Almost half the constitutional court judges worldwide are selected by a mixed selection system, whereby a specific number of judges are selected by different government institutions. What are the implications of this selection method and its variations for judges’ individual choices on constitutional review cases? An examination of vote choice on the Chilean and Colombian constitutional courts indicates that judges’ decisions to strike down laws are explained more by their and other colleagues’ institutional selector than their political party associations. The results call into question traditional judicial behavior models by suggesting that judges with different selectors have distinct voices when adjudicating constitutional questions which in turn enhances the deliberative process. However, the results also raise concern that certain selecting institutions may have a more significant voice in vetoing legislation than afforded them in the regular legislative process.
AdolphC. (2013). Bankers, bureaucrats, and central bank politics: The myth of neutrality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlarieB.GreenA. (2017). Commitment and cooperation on high courts: A cross-country examination of institutional constraints on judges. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
Amaral-GarciaS.GaroupaN.GrembiV. (2009). Judicial independence and party politics in the Kelsenian constitutional courts: The case of Portugal. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6, 381-404.
4.
Austen-SmithD.BanksJ. (2010). Positive political theory I: Collective preference. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BarcikowskiR. (1981). Statistical power with group mean as the unit of analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 267-285.
6.
BaumL. (2006). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BlairC.HigginsJ.ToppingM.MortimerA. (1983). An investigation of the robustness of the t test to unit of analysis violations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 69-80.
8.
BoydC.EpsteinL.MartinA. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 389-411.
9.
BrouardS.HönnigeC. (2017). Constitutional courts as veto players: Lessons from the United States, France and Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 56, 529-552.
10.
CarrollR.TiedeL. (2011). Judicial behavior on the Chilean Constitutional Tribunal. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 856-877.
11.
Cepeda EspinosaM.LandauD. (2017). Colombian constitutional law: Leading cases. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
CousoJ. (2004). The politics of judicial review in Chile in the era of democratic transition, 1990-2002. In GloppenS.GargarellaR.SkaarE. (Eds.), Democratization and the judiciary: The accountability function of courts in new democracies (pp. 50-65). London, England: Frank Cass.
13.
DahlR. (1957). Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. Journal of Public Law, 6, 279-295.
14.
DriscollA.NelsonM. (2015). Judicial selection and the democratization of justice: Lessons from the Bolivian elections. Journal of Law and Courts, 3, 115-148.
EpsteinL.KnightJ. (2013). Reconsidering judicial preferences. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 11-31.
18.
EpsteinL.PosnerE. A. (2016). Supreme Court justices’ loyalty to the President. The Journal of Legal Studies, 45, 401-436.
19.
FischmanJ. (2015). Interpreting circuit court voting patterns: A social interactions framework. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31, 808-842.
20.
GaroupaN.GinsburgT. (2015). Judicial reputation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GaroupaN.Gómez-PomarF.GrembiV. (2013). Political influence and career judges: An empirical analysis of administrative review by the Spanish Supreme Court. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9, 795-826.
22.
GaroupaN.GrembiV. (2015). Judicial review and political partisanship: Moving from consensual to majoritarian democracy. International Review of Law and Economics, 43, 32-45.
23.
GeorgeT. (2008). From judge to justice: Social background theory and the Supreme Court. North Carolina Law Review, 86, 1333-1367.
24.
GinsburgT. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GrossmanG.Gazal-AyalO.PimentelS.WeinsteinJ. (2016). Descriptive representation and judicial outcomes in multiethnic societies. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 44-69.
26.
HelmkeG.SandersM. (2006). Modeling motivations: A method for inferring judicial goals from behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 68(4), 867-878.
27.
HilbinkL.CousoJ. (2011). From quietism to incipient activism: The institutional and ideological roots of rights adjudication in Chile. In HelmkeG.Ríos-FigueroaJ. (Eds.), Courts in Latin America (pp. 99-127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HönnigeC. (2009). The electoral connection: How the pivotal judge affects oppositional success at European Constitutional Courts. West European Politics, 32, 963-984.
29.
HoxJ. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and application. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
30.
IaryczowerM.SpillerP.TommasiM. (2002). Judicial independence in unstable environments, Argentina 1935-1998. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 699-716.
31.
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2017). Judicial appointments (Constitution Building Primer No. 5). Stockholm, Sweden: Author.
32.
KastellecJ. (2007). Panel composition and judicial compliance on the U.S. courts of appeals. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 23, 421-441.
33.
KeckT. (2007). Party, policy, or duty: Why does the Supreme Court invalidate federal statutes?American Political Science Review, 101, 321-338.
34.
KelemenK. (2013). Dissenting opinions on constitutional courts. German Law Journal, 14, 1345-1372.
35.
