Extant research on public support for judicial nominees finds that ideological congruence with the nominee is the most important factor in an individual’s decision to support a nominee. The research presented in this article develops the theory that for individuals from underrepresented groups, a shared descriptive identity with the nominee will moderate the negative effect of ideological distance. We test our theory using the nominations of Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Furthermore, we conduct placebo tests to determine whether the effect of ideology is moderated for underrepresented groups when a shared descriptive identity is not present. We find that in the context of the Thomas nomination, a shared racial identity led to increased support for Thomas among liberal African Americans. We find similar effects in the case of Kagan and conservative women. In the case of Sotomayor, we find that a shared ethnic identity led to increased support among conservative Latinos, regardless of gender. We conclude by discussing the implications our findings have for descriptive representation and presidential selection of judicial nominees.
AnsolabehereStephenRiversDouglas. 2013. “Cooperative Survey Research.” Annual Review of Political Science16:307–29.
2.
AtkesonLonna RaeCarrilloNancy. 2007. “More Is Better: The Influence of Collective Female Descriptive Representation on External Efficacy.” Politics & Gender3 (1): 79–101.
3.
BanducciSusan A.DonovanToddKarpJeffrey A.2004. “Minority Representation, Empowerment, and Participation.” Journal of Politics66 (2): 534–56.
4.
BarnesTiffany D.BurchardStephanie M.2012. “Engendering Politics: The Impact of Descriptive Representation on Women’s Political Engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Comparative Political Studies46 (7): 767–90.
5.
BarretoMatt A.2007. “İSí Se Puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino Voters.” American Political Science Review101 (1): 425–41.
6.
BejaranoChristina E.2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin: University of Texas Press.
7.
BoboLawrenceGilliamFranklin D.1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” The American Political Science Review84 (2): 377–93.
8.
BriansCraig Leonard. 2005. “Women for Women? Gender and Party Bias in Voting for Female Candidates.” American Politics Research33 (3): 357–75.
9.
BurrellBarbara. 1994. A Woman’s Place Is in the House. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
CameronCharles M.CoverAlbert D.SegalJeffrey A.1990. “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model.” American Political Science Review84 (2): 525–34.
11.
CasseseErin C.BarnesTiffany D.BrantonRegina P.2015. “Racializing Gender: Public Opinion at the Intersection.” Politics & Gender11 (1): 1–26.
12.
CollinsPaul M.RinghandLori A.2013. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
ConoverPamela Johnston. 1984. “The Influence of Group Identification on Political Perception and Evaluations.” Journal of Politics46 (3): 760–85.
14.
ConoverPamela Johnston. 1988. “The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.” British Journal of Political Science18 (1): 51–76.
15.
CookElizabeth Adell. 1994. “Voter Responses to Women Senate Candidates.” In The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities, ed. CookElizabeth AdellThomasSueWilcoxClyde, 217–36Boulder: Westview Press.
16.
DawsonM. C.1994. Behind the Mule. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17.
DesposatoScottNorranderBarbara. 2009. “The Gender Gap in Latin America: Contextual and Individual Influences on Gender and Political Participation.” British Journal of Political Science39 (1): 141–62.
18.
DolanKathleen. 1998. “Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman’.” American Journal of Political Science42 (1): 272–93.
19.
DolanKathleen. 2008. “Is There a ‘Gender Affinity Effect’ in American Politics? Information, Affect, and Candidate Sex in U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly61 (1): 79–89.
Duerst-LahtiGeorgiaVerstegenDayna. 1995. “Making Something of Absence: The Year of the Woman and Women’s Representation.” In Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, ed. Duerst-LahtiGeorgiaKellyRita Mae, 213–38. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
EpsteinLeeLindstädtRenéSegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2006. “The Changing Dynamics of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees.” Journal of Politics68 (2): 296–307.
GayClaudine. 2002. “Spirals of Trust? The Effect of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship between Citizens and Their Government.” American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 717–732.
25.
GayClaudineTateKatherine. 1998. “Doubly Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on the Politics of Black Women.” Political Psychology19 (1): 169–84.
26.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.2009. “Confirmation Politics and the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional Loyalty, Positivity Bias, and the Alito Nomination.” American Journal of Political Science53 (1): 139–55.
27.
GimpelJames G.WolpertRobin M.1996. “Opinion-Holding and Public Attitudes toward Controversial Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly49 (1): 163–76.
28.
Goodyear-GrantElizabethCroskillJulie. 2011. “Gender Affinity Effects in Vote Choice in Westminster Systems: Assessing Flexible Voters in Canada.” Politics & Gender7 (2): 223–50.
29.
GurinPatriciaHatchettShirleyJacksonJames. 1989. Hope and Independence: Blacks’ Response to Electoral and Party Politcs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
HoekstraValerieLaRoweNicholas. 2013. “Judging Nominees: An Experimental Test of the Impact of Qualifications and Divisiveness on Public Support for Nominees to the Federal Courts.” The Justice System Journal34 (2): 38–61.
33.
