Scholars recognize that both citizens and elites may alter their behavior in response to salient stimuli. Epstein and Segal’s (2000) measure of salience for the United States Supreme Court provided a valid and reproducible way to assess the political salience of cases. No comparable measure exists for state high courts. The authors introduce a measure of case salience for state supreme courts that is comprehensive and similar to the Epstein-Segal measure. We discuss the utility of this measure, compare it to several alternatives, provide descriptive statistics, and discuss the relationship between case salience and judicial behavior in state supreme courts.
AbramowitzAlan I.1995. It’s abortion, stupid: Policy voting in the 1992 presidential election. Journal of Politics57:176-86.
2.
ArringtonTheodore S.BrennerSaul. 2004. Strategic voting for damage control on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly57:565-73.
3.
ArringtonTheodore S.BrennerSaul. 2008. Testing Murphy’s strategic model: Assigning the majority opinion to the marginal justice in the conference coalition on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research36:416-432.
4.
BaileyMichaelKamoieBrianMaltzmanForrest. 2005. Signals from the tenth justice: The political role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court decision-making. American Journal of Political Science49:72-85.
5.
BairdVanessa A.2004. The effect of politically salient decisions on the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda. Journal of Politics66:755-72.
6.
BoothAlan. 1970. The recall of news items. Public Opinion Quarterly34:604-10.
7.
BracePaulBoyeaBrent. 2008. State public opinion, the death penalty, and the practice of electing judges. American Journal of Political Science52:360-72.
8.
BracePaulHallMelinda Gann. 1990. Neo-institutionalism and dissent in state supreme courts. Journal of Politics52:54-70.
9.
BracePaul R.HallMelinda Gann. 1993. Integrated models of judicial dissent. Journal of Politics55:914-35.
10.
BracePaul R.HallMelinda Gann. 1997. The interplay of preferences, case facts, context, and rules in the politics of judicial choice. Journal of Politics59:1206-31.
11.
BracePaul R.HallMelinda Gann. 2005. Is judicial federalism essential to democracy? State courts in the federal system. In Institutions of American democracy: The judicial branch, ed. HallKermit L.McGuireKevin T.174-99. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
BracePaul R.HallMelinda GannLangerLaura. 2001. Placing courts in state politics. State Politics and Policy Quarterly1:81-108.
13.
BracePaul R.LangerLauraHallMelinda Gann. 2000. Measuring the preferences of state supreme court judges. Journal of Politics62:387-413.
14.
BrennerSaul. 1989. Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A reexamination. In American court systems, ed. GoldmanSheldonSaratAustin. New York: Longman.
15.
BrennerSaul. 2001. Majority opinion assignment in salient cases on the U.S. Supreme Court: Are new associate justices assigned fewer opinions?Justice System Journal22:209-21.
16.
BrennerSaulArringtonTheodore S.2002. Measuring salience on the Supreme Court: A research note. Jurimetrics43:99-113.
17.
CannDamonWilhelmTeena. 2008. Education finance reform in the American states: A discrete-time competing risks model. Presented at the Midwest Political Science Meeting, Chicago.
ChoiStephen J.GulatiG. Mitu. 2008. Bias in judicial citations: A window into the behavior of judges?Journal of Legal Studies37:87-130.
20.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.2007. Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the influence of amicus curiae briefs. Political Research Quarterly60:55-70.
21.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.2008a. Amici curiae and dissensus on the U.S. Supreme Court. 2008. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies5:143-70.
22.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.2008b. The consistency of judicial choice. Journal of Politics70:861-73.
23.
CorballySarah F.BrossDonald C.FlangoVictor E.2004. Filing of amicus curiae briefs in state courts of last resort: 1960-2000. Justice System Journal25:39-56.
24.
CorleyPamela C.2008. The Supreme Court and opinion content: The influence of parties’ briefs. Political Research Quarterly61:468-78.
25.
EdwardsGeorge C.IIIMitchellWilliamWelchReed. 1995. Explaining presidential approval: The significance of issue salience. American Journal of Political Science39:108-34.
26.
EpsteinLeeKnightJack. 1998. The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
27.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.2000. Measuring issue salience. American Journal of Political Science44:66-83.
28.
ErbringLutzGoldenbergEdie N.MillerArthur H.1980. Front-page news and real-world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American Journal of Political Science24:16-49.
29.
FowlerJames F.JohnsonTimothy R.SpriggsJames F.IIJeonSangickWahlbeckPaul J.2007. Network analysis and the law: Measuring the legal importance of precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Analysis15:324-46.
30.
GibsonJames L.2008. Challenges to the impartiality of state supreme courts: Legitimacy theory and “new-style” judicial campaigns. American Journal of Political Science102:59-75.
31.
GilesMicheal W.BlackstoneBethanyViningRichard L.Jr.2008. The Supreme Court in American democracy: Unraveling the linkages between public opinion and judicial decision making. Journal of Politics70:293-306.
32.
GilesRobertSnyderRobert W.1999. Covering the courts: Free press, fair trials, and journalistic performance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
33.
