The Supreme Court as an electoral issue: evidence from three studies

Political Science Research and Methods ◽

10.1017/psrm.2021.20 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-19

Author(s):

Alex Badas ◽

Elizabeth Simas

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Political Behavior ◽

Strong Predictor ◽

Vote Choice ◽

Senate Elections ◽

Primary Election ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Conjoint Experiment ◽

Analyze Data

Abstract Judicial nominations, particularly those to the Supreme Court, have been a salient topic in recent presidential and senate elections. However, there has been little research to determine whether judicial nominations motivate political behavior. Across three studies we demonstrate the important role judicial nominations play in influencing political behavior. In Study 1, we analyze the extent to which voters perceive judicial nominations as an important electoral issue. We find that Republicans—and especially strong Republicans—are more likely to perceive judicial nominations as important. In Study 2, we analyze how congruence with an incumbent Senator's judicial confirmation votes influences voters’ decision to vote for the incumbent. We find that congruence with a Senator's judicial confirmation votes is a strong predictor of vote choice. Finally, in Study 3, we analyze data from an original conjoint experiment aimed at simulating a Senate primary election where voters must select among co-partisans. We find that Republican subjects are more likely to select a primary candidate who prioritizes confirming conservative Supreme Court nominees. Among Democratic subjects, however, we find that Democratic candidates who prioritize the Court might actually suffer negative electoral consequences. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of judicial nominations as an electoral issue.

Download Full-text

The All-White Primary

America's Lone Star Constitution ◽

10.1525/california/9780520297807.003.0002 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Lucas A. Powe

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Democratic Party ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

National Association ◽

General Election ◽

Court Decision ◽

Primary Election ◽

Colored People ◽

The Supreme Court

This chapter discusses the legal battles sparked by the all-white primary that was adopted in Texas in 1923 and how the Supreme Court handled the cases. In 1923, the Texas legislature adopted the all-white primary, declaring that “in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a Democratic Party primary election.” The legislation left blacks who paid the poll tax free to cast a meaningless vote in the general election. The first challenge to the state's all-white primary was initiated by Lawrence A. Nixon at the behest of the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and with the help of the national NAACP. The Supreme Court decision in that case, Nixon v. Herndon, is examined, along with three other cases challenging Texas's all-white primary: Grovey v. Townsend, United States v. Classic, and Smith v. Allwright.

Download Full-text

Impeachment in Texas

American Political Science Review ◽

10.2307/1946933 ◽

1930 ◽

Vol 24 (3) ◽

pp. 652-658 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Frank M. Stewart

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

Attorney General ◽

Special Session ◽

Primary Election ◽

State Official ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Speaker Of The House ◽

The Law

The Ferguson case in 1917 represents the only instance of the impeachment and conviction of a state official in Texas. The law of impeachment must then be sought in the proceedings of the Ferguson trial, the opinions of the attorney-general, and the opinion of the supreme court in 1924 in the case of Ferguson v. Maddox, which reviewed the legality of the 1917 proceedings in determining whether Mr. Ferguson was eligible to have his name placed on the primary election ballot as a candidate for governor.Impeachment at a Special Session. The constitution provides that the governor may on extraordinary occasions convene the legislature in special sessions limited to thirty days' duration, during which there shall be no legislation upon subjects other than those designated in the proclamation of the governor calling the session or presented by him. The facts in the Ferguson case may be reviewed briefly. The speaker of the House of Representatives, on his own motion, had issued a call for the House to meet in special session on August 1, 1917, to consider the impeachment of the governor. Before the members could assemble, the governor issued a call for a special session of the legislature to meet at the same time as that set by the speaker's call for the purpose of considering the matter of university appropriations. The House proceeded with the investigation and impeached the governor, who was thereupon suspended from office.

Download Full-text

US Court fight will start longer-term policy battle

Emerald Expert Briefings ◽

10.1108/oxan-db256372 ◽

2020 ◽

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Content Type ◽

White House ◽

Senate Elections ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

2016 Election ◽

Considerable Controversy ◽

Federal Appropriations

Significance This would mean a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court, and considerable controversy because Republican Senate leadership refused to consider a Court nominee ahead of the 2016 election. The candidate Trump chooses, and when confirmation is undertaken, will affect the November 3 presidential and Senate elections. Impacts The nomination battle will play into the election, including Trump’s pro-gun and anti-abortion positions. Confirming a new justice, pre-election, would assure a full nine-member Supreme Court to handle any election disputes. House Democrats may seek to slow the confirmation by impeachment proceedings or stalling federal appropriations. If the Democrats win the White House, pressure from progressives to expand the Supreme Court will grow.

Download Full-text

The Empirical Effects of Voter-ID Laws: Present or Absent?

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096509090301 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 42 (01) ◽

pp. 121-126 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Jason D. Mycoff ◽

Michael W. Wagner ◽

David C. Wilson

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

American Politics ◽

Court Ruling ◽

Expiration Date ◽

Supreme Court Ruling ◽

Primary Election ◽

Voter Identification ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Voter Id ◽

The U.S

The effect of voter-identification (voter-ID) laws on turnout is a hot-button issue in contemporary American politics. In April of 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Indiana's voter-ID law, the nation's most rigorous, which requires voters to arrive at the polls with a state-issued photo ID containing an expiration date (Crawford v. Marion County2008). In a famous incident highlighting how Hoosiers were dealing with their state's voter-ID law, representative Julia Carson (D-IN) was initially blocked from voting during Indiana's 2006 primary election for failing to comply with Indiana's voter-identification standard. Carson identified herself with her congressional ID card; since that card did not include an expiration date and therefore did not meet Indiana's voter-identification law, she was turned away at the polls before later being allowed to vote (Goldstein 2006). The rising wave of public, political, and legal debate crested two years later in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling and during the Indiana primaries, with reports of a dozen nuns being denied ballots at the polls due to their lack of appropriate identification (Urbina 2008).

Download Full-text

How Political Contestation Over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes Toward the Supreme Court

British Journal of Political Science ◽

10.1017/s0007123419000383 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 1-19

Author(s):

Jon C. Rogowski ◽

Andrew R. Stone

Keyword(s):

Public Opinion ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Empirical Evidence ◽

Political Rhetoric ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Us Supreme Court ◽

Conjoint Experiment

Abstract Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support this argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans’ views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans (Democrats) expressing significantly more (less) favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era.

Download Full-text

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s1073110500012973 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 27 (2) ◽

pp. 203-203

Author(s):

Kendra Carlson

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Elder Abuse ◽

Skilled Nursing Facility ◽

Pressure Sores ◽

Care Providers ◽

Nursing Facility ◽

Skilled Nursing ◽

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Download Full-text

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2017.julaug03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 12-13

Author(s):

LuAnn Haley ◽

Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Workers Compensation ◽

Sixth Edition ◽

Complex Concept ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Compensation Claims ◽

Recent Edition ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Download Full-text