The American mass public abstractly supports the federal judiciary, but supports concrete alterations to the institution (e.g., term limits). We argue that some efforts to alter the institution are not exclusively punitive, but relate to broader, non-judicial orientations toward government. Using nationally representative data from the 2020 Cooperative Election Study (CES), we find that attitudes toward representation and which types of people ought to hold power underlie support for judicial elections. Specifically, perceived representation, believing men to be better suited to politics than women, and holding racist attitudes are related to support for appointments over elections, even when controlling for diffuse support, perceived judicial politicization, and other relevant measures regarding the judiciary. We argue such individuals wish to maintain the appointment system which has yielded perceived benefits. Additionally, political sophistication exacerbates these effects. Rather than just a way to alter courts for delivering displeasing policy, support for some judicial changes may relate to efforts to democratize, and thereby diversify, courts.
ArmalyMiles T.2018a. “Extra-judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Political Research Quarterly71 (3): 600–613.
3.
ArmalyMiles T.2018b. “Politicized Nominations and Supreme Court Legitimacy in the Polarization Era.” Justice System Journal39 (3): 193–209.
4.
ArmalyMiles T.EndersAdam M.. 2022. “Affective Polarization and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Research Quarterly75 (2): 409–424.
5.
ArmalyMiles T.LaneElizabeth A.. 2023. “Politicized Battles: How Vacancies and Partisanship Influence Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research51 (1): 23–36.
6.
ArmalyMiles T.KrewsonChristopher N.LaneElizabeth A.. 2024. “The Influence of Descriptive Representation on Support for Judicial Nominees and the US Supreme Court.” Political Behavior.
7.
ArringtonNancy B.2018. “Gender and Judicial Replacement: The Case of US State Supreme Courts.” Journal of Law and Courts6 (1): 127–154.
8.
ArringtonNancy B.2020. “Group Selection and Opportunities for Gender Diversity in the Judiciary.” Representation56 (2): 149–171.
9.
BadasAlex. 2019. “The Applied Legitimacy Index: A New Approach to Measuring Judicial Legitimacy.” Social Science Quarterly100 (5): 1848–1861.
10.
BadasAlexStaufferKatelyn. 2017. “Someone like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 127–142.
11.
BadasAlexStaufferKatelyn E. 2023. “Descriptive Representation, Judicial Nominations, and Perceptions of Presidential Accomplishment.” Representation59 (2): 249–270.
12.
BairdVanessa A.2001. “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.” Political Research Quarterly54 (2): 333–354.
13.
BarretoMatt A.ManzanoSylviaSeguraGary M.. 2012. The Impact of Media Stereotypes on Opinions and Attitudes Towards Latinos, 1–79. National Hispanic Media Coalition.
14.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2012. “Political Justice? Perceptions of Politicization and Public Preferences toward the Supreme Court Appointment Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly76 (1): 105–116.
15.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science57 (1): 184–199.
16.
BartelsBrandon L.JohnstonChristopher D.. 2020. Curbing the Court: Why the Public Constrains Judicial Independence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
BonneauChris W.HallMelinda Gann. 2009. Defense of Judicial Elections. New York: Routledge.
18.
BrattonKathleen A.SpillRorie L.. 2002. “Existing Diversity and Judicial Selection: The Role of the Appointment Method in Establishing Gender Diversity in State Supreme Courts.” Social Science Quarterly83 (2): 504–518.
19.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36: 635–664.
20.
CampbellAngusGurinGeraldMillerWarren E.. 1954. The Voter Decides. Row, Peterson, and Co.
21.
CasillasChristopher J.EnnsPeter K.WohlfarthPatrick C.. 2011. “How Public Opinion Constrains the US Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 7488.
22.
ChristensonDino P.GlickDavid M.. 2015. “Chief Justice Roberts’s Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 403–418.
23.
ClarkTom S.KastellecJonathan P.. 2015. “Source Cues and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Politics Research43 (3): 504–535.
24.
EaglyAlice H.KarauSteven J.. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review109 (3): 573–598.
25.
EpsteinLKnightJ.. 1998. “Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead.” Political Research Quarterly53 (3): 625–661.
26.
EpsteinL.MartinA.D.. 2010. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme CourtPossibly Yes (But We’re Not Sure Why).” Journal of Constitutional Law13: 263.
27.
EsaiassonPeterK¨olinAnn-KristinTurperSedef. 2015. “External Efficacy and Perceived Responsiveness—Similar but Distinct Concepts.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research27 (3): 432–445.
28.
FiskeSusan T.2018. “Stereotype Content: Warmth and Competence Endure.” Current Directions in Psychological Science27 (2): 67–73.
29.
GibsonJames L.2012. Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy. University of Chicago Press.
30.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2009. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” The Journal of Politics71 (2): 429–441.
31.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.. 2015. “Is the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 162–174.
32.
GibsonJames L.NelsonMichael J.. 2016. “Change in Institutional Support for the US Supreme Court: Is the Court’s Legitimacy Imperiled by the Decisions it Makes?” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (3): 622–641.
33.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.SpenceLester Kenyatta. 2003. “The Supreme Court and the US Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?” British Journal of Political Science33 (4): 535–556.
34.
GibsonJames L.LodgeMiltonWoodsonBen. 2014. “Legitimacy, Losing, but Accepting: A Test of Positivity Theory and the Effects of Judicial Symbols.” Available at SSRN 2448710.
35.
GilesMicheal W.BlackstoneBethanyViningRichard L.Jr.2008. “The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making.” The Journal of Politics70 (2): 293–306.
36.
GlickDavid M.2022. “Is the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Vulnerable to Intense Appointment Politics? Democrats’ Changing Views Around Justice Ginsburg’s Death.” Journal of Law and Courts.
37.
