The Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 Presidential Election: Ambiguity, Ideology, and Signaling in a Judicial Hierarchy

Brace, Paul; Langer, Laura

doi:10.1017/s1049096501001019

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is nothing new about the proposition that fear of reversal plays a major, if not dominant role, in lower court decisions to defer to higher courts, but in recent years especially it has become common for scholars to invoke this proposition as an explicit premise (Songer, Segal, & Cameron 1994;McNollgast 1995;Cross & Tiller 1998;Brent 1999;Spitzer & Talley 2000;Brace & Langer 2001). Whether or not one accepts this proposition has crucial implications for one's understanding of judicial hierarchy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Klein¹,

Hume²

2003

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lower courts in the United States are generally responsive to specific precedents and trends in the decisionmaking of their judicial superiors. In this article, we ask why. We test one popular explanation—that compliance can be attributed to judges' fear of having their decisions reversed—through an analysis of search and seizure cases decided in the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 1961 and 1990. Since the Supreme Court cannot reverse a decision unless it agrees to review it, we ask whether circuit judges are more likely to decide as the Supreme Court would be expected to when they face cases that are otherwise more likely to be reviewed by the Court. Finding that they are not, we conclude that fear of reversal cannot account for widespread circuit court compliance in these cases, nor, presumably, more generally. More broadly, our findings point to the importance of factors apart from supervisors and the threat of sanctions in determining subordinates' compliance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Klein¹,

Hume²

2003

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the purpose of this article, leadership is defined as those judges serving or having served as the chief justice of a state supreme court. This investigation argues the experience of leadership in state supreme courts permanently elevates the placement of organizational needs above the personal desires for policy (see Brace and Langer 2001). In other words, leadership enhances the reflexive institutional component of judges by placing policy goals somewhere below organizational needs.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Judicial Leadership and Institutionalmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…7. Disputes over redistricting are a recurrent area of policy before the U.S. Supreme Court with plaintiffs typically invoking the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Langer (2001Langer ( -2006. ''Multiple Actors and Competing Risks: State Supreme Court Justices and the Policymaking (Unmaking) game of Judicial Review.''…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and Election Litigation in State Supreme Courts

Boyea

Farrar-Myers

2011

State and Local Government Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elections in the American states are important mechanisms for legitimizing state governments by facilitating the involvement of citizens in electing political leaders. Elections, however, receive scrutiny through challenges in state courts on issues such as contested elections and the structure and context of election ballots. Capitalizing on attention to the role of leadership in institutional maintenance, the analysis presented examines the effects of leadership and other essential political and legal characteristics on building decision consensus in election cases. An empirical test using 203 election decisions by state supreme courts from 1995 to 1998 illustrates that, among other factors, the authority of leadership facilitates consensus where considered jointly with the resources of courts, the state as a litigant, and internal rules that prioritize seniority.

show abstract

“…It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. (Bush v. Gore, 2000) Certainly, the Florida Supreme Court's involvement in the 2000 presidential election brought national attention to state courts, and it prompted concerns regarding the legitimacy of such courts, in part because of the perceptions of some that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was politically motivated (Brace & Langer, 2001;Sullivan, 2000;Taylor, 2000). However, notwithstanding this and Justice Stevens's worries, we believe that it is rather unlikely that the majority's opinion has caused any permanent wounds to citizens' estimation of American courts or judges, generally.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Homegrown Institutional Legitimacy

Cann

Yates

2007

American Politics Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, the public's support for the judicial system looms as an especially important concern. Although studies have confirmed that the Supreme Court's reservoir of public goodwill has remained largely intact following the politically divisive decision, the status of public support for other American courts has received little attention. This reflects a broader trend in judicial politics scholarship toward placing inordinate attention on explaining public support for the U.S. Supreme Court while largely ignoring the courts where most of the policymaking in the nation occurs—state courts. We use a national survey to assess the factors influencing diffuse support for state courts. We find that although many considerations affecting diffuse support for state courts parallel the determinants of such support for the nation's high Court, important differences exist between explanations of citizen support for state courts and the Supreme Court. Most notably, judicial elections and concerns over judicial campaign contributions work to undermine citizens' support for their state courts.

show abstract

The Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 Presidential Election: Ambiguity, Ideology, and Signaling in a Judicial Hierarchy

Cited by 5 publications

References 9 publications

Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Leadership and Election Litigation in State Supreme Courts

Homegrown Institutional Legitimacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About