28 Pages Posted: 19 Jan 2013
Date Written: March 2013
Legal scholars have of late become quite worried about how citizens form their impressions of the fairness of courts. This concern reflects the changing environments of courts, especially elected state courts, and what might generally be termed the politicization of the judiciary. The purpose of this article is to assess the effectiveness of judicial recusals at rehabilitating a court/judge tainted by perceived conflicts of interest associated with campaign activities by litigants. Based on an experimental design embedded in a nationally representative sample, our data first confirm that direct campaign contributions undermine perceptions of fairness; but, unexpectedly, so, too, does independent support for the candidate. Most important, recusal does indeed restore some perceived fairness; unfortunately, the repair to public perceptions is not to the level enjoyed when no conflict of interest exists. In a post‐Citizens United world, these findings therefore point to significant threats to the legitimacy of elected state courts.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Gibson, James L. and Caldeira, Gregory A., Judicial Impartiality, Campaign Contributions, and Recusals: Results from a National Survey (March 2013). Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 76-103, 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2203215 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jels.12003
This is a Wiley-Blackwell Publishing paper. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing charges $38.00 .
File name: jels12003.
If you wish to purchase the right to make copies of this paper for distribution to others, please select the quantity.