This article focuses on differences in judicial ideology as an explanation of judicial consensus or disagreement in state supreme court decision making. First, state methods of judicial selection (election vs. appointment) are posited to influence the ideological composition of state supreme courts. Second, variations in ideological composition are related to the degree of consensus among judges on cases in the area of capital punishment. Factors other than selection mechanism and judicial ideology are considered as alternative explanations for differences in ideological composition and for the degree of judicial consensus. More broadly, state institutional characteristics, notably judicial selection mechanisms (election or appointment) are found to influence the authoritative presence of state supreme courts.
American Bar Association Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary. (2003). Justice in jeopardy. Chicago: American Bar Association.
2.
Baum, L.A. (2003). Judicial elections and judicial independence: The voter's perspective. Ohio State Law Journal, 64, 13-41.
3.
Bonneau, C.W. & Hall, M.G. (2003). Predicting challengers in state supreme court elections: Context and the politics of institutional design. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 337-349.
4.
Brace, P., & Hall, M.G. (1990). Neo-institutionalism and dissent in state supreme courts. The Journal of Politics, 52, 54-70.
5.
Brace, P., & Hall, M.G. (1993). Integrated models of judicial dissent. The Journal of Politics, 55, 914-935.
6.
Brace, P., & Hall, M.G. (1997). The interplay of preferences, case facts, context, and rules in the politics of judicial choice. The Journal of Politics, 59, 1206-1231.
7.
Brace, P., & Hall, M.G. (2001). “Haves” versus “have nots” in state supreme courts: Allocating docket space and wins in power asymmetric cases. Law & Society Review, 35, 393-417.
8.
Brace, P., & Hall, M.G. (2005). Is judicial federalism essential to democracy? State courts in the federal system. In K. Hall & K. McGuire (Eds.), Institutions of American democracy: The judicial branch (pp. 174-199). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Brace, P., Langer, L., & Hall, M.G. (2000). Measuring the preferences of state supreme court judges. The Journal of Politics, 62, 387-413.
10.
Bratton, K.A., & Spill, R.L. (2002). Existing diversity and judicial selection: The role of the appointment method in establishing gender diversity in state supreme courts. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 504-518.
11.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Boston: Harper-Collins.
12.
Dubois, P.L. (1980). From ballot to bench: Judicial elections and the quest for accountability. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
13.
Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C., & McIver, J.P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Fenno, Jr., R.F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
15.
Fiorina, M.P. (1994). Divided government in the American states: A byproduct of legislative professionalism?American Political Science Review, 88, 304-316.
16.
Glick, H.R., & Pruet, Jr., G.W. (1986). Dissent in state supreme courts: Patterns and correlates of conflict. In S. Goldman & C. Lamb (Eds.), Judicial conflict and consensus: Behavioral studies of American appellate courts (pp. 199-214). Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
17.
Hall, M.G. (1987). Constituent influence in state supreme courts: Conceptual notes and a case study. The Journal of Politics , 49, 1117-1124.
18.
Hall, M.G. (2001). State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform. American Political Science Review , 95, 315-330.
19.
Hall, M.G., & Brace, P. (1989). Order in the courts: A neo-institutional approach to judicial consensus. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 391-407.
20.
Hall, M.G., & Brace, P. (1999). State supreme courts and their environments: Avenues to general theories of judicial choice. In C. Clayton & H. Gillman (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches (pp. 281-300). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
21.
Hall, M.G. & Bonneau, C.W. (2006). Does quality matter? Challengers in state supreme court elections. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 20-33.
22.
Hamilton, A. (1987). The Federalist Papers ( I. Kramnick, Ed.). New York: Penguin Press. (Original work published 1788)
23.
Hogan, R.E. (2001). The representation of women in state legislatures: The influence of state and district conditions. American Politics Research, 29, 4-24.
24.
Holbrook, T., & Van Dunk, E. (1993). Electoral competition in the American states. American Political Science Review, 87, 955-962.
25.
Huber, G.A. & Gordon, S.C. (2004). Accountability and coercion: Is justice blind when it runs for office?American Journal of Political Science , 48, 247-263.
26.
Hurwitz, M.S., & Lanier, D.N. (2003). Explaining judicial diversity: The differential ability of women and minorities to attain seats of state supreme and appellate courts. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 329-352.
27.
Jacobson, G.C. (1989). Strategic politicians and the dynamics of the U.S. House elections, 1946-86. American Political Science Review, 83, 773-793.
28.
Klein, D., & Baum, L.A. (2001). Ballot information and voting decisions in judicial elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 709-728.
29.
Liao, T.F. (2004). Comparing social groups: Wald statistics for testing equality among multiple logit models. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 45, 3-16.
30.
Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J.F., II, & Wahlbeck, P.J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court: The collegial game. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Mayhew, D.R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
Pound.R. (1956). The causes of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. Baylor Law Review, 8(1), 19-20.
33.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).
34.
Rohde, D.W. (1972). Policy goals and opinion coalitions in the Supreme Court. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16, 208-224.
35.
Rohde, D.W. (1979). Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 1-26.
36.
Schlesinger, J.A. (1991). Political parties and the winning of office. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
37.
Segal, J.A., & Spaeth, H.J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model revisited . New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Shapley, L.S., & Shubik, M. (1954). A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review, 48, 787-792.
39.
Sheldon, C.H. (1999). The incidence and structure of dissensus on a state supreme court. In C. Clayton & H. Gillman (Eds.), Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches (pp. 115-134). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
40.
Sheldon, C.H., & Maule, L.S. (1997). Choosing justice: The recruitment of state and federal judges. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press.
41.
Songer, D.R., & Crews-Meyer, K.A. (2000). Does judge gender matter? Decision making in state supreme courts. Social Science Quarterly , 81, 750-762.
42.
Squire, P. (1988). Career opportunities and membership stability in legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 65-81.
43.
Squire, P., & Hamm K.E. (2005). 101Chambers: Congress, state legislatures, and the future of legislative studies . Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
44.
Tarr, G.A. (1998). Understanding state constitutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Traut, C.A., & Emmert, C.F. (1998). Expanding the integrated model of judicial decision making: The California justices and capital punishment. The Journal of Politics, 60, 1166-1180.
46.
U.S. Center for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. (2003). Fast stats A to Z. Retrieved September 21, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm
47.
Weingast, B.R. (1979). A rational choice perspective on congressional norms. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 245-262.
48.
Zorn, C.J.W. (2006). Comparing GEE and robust standard errors for conditionally dependent data. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 329-341.
