Does Quality Matter? Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections
American Journal of Political Science Vol.50, pp. 20-33, January 2006
38 Pages Posted: 13 Sep 2007
Abstract
We assess whether quality challengers in state supreme court elections have a significant impact on the electoral successes of incumbents and whether the electorate seemingly makes candidate-based evaluations in these races. To address these questions, we examine 208 elections to the states' highest courts from 1990 through 2000 in the twenty-one states using partisan or nonpartisan elections to staff their benches. From a Heckman two-stage estimation procedure that takes into account factors influencing challengers' decisions to run as well as factors affecting the electorate's choices among candidates, we find that quality does matter. Experienced challengers significantly lessen the electoral security of incumbents, and the electorate appears to evaluate challengers' qualifications. These findings stand in stark relief to traditional notions that the electorate is incapable of responding to candidate stimuli beyond incumbency and that judicial elections inherently are an ineffective means for securing popular control over the bench.
Keywords: judicial selection, state supreme courts, elections
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Patterns of Campaign Spending and Electoral Competition in State Supreme Court Elections
-
What Price Justice(s)? Understanding Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections
-
Electoral Verdicts: Incumbent Defeats in State Supreme Court Elections
-
The Effects of Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections
-
The Dynamics of Campaign Spending in State Supreme Court Elections, 1990-2004
-
By Chris W. Bonneau and Damon M. Cann