Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:03:56.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2005

Melinda Gann Hall
Affiliation:
Melinda Gann Hall is Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University, 303 South Kedzie Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 (hallme@msu.edu),,

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2001 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)