Governors are generally the best-known figures in state politics. They have many roles, including service as political leaders in their states. One aspect of this role is the promotion of their favored policies and electoral candidates. We examine why governors endorse candidates for state-level office using data from partisan and nonpartisan state supreme court elections from 1999 to 2008. We examine both decisions to endorse and whether endorsements influence electoral results. Our findings indicate that a governor’s decision to endorse a candidate is the product of pragmatic considerations and executive resources. We also conclude that governors’ endorsements have a significant effect on electoral outcomes.
AbbeO. G.HerrnsonP. S. (2003). Public financing for judicial elections? A judicious perspective on the ABA’s proposal for campaign finance reform. Polity, 35, 535-554.
2.
AbramowitzA. I. (2002). Gubernatorial influence in presidential elections: Fact or myth. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35, 701-703.
3.
Acuna v. Turkish, 930 A.2d 416 (N.J.2007).
4.
BarrettA. W.Eshbaugh-SohaM. (2007). Presidential success on the substance of legislation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 100-112.
5.
BenoitW. L. (2007). Communication in political campaigns. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
6.
BernhardtD.DubeyS.HughsonE. (2004). Term limits and pork barrel politics. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2383-2422.
7.
BeyleT. (1999). The governors. In GrayV.HansonR. L. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (pp. 194-231). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
8.
BeyleT.NiemiR. G.SigelmanL. (2002). Approval ratings of public officials in the American states: Causes and effects. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 2, 215-229.
9.
BonneauC. W. (2005a). Electoral verdicts: Incumbent defeats in state supreme court elections. American Politics Research, 33, 818-841.
10.
BonneauC. W. (2005b). What price justice(s)? Understanding campaign spending in state supreme court elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5, 107-125.
11.
BonneauC. W. (2007). The effects of campaign spending in state supreme court elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 489-499.
12.
BonneauC. W.HallM. G. (2003). Predicting challengers in state supreme court elections: Context and the politics of institutional design. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 337-349.
13.
BraceP.LangerL.HallM. G. (1998). Measuring the preferences of state supreme court judges. Journal of Politics, 62, 387-413.
14.
BrandenburgB.SchotlandR. A. (2008). Keeping courts impartial and changing judicial elections. Dædalus, 137, 102-109.
15.
CantorD. M.HerrnsonP. S. (1997). Party campaign activity and party unity in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 393-415.
16.
CaufieldR. P. (2007). The changing tone of judicial election campaigns as a result of White. In StrebM. (Ed.), Running for judge: The rising political, financial, and legal stakes of judicial elections (pp. 34-58). New York, NY: New York University Press.
17.
CheekK.ChampagneA. (2004). Judicial politics in Texas: Partisanship, money, and politics in state courts. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
18.
Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007).
19.
DickA. R.LottJ. R.Jr. (1993). Reconciling voters’ behavior with legislative term limits. Journal of Public Economics, 50, 1-14.
20.
EriksonR. S.WrightG. C.McIverJ. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FleerJ. D. (2007). Governors speak. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
22.
GoldbergD. (2007). Interest group participation in judicial elections. In StrebM. (Ed.), Running for judge: The rising political, financial, and legal stakes of judicial elections (pp. 73-95). New York, NY: New York University Press.
23.
GolderM. (2006). Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 34-48.
24.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).
25.
GreenD. P.KrasnoJ. S. (1990). Rebuttal to Jacobson’s “New Evidence for Old Arguments.”American Journal of Political Science, 34, 363-372.
26.
HallM. G. (2001). State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform. American Political Science Review, 95, 315-330.
27.
HallM. G.BonneauC. W. (2006). Does quality matter? Challengers in state supreme court elections. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 20-33.
28.
HerrnsonP. S. (2004). Congressional elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
29.
HerrnsonP. S.MorrisI. L. (2007). Presidential campaigning in the 2002 congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32, 629-648.
30.
HoganR. E. (2005). Gubernatorial coattail effects in state legislative elections. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 587-597.
31.
HojnackiM.BaumL. (1992). “New-Style” judicial campaigns and the voters: Economic issues and union members in Ohio. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 921-948.
32.
HolmesL. M. (2007). Presidential strategy in the judicial appointment process: “Going Public” in support of nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. American Politics Research, 35, 567-594.
33.
HolmesL. M. (2008). Why “go public”? Presidential use of nominees to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 38, 110-122.
34.
HowellS. E. (1980). Local election campaigns: The effects of office level on campaign style. Journal of Politics, 42, 1135-1145.
35.
In Re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).
36.
JacobsonG. C. (1990). The effects of campaign spending in house elections: New evidence for old arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 334-362.
37.
JacobsonG. C. (2003). Terror, terrain, and turnout: Explaining the 2002 midterm elections. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 1-22.
38.
JohnsonT. R.RobertsJ. M. (2004). Presidential capital and the supreme court confirmation process. Journal of Politics, 66, 663-683.
39.
Kansas v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520 (2006).
40.
KernellS. (1997). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
41.
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn.2008).
42.
LangerL.BraceP. (2005). The preemptive power of state supreme courts: Adoption of abortion and death penalty legislation. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 317-340.
43.
Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006).
44.
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (2004).
45.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MalteseJ. A. (1995). Speaking out: The role of presidential rhetoric in the modern supreme court confirmation process. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 25, 447-455.
47.
McDermottM. L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 270-283.
48.
McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment Commission of the State of New Jersey, 828 A.2d 840 (N.J.2003).
49.
MorehouseS. M. (1998). The governor as party leader: Campaigning and governing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
50.
NaseJ. P. (1996). The governor’s impact on an elected judiciary: The lessons from Pennsylvania. Temple Law Review, 69, 1137-1153.
51.
NathanR. P. (2008). Devolution in American federalism in the twentieth century. In BrooksC. M. (Ed.), A legacy of leadership: Governors and American history (pp. 161-178). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
52.
NortonE. C.WangH.AiC. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata Journal, 2, 154-167.
53.
People ex rel. Madigan v. Snyder, 208 Ill.2d 457 (2004).
54.
People ex rel. Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P.3d 1221 (Colo. 2003).
55.
People v. Cahill, 809 N.E.2d 561 (N.Y.2003).
56.
Reproductive Health Services v. Nixon, 185 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. 2006).
57.
RoshwalbI.ResnicoffL. (1971). The impact of endorsements and published polls and the 1970 New York senatorial election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 35, 410-414.
58.
SchapiroR. A. (2009). Not old or borrowed: The truly new blue federalism. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 3, 33-57.
59.
SegalJ. A.SpaethH. J. (1993). The supreme court and the attitudinal model. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
State v. Mata, 275 Neb. 1 (2008).
61.
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009).
62.
Tiller v. Corrigan, 286 Kan. 30 (2008).
63.
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa2009).
64.
ViningR. L.Jr.WilhelmT.HiersS. E.MarcinP. (2010). Patterns of newspaper reporting on state supreme courts. Justice System Journal, 31, 125-141.
65.
WilhelmT. (2007). The policymaking role of state supreme courts in education policy. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32, 309-333.
66.
WilhelmT. (2009). Strange bedfellows: The policy consequences of legislative-judicial relations in the American states. American Politics Research, 37, 3-29.
