by 23 publications

References 9 publications

State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform

State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform

The State of State Politics Research

Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About