GlickHenry R.PruetGeorge W.Jr.1986. Dissent in state supreme courts: Patterns and correlates of conflict. In Judicial conflict and consensus: Behavioral studies of American appellate courts, ed. GoldmanSheldonLambCharles. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
34.
GravesScott E.TeskePaul. 2003. State supreme courts and judicial review of regulation. Albany Law Review66:857-65.
35.
HainesDennis. 1977. Rolling back the top on Chief Justice Burger’s opinion assignment desk. University of Pittsburgh Law Review38:631-95.
36.
HaleF. Dennis. 1999. Chief justices’ perceptions of news coverage of state supreme courts. Newspaper Research Journal20:17-28.
37.
HallMelinda Gann. 1987. Constituent influence in state supreme courts: Conceptual notes and a case study. Journal of Politics49:1117-24.
38.
HallMelinda Gann. 1990. Opinion assignment procedures and conference practices in state supreme courts. Judicature73:209-14.
39.
HallMelinda Gann. 1999. State judicial politics: Rules, structures, and the political game. In American state and local politics, ed. WeberRonald E.BracePaul. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
40.
HallMelinda GannBracePaul. 1989. Order in the court: A neo-institutional approach to judicial consensus. Western Political Quarterly42:391-407.
41.
HansfordThomas G.2004a. Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an amicus curiae brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Political Research Quarterly57:219-30.
42.
HansfordThomas G.2004b. Lobbying strategies, venue selection, and organized interest involvement at the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Research32:170-97.
43.
HoekstraValerieJohnsonTimothy. 2003. Delaying justice: The Supreme Court’s decision to hear rearguments. Political Research Quarterly56:351-60.
44.
LangerLauraSanchezGabrielWilhelmTeena. 2008. To shirk or not to shirk from the chief justice: Associate justices and opinion behavior. Presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.
45.
LangerLauraWilhelmTeena. 2005. The ideology of state supreme court chief justices. Judicature89:78-86.
46.
LindquistStefanie A.MartinekWendy L.HettingerVirginia A.2007. Splitting the difference: Modeling appellate court decisions with mixed outcomes. Law & Society Review41:429-55.
47.
MaltzmanForrestWahlbeckPaul J.1996. May it please the chief? Opinion assignments in the Rehnquist Court. American Journal of Political Science40:421-33.
48.
MaltzmanForrestWahlbeckPaul. 2003. Salience or politics: New York Times coverage of the Supreme Court. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
49.
MaltzmanForrestWahlbeckPaul J.2004. A conditional model of opinion assignment on the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly57:551-63.
50.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
McAteeAndreaMcGuireKevin T.2007. Lawyers, justices, and issue salience: When and how do legal arguments affect the U.S. Supreme Court?Law & Society Review41:259-78.
52.
MooneyChristopherLeeMei-Hsien. 2000. The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: U.S. death penalty reform, 1956-1982. Journal of Politics62:223-39.
53.
NicholsonChrisCollinsPaul M.Jr.2008. The solicitor general’s amicus curiae strategies in the Supreme Court. American Politics Research36:382-415.
54.
PetersC. Scott. 2007. Getting attention: The effect of legal mobilization on the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention to issues. Political Research Quarterly60:561-72.
55.
PetrocikJohn R.1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40:825-50.
56.
RohdeDavid. 1972. Policy goals, strategic choice, and majority opinion assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science16:652-82.
57.
SegalJeffrey A.SpaethHarold J.1993. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SheehanReginald S.MishlerWilliamSongerDonald R.1992. Ideology, status, and the differential success of direct parties before the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review86:464-71.
59.
SongerDonald R.KuerstenAshlyn. 1995. The success of amici in state supreme courts. Political Research Quarterly48:31-42.
60.
SpriggsJames F.HansfordThomas G.2001. Explaining the overruling of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Journal of Politics63:1091-1111.
61.
StatonJeffrey K.2006. Constitutional review and the selective promotion of case results. American Journal of Political Science50:98-112.
62.
SulkinTracy. 2005. Issue politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
63.
TrautCarol AnnEmmertCraig F.1998. Expanding the integrated model of judicial decision making: The California justices and capital punishment. Journal of Politics60:166-80.
64.
UlmerS. Sidney. 1970. The use of power in the Supreme Court: The opinion assignments of Earl Warren, 1953-1960. Journal of Public Law19:49-67.
65.
UnahIsaacHancockAnge-Marie. 2006. U.S. Supreme Court decision making, case salience, and the attitudinal model. Law & Policy28:295-320.
66.
ViningRichard L.Jr.WilhelmTeena. 2010. Explaining high-profile coverage of state supreme court decisions. Social Science Quarterly91:703-722.
67.
WahlbeckPaul J.SpriggsJames F.MaltzmanForrest. 1998. Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and accommodation on the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science42:294-315.
68.
WayLori BethTurnerCharles C.2006. Disagreement on the Rehnquist Court. American Politics Research34:293-318.
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.
