Recent work on the federal judicial nominations process finds relationships between nominees’ characteristics, such as partisanship and gender, and American Bar Association (ABA) ratings. While the findings inform public debate about ABA involvement in the nomination, the studies do not take into account the characteristics of the individuals who investigate the nominees. This study adds investigator partisanship to understand more completely the relationship between nominees and their ABA ratings. The results indicate that the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary (SCFJ) investigators’ partisanship contribute systematically to a nominee’s likelihood of receiving a higher or lower ABA rating. The probability that a Republican nominee receives the highest rating does not vary with the investigator’s partisanship. Democratic nominees, however, have the highest chance of the top rating after an SCFJ investigation led by a co-partisan. An analysis of matched data from the whole dataset reproduces the basic pattern of results, while the implementation of matching to partisan subgroups of nominees uncovers that both parties may benefit roughly equally from investigations led by co-partisans.
ABA Watch. 2006. A Focus On: The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. ABA Watch (August). Washington, DC: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
BoydChristinaLeeEpsteinMartinAndrew. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 389–411.
4.
BresnahanPamela. 2017. Statement of Pamela A. Bersnahan on Behalf of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary American Bar Association Concerning the Nomination of Leonard Steven Grasz to be Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/grasz-statement.pdf
5.
DiamondAlexisSekhonJasjeet S.. 2013. “Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies.” Review of Economics and Statistics95 (3): 932–945.
6.
GilesMichael WHettingerVirginiaPeppersTodd. 2001. “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas.” Political Research Quarterly54: 623–641.
7.
GoldmanSheldon. 1997. Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection from Roosevelt through Reagan. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
GouldenJoseph C.1974. The Benchwarmers: The Private World of the Powerful Federal Judges. New York: Ballantine.
9.
GrassleyCharles E.1990. “Reforming the Role of the ABA in Judicial Selection: Triumph of Hope over Experience?” In Judicial Selection: Merit, Ideology, and Politics, edited by AbrahamHenryBellGriffinGrassleyCharles E.HickokJr.EugeneKernIIIJohnMarkmanStephenBradford ReynoldsWm., 103–110. Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
10.
GrossmanJoel B.1965. Lawyers and Judges: The ABA and the Politics of Judicial Selection. New York: Wiley.
11.
HoDanielImaiKosukeKingGaryStuartElizabeth. 2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis15: 199–236.
12.
HookJanetParsonsChristi. 2009. Obama Says Empathy Key to Court Pick. Los Angeles Times.
IacusStefanoKingGaryPorroGiuseppe. 2011. “Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding.” Journal of the American Statistical Association106 (493): 345–361.
16.
KamenarPaul D.1990. “The Role of the ABA in the Judicial Selection Process.” In Judicial Selection: Merit, Ideology, and Politics, edited by AbrahamHenryBellGriffinGrassleyCharles E.HickokJr.EugeneKernIIIJohnMarkmanStephenBradford ReynoldsWm., 93–102. Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
17.
KernJohn W.III. 1990. “Evaluating the Evaluators: The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.” In Judicial Selection: Merit, Ideology, and Politics, edited by AbrahamHenryBellGriffinGrassleyCharles E.HickokJr.EugeneKernIIIJohnMarkmanStephenBradford ReynoldsWm., 85–92. Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
18.
LindgrenJames. 2001. “Examining the American Bar Association's Ratings of Nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for Political Bias, 1989-2000.” Journal of Law & Politics17 (1): 1–37.
19.
LottJohn R.Jr.2013. “ABA Ratings: What Do They Really Measure.” Public Choice156 (1–2): 139–161.
MartinekWendy L.KemperMarkVan WinkleSteven R.. 2002. “To Advise and Consent: the Senate and Lower Federal Court Nominations, 1977-1998.” Journal of Politics64 (2): 337–361.
22.
PeppersTodd C.2006. Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
PooleKeith T.1998. “Recovering a Basic Space from a Set of Issue Scales.” American Journal of Political Science42: 954–993.
24.
SaksMichael J.VidmarNeil. 2001. “A Flawed Search for Bias in the American Bar Association’s Ratings of Prospective Judicial Nominees: A Critique of the Lindgren Study.” Journal of Law and Politics17 (1): 219–254.
25.
SaksMichael J.VidmarNeil. 2003. “Asserted but Unproven: A Further Response to the Lindgren Study’s Claim that the American Bar Association’s Ratings of Judicial Nominees Are Biased.” Journal of Law and Politics19 (1): 177–202.
26.
SavageCharlie. 2011. “Ratings Shrink President’s List for Judgeships.” New York Times.
SenMaya. 2014a. “How Judicial Qualification Ratings May Disadvantage Minority and Female Candidates.” Journal of Law and Courts2 (1): 33–65.
29.
SenMaya. 2014b. “Minority Judicial Candidates Have Changed: The ABA Ratings Gap Has Not.” Judicature98 (1): 46–53.
30.
SlotnickElliot E.1983a. “The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: A Contemporary Assessment – Part 1.” Judicature66 (8): 349–362.
31.
SlotnickElliot E.1983b. “The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: A Contemporary Assessment – Part 2.” Judicature66 (9): 385–393.
32.
SmelcerSusan NavarroAmySteigerwaltViningRichard L.. 2012. “Bias and the Bar: Evaluating the ABA Ratings of Federal Judicial Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly65 (4): 827–840.
33.
SmelcerSusan NavarroAmySteigerwaltViningRichard L.. 2014. “Where One Sits Affects Where Others Stand: Bias, the Bar, and Nominees to Federal District Courts.” Judicature98 (1): 35–45.
34.
StratmannThomasGarnerJared. 2004. “Judicial Selection: Politics, Biases, and Constituency Demands.” Public Choice118: 251–270.
35.
SteigerwaltAmy. 2010. Battle over the Bench: Senators, Interest Groups, and Lower Court Confirmations. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
36.
U.S. Congress. 1979. “On the Selection and Confirmation of Federal Judges – Part 1.” In Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. January 25. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
37.
U.S. Congress. 1989. “On the Role of the American Bar Association in the Judicial Evaluation Process.” In Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. June 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
38.
WardArtemusWeidenDavid L.. 2006. Sorcerer’s Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court. New York: New York University Press.
39.
WasbySteven L.2014. A Life in Judging: Ted Goodwin of Oregon. Eastham, MA: Self-published.
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.
