Electing Judges
The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy
240 pages
|
1 halftone, 15 line drawings, 20 tables
|
6 x 9
|
© 2012
In Electing Judges, leading judicial politics scholar James L. Gibson responds tothe growing chorus of critics who fear that the politics of running for office undermine judicial independence and even the rule of law. While many people have opinions on the topic, few have supported them with actual empirical evidence. Gibson rectifies this situation, offering the most systematic and comprehensive study to date of the impact of campaigns on public perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and the legitimacy of elected state courts—and his findings are both counterintuitive and controversial.
Gibson finds that ordinary Americans do not conclude from campaign promises that judges are incapable of making impartial decisions. Instead, he shows, they understand the process of deciding cases to be an exercise in policy making, rather than of simply applying laws to individual cases—and consequently think it’s important for candidates to reveal where they stand on important issues. Negative advertising also turns out to have a limited effect on perceptions of judicial legitimacy, though the same cannot be said for widely hated campaign contributions.
Taking both the good and bad into consideration, Gibson argues persuasively that elections are ultimately beneficial in boosting the institutional legitimacy of courts, despite the slight negative effects of some campaign activities. Electing Judges will initiate a lively debate inside both the halls of justice and the academy.
Lawrence M. Friedman, Stanford Law School
An important work full of insights and surprises—and one that has significant policy implications.
Paul Brace, Rice University
Judicial independence is one of our most sacred institutional values, and the means of securing it in state courts has been a source of continuing debate. Gibson’s writing is superb, distilling arcane analytical and theoretical issues to show that, contrary to widely held views, people are more willing to accept the decisions of judges when they have the power to reject those who perform poorly, and thus elections build rather than corrode legitimacy. Electing Judges is a monumental achievement.
Melinda Gann Hall, Michigan State University
Electing Judges represents a perfect nexus between theoretically driven political science scholarship and real-world politics. Using evidence from survey experiments while remaining agnostic in the normative debate, Gibson disproves the conventional wisdom about how Americans perceive judges, courts, and the judicial selection process. This superbly crafted work should be the cornerstone of any serious discussion of judicial power and institutional reform.
Chris W. Bonneau, University of Pittsburgh
James L. Gibson is an intellectual giant in the field of judicial politics, and Electing Judges may be his most important contribution to date. This is a first-rate piece of scholarship that speaks directly to the central arguments in a highly contentious ongoing debate. For all interested in the judicial selection process, Gibson’s evidence is powerful and simply cannot be ignored.
Matthew J. Streb, Northern Illinois University | Political Communication
“Although there have been many doomsday scenarios put forth by those opposed to judicial elections, there is virtually no empirical evidence—positive or negative—regarding the effects of politicized judicial campaigns on judicial legitimacy. Enter James L. Gibson’s book, Electing Judges. Using both experimental vignettes and panel surveys, Gibson has written one of the most important books on the effects of judicial elections. Indeed, it may be the most important book on the topic since Dubois’s From Ballot to Bench.”
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments
One The “New Style” Judicial Elections in the American States
Two Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and Perceptions of Judicial Impartiality
Three Can Campaign Activity Cross the Line?
Four Diffuse Support for a State Supreme Court: Judicial Legitimacy in Kentucky
Five Expectancy Theory and Judicial Legitimacy
Six Judges, Elections, and the American Mass Public: The Effects of Judicial Campaigns on the Legitimacy of Courts
Seven Judicial Campaigns, Elections for Judges, and Court Legitimacy:
Do Judicial Elections Really Stink?
Appendix A Legal Developments Post-White
Appendix B The Surveys
Appendix C Experimental Vignettes
Appendix D Question Wording
Appendix E The Distributions of Key Analytical Variables
Appendix F Interactive Analysis
Appendix G Measuring Support for Democratic Institutions and Processes
Appendix H Question Wording
Appendix I Adding Control Variables
Notes
References
Index
For more information, or to order this book, please visit http://www.press.uchicago.edu
Google preview here
Law and Legal Studies: Law and Society
Political Science: American Government and Politics | Judicial Politics
You may purchase this title at these fine bookstores. Outside the USA, see our international sales information.