GoelzhauserGreg. 2016. Choosing State Supreme Court Justices: Merit Selection and the Consequences of Institutional Reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
38.
GoelzhauserGreg. 2019. Judicial Merit Selection: Institutional Design and Performance for State Courts. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
39.
GrahamBarbera L.1990. “Do Judicial Selection Systems Matter?” American Politics Quarterly8: 316–336.
40.
HetheringtonMarc J.SmithJoseph L.. 2007. “Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the US Supreme Court.” Public Opinion Quarterly71 (1): 40–66.
41.
HettingerVirginia A.LindquistStefanieMartinekWendy. 2006. Judging on a Collegial Court. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
42.
HuYueTaiYuehong CassandraSoltFrederick. Revisiting the Evidence on Thermostatic Response to Democratic Change: Degrees of Democratic Support or Researcher Degrees of Freedom?Political Science Research and Methods. 2024; 1–7.
43.
JesseeStephenMalhotraNeilSenMaya. 2022. “A Decade-Long Longitudinal Survey Shows that the Supreme Court Is Now Much More Conservative Than the Public.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119 (24): e2120284119.
44.
KaslovskyJaclyn L.RogowskiJonStoneAndrew R.. 2021. “Descriptive Representation and Public Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Science Research and Methods9 (3): 583–598.
45.
KnuckeyJonathan. 2019. ““I Just Don’t Think She Has a Presidential Look”: Sexism and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election.” Social Science Quarterly100 (1): 342–358.
46.
KrewsonChristopher N.SchroedelJean R.. 2020. “Public Views of the US Supreme Court in the Aftermath of the Kavanaugh Confirmation.” Social Science Quarterly101 (4): 1430–1441.
47.
KrewsonChristopherSchroedelJean Reith. 2023. “The Gender Gap in Supreme Court Legitimacy.” American Politics Research51 (6): 781–795.
48.
LaneRobert E.1959. “The Fear of Equality.” American Political Science Review53 (1): 35–51.
49.
LawlessJennifer L.PearsonKathryn. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” The Journal of Politics70 (1): 67–82.
50.
LevinsonJustin D.BennettMark W.HiokiKoichi. 2016. “Judging Implicit Bias: A National Empirical Study of Judicial Stereotypes.” Florida Law Review69: 1–51.
51.
MaroneyTerry A.GrossJames J.. 2014. “The Ideal of the Dispassionate Judge: An Emotion Regulation Perspective.” Emotion Review6 (2): 142–151.
NelsonMichael J.GibsonJames L.. 2019. “How Does Hyperpoliticized Rhetoric Affect the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy?” The Journal of Politics81 (4): 1512–1516.
54.
NorrisM.2015. “The Economic Roots of External Efficacy: Assessing the Relationship between External Political Efficacy and Income Inequality.” Canadian Journal of Political Science48 (4): 791–813.
55.
OliverJ EricRahnWendy M. 2016. “Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science667 (1): 189–206.
56.
OnoYoshikuniZilisMichael A.. 2021. “Ascriptive Characteristics and Perceptions of Impropriety in the Rule of Law: Race, Gender, and Public Assessments of whether Judges Can Be Impartial.” American Journal of Political Science66 (1): 43–58.
57.
PlantE. AshbyHydeJanet S.KeltnerDacherDevinePatricia G.. 2000. “The Gender Stereotyping of Emotions.” Psychology of Women Quarterly24 (1): 81–92.
58.
RenyTyler TLorenCollingwoodValenzuelaAli A. 2019. “Vote Switching in the 2016 Election: How Racial and Immigration Attitudes, Not Economics, Explain Shifts in White Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly83 (1): 91–113.
59.
RogowskiJon C.StoneAndrew R.. 2019. “How Political Contestation over Judicial Nominations Polarizes Americans’ Attitudes toward the Supreme Court.” British Journal of Political Science51: 1–19.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2006. “Do Parties Know that “Women Win”? Party Leader Beliefs about Women’s Electoral Chances.” Politics & Gender2 (4): 431–450.
63.
SchaffnerBrian FMacWilliamsMatthewNtetaTatishe. 2018. “Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism.” Political Science Quarterly133 (1): 9–34.
64.
SchebJohn M.LyonsWilliam. 2000. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Science Quarterly81 (4): 928–940.
65.
SchererNancyCurryBrett. 2010. “Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? the Case of the US Courts.” The Journal of Politics72 (1): 90–104.
66.
SigmanRachelLindbergStaffan I.. 2019. “Democracy for All: Conceptualizing and Measuring Egalitarian Democracy.” Political Science Research and Methods7 (3): 595–612.
67.
StoneAndrew R.OlsonMichael P.. Forthcoming. “Elections Improve Support for State Trial Court Judges in the United States.” Journal of Law and Courts.
68.
TarrG Alan. 2012. Without Fear or Favor: Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability in the States. Stanford University Press.
69.
WinterN. J.2022. “Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism, and American Elections.” Politics & Gender19: 1–30.
70.
YoungC.HolsteenK.. 2017. “Model Uncertainty and Robustness: A Computational Framework for Multimodel Analysis.” Sociological Methods & Research46 (1): 3–40.
71.
ZilisMichael A.2017. “The Political Consequences of Supreme Court Consensus: Media Coverage, Public Opinion, and Unanimity as a Public-Facing Strategy.” Wash. UJL & Pol’y54: 229.
72.
ZilisMichael A.2018. “Minority Groups and Judicial Legitimacy: Group Affect and the Incentives for Judicial Responsiveness.” Political Research Quarterly71 (2): 270–283.
73.
ZilisMichael A.2021. “Cognitive Heuristics, Inter-institutional Politics, and Public Perceptions of Insulated Institutions: The Case of the US Supreme Court.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research33 (1): 76–98.
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.