KelsenH. (1942). Judicial review of legislation: A comparative study of Austrian and the American constitution. Journal of Politics, 4, 183-200.
36.
KiewietD.McCubbinsM. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
37.
LampreaE. (2010). When accountability meets judicial independence: A case study of the Colombian Constitutional Court’s nominations. Global Jurist, 10, 1-38.
38.
MagaloniB. (2003). Authoritarianism, Democracy and the Supreme Court: Horizontal exchange and the rule of law in Mexico. In WelnaS. M. C. (Ed.), Democratic Accountability in Latin America. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
39.
MerrymanJ.Pérez-PerdomoR. (2007). The civil law tradition: An introduction to the legal systems of Europe and Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
MontoyaA. (2013). Si no Vas al Senado, No te Eligen Magistrado: Instituciones Informales y Criterios de Selección de los Magistrados de la Corte Constitucional Colombiana en el Senado (1992-2009). Colombia Internacional, 79, 155-190. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rci/n79/n79a06.pdf.
41.
MorenoE.CrispB.ShugartM. (2003). The accountability deficit in Latin America. In WelnaM. C. (Ed.), Democratic accountability in Latin America (pp. 79-131). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NagleL. E. (1995). Evolution of the Colombian Judiciary and the Constitutional Court. Indian International and Comparative Law Review, 6(1), 59-90.
43.
NunesR. (2010). Ideational origins of progressive judicial activism: The Colombian constitutional court and the right to health. Latin American Politics and Society, 52(3), 67-97.
44.
OstbergC.WetsteinM. (2007). Attitudinal decision making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Colombia Press.
45.
PardowD.VerdugoS. (2015). El Tribunal Constitucional Chileno y la Reforma de 2005. Un Enroque entre Jueces de Carrera y Académicos [The Chilean Constitutional Tribunal and the 2005 Reform: A Castling between Career Judges and Academics]. Revista de Derecho, XXVIII(1), 123-144.
46.
PellegrinaL.GaroupaN. (2013). Choosing between the government and the regions: An empirical analysis of the Italian constitutional court decisions. European Journal of Political Research, 52, 558-580.
47.
PeressM. (2009). Small chamber ideal point estimation. Political Analysis, 17, 276-290.
48.
Ríos-FigueroaJ. (2011). Institutions for constitutional justice in Latin America. In HelmkeG.Ríos-FigueroaJ. (Eds.), Courts in Latin America (pp. 27-54). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SadurskiW. (2008). Rights before courts: A study of constitutional courts in postcommunist states of central and eastern Europe. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
50.
SchererN. (2004). Blacks on the bench. Political Science Quarterly, 119, 665-675.
51.
SchwartzA.MurchinsonM. J. (2016). Judicial impartiality and independence in divided societies: An empirical analysis of the constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Law and Society Review, 50, 821-855.
52.
SegalJ.SpaethH. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
ShapiroM. (2004). Judicial review in developed democracies. In GloppenS.GargarellaR.SkaarE. (Eds.), Democratization and the judiciary: The accountability function of courts in new democracies (pp. 5-18). London, England: Frank Cass.
54.
ShapiroM.Stone SweetA. (2002). On law, politics, and judicialization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
SpitzerM.TalleyE. (2011). Left, right, and center: Strategic information acquisition and diversity in judicial panels. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29, 638-680.
56.
StatonJ. K. (2004). Judicial policy implementation in Mexico city and Mérida. Comparative Politics, 37(1), 41-60.
57.
Stone SweetA. (2011). Constitutional courts. In RosenfeldM.SajóA. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp. 816-830). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58.
StotzkyI. (2004). Lessons learned and the way forward. In GloppenS.GargarellaR.SkaarE. (Eds.), Democratization and the judiciary: The accountability function of courts in new democracies (pp. 144-146). London, England: Frank Cass.
59.
TiedeL. (2016). The political determinants of judicial dissent: Evidence from the Chilean Constitutional Tribunal. European Political Science Review, 8, 377-403.
60.
TsebelisG. (2002). Veto players: How institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
VarolO.PellegrinaL.GaroupaN. (2017). An empirical analysis of judicial transformation in Turkey. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 65, 187-216.
62.
Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law). (2007). Vademecum on constitutional justice (CDL-STD(1997)020). Strasbourg, France: Author.
63.
Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law). (2015). Compilation of Venice Commission opinions, reports and studies on constitutional justice (CDL-PI(2015)002). Strasbourg, France: Author.
64.
VoetenE. (2008). The impartiality of international judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. American Political Science Review, 102, 417-433.
65.
WhittingtonK. (2014). The least activist Supreme Court in history? The Roberts Court and the exercise of judicial review. Notre Dame Law Review, 89, 2219-2252.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
