The vast majority of states use elections to select at least some of their judges. The chief institutional variation in these contests is whether the candidates’ partisanship appears on the ballot. This article expands on the extant literature with new data to examine how providing a party label influences voters’ decisions. Using a survey experiment involving a low-visibility state appellate court, we find that affixing party labels to judicial candidates often helps our subjects select the candidate who is most aligned with their own party attachment and with their policy interests—an outcome that is especially notable for self-identified independents. We also show that the presence of party labels reduces the effect of another cue, gender. The results add context to the debate over the merits and drawbacks of partisan versus nonpartisan elections.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS.SimonA. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout. American Political Science Review, 93, 901-909.
2.
AnsolabehereS.SchaffnerB. (2014). Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22, 285-303.
3.
BonneauC. (2007). The effects of campaign spending in state supreme court elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 489-499.
4.
BonneauC.CannD. (2011). Campaign spending, diminishing marginal returns, and campaign finance restrictions in judicial elections. Journal of Politics, 73, 1267-1280.
5.
BonneauC.CannD. (2013). Party identification and vote choice in partisan and nonpartisan elections. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9260-2
6.
BonneauC.HallM. (2009). In defense of judicial elections. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BonneauC.HallM.StrebM. (2011). White noise: The unrealized effects of Republican Party of Minnesota vs. White on judicial elections. Justice System Journal, 32, 247-268.
8.
BonneauC.LoeppE. (2014). Getting things straight: The effects of ballot design and electoral structure on voter participation. Electoral Studies, 24, 119-130.
9.
BoudreauC. (2009). Closing the gap: When do cues eliminate differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens?Journal of Politics, 71, 964-976.
CarminesE.StimsonJ. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 78-91.
12.
ChristensenR. (2008). The paradox of tar heel politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
13.
ConverseP. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578-599.
14.
Delli CarpiniM.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
16.
DuboisP. (1979). The significance of voting cues in state supreme court elections. Law & Society Review, 13, 757-779.
17.
DuboisP. (1984). Voting cues in nonpartisan trial court elections: A multivariate assessment. Law & Society Review, 18, 395-436.
18.
GibsonJ. (2012). Electing judges: The surprising effects of campaigning on judicial legitimacy. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
19.
GoldbergD.SamisS.BenderE.WeissR. (2004). The new politics of judicial elections 2004. Washington, DC: Justice at Stake Campaign.
20.
HallM. (2001). State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform. American Political Science Review, 95, 315-330.
21.
HallM. (2014). Televised attacks and the incumbency advantage in state supreme courts. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 30, 138-164.
22.
HallM.BonneauC. (2006). Does quality matter? Challengers in state supreme court elections. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 20-33.
23.
HanssenF. A. (2004). Learning about judicial independence: Institutional change in the state courts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 33, 431-473.
24.
KamC. (2007). Implicit attitudes, explicit choices: When subliminal priming predicts candidate preference. Political Behavior, 29, 343-367.
25.
KarpJ. (1998). The influence of elite endorsements in initiative campaigns. In BowlerS.DonovanT.TolbertC. J. (Eds.), Citizens as legislators: Direct democracy in the United States (pp. 149-168). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
26.
KleinD.BaumL. (2001). Ballot information and voting decisions in judicial elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 709-728.
27.
LaxJ.PhillipsJ. (2009). Gay rights in the states’ public opinion and policy responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 103, 367-386.
28.
LovrichN.SheldonC. (1983). Voters in contested, nonpartisan judicial elections: A responsible electorate for a problematic public?Western Political Quarterly, 36, 241-256.
29.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can voters learn what they need to know?Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
MalhotraN.KrosnickJ. (2007). The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to internet surveys with nonprobability samples. Political Analysis, 15, 286-323.
31.
MatsonM.FineT. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: Ballot cues in low-information elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 6, 49-73.
32.
McDermottM. (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.
33.
McDermottM. (2005). Candidate occupations and voter information shortcuts. The Journal of Politics, 67, 201-219.
34.
MondakJ. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167-192.
35.
PetrocikJ. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
36.
ReidT.MoogR. (2011). Voter information, voter participation, and the North Carolina judicial election reforms: The views of the voters. Politics & Policy, 39, 223-250.
37.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002). 536 U.S. 765.
38.
RockE.BaumL. (2010). The impact of high visibility contests for U.S. state court judgeships: Partisan voting in nonpartisan elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10, 368-396.
39.
SchaffnerB.StrebM. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 559-581.
40.
SchaffnerB.StrebM.WrightG. (2001). Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 7-30.
41.
SquireP.SmithE. (1988). The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. The Journal of Politics, 50, 169-179.
42.
StebM. (2009). The need for more individual-level judicial election data. Justice System Journal, 30, 123-139.
43.
StrebM.FrederickB. (2009). Conditions for competition in low-information judicial elections: The case of intermediate appellate court elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 523-537.
44.
StrebM.FrederickB.LaFranceC. (2007). Contestation, competition, and the potential for accountability in intermediate appellate court elections. Judicature, 91, 70-78.
45.
YeagerD.KrosnickJ.ChangL.JavitzH.LevenduskyM.SimpserA.WangR. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 709-747.
46.
ZallerJ. (1989). Bringing converse back in: Modeling information flow in political campaigns. Political Analysis, 1, 181-234.
47.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
