With the work of scholars like Fox and Lawless (2004) and Sanbonmatsu (2002), the discipline of political science began to understand individual-level explanations for women's representation in state legislatures. Such analysis, however, has not been extended to other branches of government, including state judiciaries. To examine individual-level explanations for representation on state courts, this article examines the results of a survey of Texas attorneys. The results of this research suggest that running for the judiciary is somewhat different from running for other office, and future research needs to explore the variation in ambition across types of offices.
Alozie, Nicholas O.1996. Selection methods and the recruitment of women to state courts of last resort. Social Science Quarterly77:110-26.
2.
Black, Gordon S.1972. A theory of political ambition: Career choices and the role of structural incentives. American Political Science Review66:114-59.
3.
Bledsoe, Timothy, and Mary Herring.1990. Victims of circumstances: Women in pursuit of political office. American Political Science Review84:213-23.
4.
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Rorie L. Spill .2004. Moving up the judicial ladder: The nomination of state supreme court judges to the federal courts. American Politics Research32:198-218.
5.
Buchanan, Christopher.1978. Why aren't there more women in Congress?Congressional Quarterly12 (August 12): 2108-10.
6.
Burrell, Barbara.1996. A woman's place is in the house. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Carroll, Sue.1985. Political elites and sex differences in political ambition: A reconsideration. Journal of Politics47:1231-43.
8.
———. 1994. Women as candidates in American politics. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
9.
Center for American Women in Politics.2005 . Women in elective office [online newsletter]. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women in Politics . http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Officeholders/elective.pdf (accessed July 9, 2005).
10.
Cook, Beverly Blair.1983. The path to the bench: Ambition and attitudes of women on the law. Trial19:49-55.
11.
Copeland, Gary W.1989. Choosing to run: Why House members seek election to the Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly14: 549-61.
12.
Costantini, Edmond.1990. Political women and political ambition: Closing the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science34:741-70.
13.
Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark.1994. Women, elections, and representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
14.
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs.1995. Glass ceilings and open doors: Women's advancement in the legal profession. Fordham Law Review63:291-385.
15.
Flango, Victor Eugene, and Craig R. Ducat .1979. What difference does method of judicial selection make? Selection procedures on state courts of last resort . Justice System Journal5:25-44.
16.
Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless .2004. Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science48:264-80.
17.
———. 2005. To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science49:642-59.
18.
Glick, Henry R., and Craig F. Emmert .1987. Selection systems and judicial characteristics: The recruitment of state supreme court judges. Judicature70:228-35.
19.
Heinz, John P., and Edward O. Laumann .1982. Chicago lawyers: The social structure of the bar. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
Hibbing, John R.1986. Ambition in the House: Behavioral consequences of higher office goals among U.S. Representatives. American Journal of Political Science30:651-65.
21.
Hurwitz, Mark S., and Drew Noble Lanier .2003. Explaining judicial diversity: The differential ability of women and minorities to attain seats on state supreme and appellate courts. State Politics and Policy Quarterly3:1-25.
22.
Kazee, Thomas A.1994. Who runs for Congress?Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
23.
King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Scheve.2001. Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review95:49-69.
24.
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox .2005. It takes a candidate: Why women don't run for office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Maestas, Cherie.2000. Professional legislatures and ambitious politicians: Policy responsiveness of individuals and institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly25:663-90.
26.
Mezey, Michael J.1970. Ambition theory and the office of Congressmen. Journal of Politics32:563-79.
27.
Moncrief, Gary F., Perevill Squire, and Malcolm E. Jewell .2001. Who runs for the legislature?Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
Niven, David.1998. The missing majority: The recruitment of women as state legislative candidates. Westport, CT: Praeger.
29.
O'Brien, Timothy L.2006. Up the down staircase. New York Times , March 19, Sec. C.
30.
Oxley, Zoe M., and Richard Fox .2004. Women in executive office: Variation across American states. Political Research Quarterly57:113-20.
31.
Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Simon.2001. The political glass ceiling: Gender, strategy and incumbency in U.S. House elections, 1978-1998. Women & Politics23:59-78.
32.
———. 2003. Political ambition and women in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1916-2000. Political Research Quarterly56:127-38.
33.
Putnam, Robert D.1976. The comparative study of political elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
Rhode, Deborah L.1994. Gender and professional roles. Fordham Law Review63:39-72.
35.
———. 2001a. Balanced lives: Changing the culture of legal practice . Chicago: American Bar Association .
36.
———. 2001b. The unfinished agenda: Women and the legal profession . Chicago: American Bar Association .
37.
Rohde, David W.1979. Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the U.S. House. American Journal of Political Science23:1-26.
38.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira.2002. Political parties and the recruitment of women to state legislatures. Journal of Politics64:791-809.
39.
Sapiro, Virginia.1982. Private costs of public commitment or public costs of private commitments? Family roles versus political ambition. American Journal of Political Science26:265-79.
40.
Schlesinger, Joseph.1966. Ambition and politics. Chicago : Rand-McNally.
41.
Sheldon, Charles H., and Linda S. Maule .1997. Choosing justice: The recruitment of state and federal judges. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
42.
Stone, Walter, L. Sandy Maisel, and Cherie Maestas.2004. Incumbent quality as a deterrent to strong potential House challengers: Beyond the strategic politician thesis . American Journal of Political Science48:479-95.
43.
Welch, Susan, and Albert K. Karnig .1979. Correlates of female office holding in city politics. Journal of Politics41:478-91.
44.
Williams, Margaret S.2004. Women judges: Accession at the state court level. Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, Columbus .