HuddyLeonie. 2013. “From Group Identity to Political Cohesion and Commitment.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
KarpJeffrey A.BanducciSusan A.2008. “When Politics Is Not Just a Man’s Game: Women’s Representation and Political Engagement.” Electoral Studies27 (1): 105–15.
35.
KastellecJonathan P.LaxJeffrey R.MaleckiMichaelPhillipsJustin H.2015. “Polarizing the Electoral Connection: Partisan Representation in Supreme Court Confirmation Politics.” Journal of Politics77 (3): 787–804.
36.
KastellecJonathan P.LaxJeffrey R.PhillipsJustin H.2010. “Public Opinion and Senate Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees.” The Journal of Politics72 (3): 767–84.
37.
KingDavid C.MatlandRichard E.2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party an Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research31 (6): 595–12.
38.
KingDeborah K.1988. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology.” Signs14 (1): 42–72.
39.
LawlessJennifer L.2004. “Politics of Presence? Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation.” Political Research Quarterly57 (1): 81–99.
40.
LiuShan-Jan SarahBanaszakLee Ann. 2017. “Do Government Positions Held by Women Matter? A Cross-National Examination of Female Ministers’ Impacts on Women’s Political Participation.” Politics & Gender13 (1): 132–62.
41.
MadonnaAnthony J.MonoganJames E.IIIViningRichard L.Jr.2016. “Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage: The Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate.” Political Research Quarterly69 (4): 746–59.
42.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” The Journal of Politics61 (3): 628–57.
43.
MansbridgeJaneTateKatherine. 1992. “Race Trumps Gender: The Thomas Nomination in the Black Community.” PS: Political Science & Politics25 (3): 488–92.
44.
ManzanoSylviaUraJoseph D.2013. “Desperately Seeking Sonia? Latino Heterogeneity and Geographic Variation in Web Searches for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.” Political Communication30 (1): 81–99.
45.
McDermottMonika L.1997. “Voting Cues in Low-information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections.” American Journal of Political Science41 (1): 270–83.
MorganJanaBuiceMelissa. 2013. “Latin American Attitudes toward Women in Politics: The Influence of Elite Cues, Female Advancement, and Individual Characteristics.” American Political Science Review107 (4): 644–62.
48.
NemacheckChristine. 2008. Strategic Selection: Presidential Nominees of Supreme Court Justices from Herbert Hoover through George W. Bush. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
49.
OverbyL. MarvinBrownRobert D.BruceJohn M.SmithCharles E.Jr.WinkleJohn W.III. 2005. “Race, Political Empowerment, and Minority Perceptions of Judicial Fair-Ness.” Social Science Quarterly86 (2): 444–62.
50.
OverbyL. MarvinHenschenBeth M.StraussJulieWalshMichael H.1994. “African-American Constituents and Supreme Court Nominees: An Examination of the Senate Confirmation of Thurgood Marshall.” Political Research Quarterly47 (4): 839–55.
51.
OverbyL. MarvinHenschenBeth M.WalshMichael H.StraussJulie. 1992. “Courting Constituents? An Analysis of the Senate Confirmation Vote on Justice Clarence Thomas.” American Political Science Review86 (4): 997–1003.
52.
PaolinoPhilip. 1995. “Group-salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science39 (2): 294–13.
53.
PerettiTerri Jennings. 2001. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
54.
PhilpotTasha S.WaltonHanes. 2007. “One of Our Own: Black Female Candidates and the Voters Who Support Them.” American Journal of Political Science51 (1): 49–62.
55.
PlutzerEricZippJohn F.1996. “Identity Politics, Partisanship, and Voting for Women Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly60 (1): 30–57.
56.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science46 (1): 20–34.
57.
SapiroVirginia. 1981. “Research Frontier Essay: When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” The American Political Science Review75:701–716.
58.
SchererNancyCurryBrett. 2010. “Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts.” The Journal of Politics72 (1): 90–104.
59.
SenMaya. 2016. “How Political Signals Affect Public Support for Judicial Nominations: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly70 (2): 374–93.
60.
SteigerwaltAmyViningRichard L.Jr.StrickoTara W.2013. “Minority Representation, the Electoral Connection, and the Confirmation Vote of Sonia Sotomayor.” Justice System Journal34 (2): 189–207.
61.
Stokes-BrownAtiya Kai. 2006. “Racial Identity and Latino Vote Choice.” American Politics Research34 (5): 627–52.
62.
TateKatherine. 1994. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
TateKatherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African-Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
64.
ThomasDanMcCoyCraigMcBrideAllan. 1993. “Deconstructing the Political Spectacle: Sex, Race, and Subjectivity in Public Response to the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill ‘Sexual Harassment’ Hearings.” American Journal of Political Science37 (3): 699–720.
65.
TownerTerri L.ClawsonRosalee A.2016. “A Wise Latina or a Baffled Rookie? Media Coverage of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Ascent to the Bench.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy37 (3): 316–40.
66.
ZippJohn F.PlutzerEric. 1985. “Gender Differences in Voting for Female Candidates: Evidence from the 1982 Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly49 (2): 179–97.
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.
