State Supreme Courts and the Effects of Statutory Constraint
Do state supreme court judges render decisions according to their ideological preferences, or are they constrained by the language of state statutes? Using data from the Judge-Level State Supreme Court Database, the authors analyze the votes of individual judges from 1995 to 1998 to determine whether their behavior is constrained by legislation. The results indicate that more detailed language (resulting in statutes with higher word counts) significantly limits the discretion afforded to liberal judges while simultaneously facilitating the ideological voting of their conservative colleagues.
Gay Rights, the New Judicial Federalism, and State Supreme Courts: Disentangling the Effects of Ideology and Judicial Independence
ABSTRACT State supreme courts have been on the cutting edge of the movement toward equality for gays and lesbians in the areas of marriage and family law that has unfolded over the last two decades. Previous scholarship analyzing this phenomenon has emphasized the role of judicial independence, observing that supreme courts in states with judicial selection and retention systems insulating judges from popular backlash have generally been more willing to assume an activist role in the advancement of gay rights. This article reassesses this relationship using an original dataset consisting of all the votes cast by state supreme court justices in cases since 1993 in which gays and lesbians have sought legal equality in the areas of marriage and the family. Using a newer and more precise measure of judicial ideology, it finds that the voting behavior of judges in these cases is driven largely by ideology and by shifts in public opinion toward greater support for gay rights. Conversely, potential constraints on pro-gay activism such as more populist judicial selection and retention systems and the conservatism of state electorates appear to exert relatively little effect.
Formal Judicial Recruitment and State Supreme Court Decisions
a system of selection within the state legislature, while still others utilize either a partisan or nonpartisan election. Finally, a movement has emerged in the past few decades which blends aspects of the election and appointment systems. Under the Missouri Plan, named for the state in which it was first adopted, the governor selects supreme court judges from a list of nominees compiled by a committee of legal and nonlegal community leaders. These appointed judges must subsequently run for reelection on their record at some specified time in the future and must continue to do so for the remainder of their