Increasing voter knowledge in low-information elections is paramount to democratic accountability. Endorsements serve as a source of information about candidates for voters. Though candidates in state supreme court races are constrained by many traditional methods of electioneering, endorsements of judicial candidates remain relatively unconstrained. Using an original dataset of campaign advertisements from 2000-2018, we coded for a variety of public endorsements that were included in television ads of candidates for state courts of last resort (SCOLR). We find support that group endorsements have an electoral impact in these races, while other types of endorsements do not appear to have any discernable effect. We further find that group endorsements help challengers but hurt incumbents. Our findings suggest that endorsements from various advocacy groups can impact outcomes for low-information election types where voters typically have little to no prior understanding of a judicial candidate’s legal or policy positions, but their effectiveness is dependent on incumbency status of the candidates.
AbramowitzA. I. (1988). Explaining Senate election outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82(2), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/1957392
2.
ArceneauxK.KolodnyR. (2009). Educating the least informed: Group endorsements in a grassroots campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00399.x
BenjaminA. (2017). Racial coalition building in local elections. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BonneauC. W. (2006). Vacancies on the bench: Open-seat elections for state supreme courts. Justice System Journal, 27(2), 143–159.
7.
BonneauC. W. (2007). The effects of campaign spending in state supreme court elections. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907305680
8.
BoudreauC. (2009). Closing the gap: When do cues eliminate differences between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens?The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 964–976. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609090823
9.
BoudreauC. (2013). Gresham’s Law of political communication: How citizens respond to conflicting information. Political Communication, 30(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737422
10.
BoudreaC.MacKenzieS. A. (2021). “TRENDS: Following the Money? How Donor Information Affects Public Opinion about Initiatives.” Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 511–525.
11.
BoudreauC.ChristopherS. E.ScottA. M. (2015). Informing electorates via election Law: An experimental study of partisan endorsements and nonpartisan voter guides in local elections. Election Law Journal, 14(1), 2–23.
12.
BoudreauC.ElmendorfC. S.MacKenzieS. A. (2019). Racial or spatial voting? The effects of candidate ethnicity and ethnic group endorsements in local elections. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12401
13.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12054
14.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A.SimmonsD. J. (2022). Police violence and public opinion after george floyd: How the black lives matter movement and endorsements affect support for reforms. Political Research Quarterly, 75(2), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221081007
BurnettC. M.ParryJ. A. (2014). Gubernatorial endorsements and ballot measure approval. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 14(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440014529290
17.
BurnettC. M.TiedeL. (2015). Party labels and vote choice in judicial elections. American Politic Research, 43(2), 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x14548477
18.
CalvertR. L. (1985). The value of biased information: A rational choice model of political advice. The Journal of Politics, 47(2), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130895
19.
ClaibournM. P. (2008). Making a connection: Repetition and priming in presidential campaigns. The Journal of Politics, 70(4), 1142–1159. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381608081115
20.
ClarkP.MastersM. F. (2001). Competing interest groups and union members’ voting. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 105–117.
21.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. R. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform: University of Chicago Press.
22.
ConverseP. E.CampbellA. (1968). Political standards in secondary groups. In CartwrightD.ZanderA. (Eds.), Group dynamics. Harper Row.
23.
DelaneyJ. T.MastersM. F.SchwochauS. (1990). Union membership and voting for COPE endorsed candidates. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43(5), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.2307/2523332
24.
DominguezC. B. K. (2011). Does the party matter? Endorsements in congressional primaries. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 534–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912910376389
25.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper.
26.
DuboisP. L. (1979). The significance of voting cues in state supreme court elections. Law and Society Review, 13(3), 757–779. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053185
27.
FergusonT.JorgensenP.ChenJ. (2022). How money drives US congressional elections: Linear models of money and outcomes. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 61(3), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.09.005
28.
FernandesJ. (2013). Effects of negative political advertising and message repetition on candidate evaluation. Mass Communication and Society, 16(2), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.672615
29.
GerberE. R.PhillipsJ. H. (2003). Development ballot measures, interest group endorsements, and the political geography of growth preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186123
30.
GibsonJ. L. (2012). Electing judges: The surprising effects of campaigning on judicial legitimacy. University of Chicago Press.
31.
GibsonJ. L.NelsonM. J. (2021). Judging inequality: State supreme courts and the inequality crisis. Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
GrofmanB.NorranderB. (1990). Efficient use of reference group cues in a single dimension. Public Choice, 64(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00124367
HallM. E. K.WindettJ. H. (2016). Discouraging dissent: The chief judge’s influence in state supreme courts. American Politics Research, 44(4), 682–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x16640743
35.
HallM. G. (2007). Voting in state supreme court elections: Competition and context as democratic incentives. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1147–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00614.x
36.
HallM. G. (2014). Representation in state supreme courts: Evidence from the terminal term. Political Research Quarterly, 67(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913504500
37.
HallM. G. (2014). Attacking judges. Stanford University Press.
38.
HallM. G.BonneauC. W. (2008). Mobilizing interest: The effects of money on citizen participation in state supreme court elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00323.x
39.
HillS. A.KiewietD. R. (2015). The impact of state supreme court decisions on public school finance. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31(1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewu001
40.
HojnackiM.BaumL. (1992). New-style’ judicial campaigns and the voters: Economic issues and union members in Ohio. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(4), 921–948. https://doi.org/10.2307/448818
41.
HughesD. (2020). Does local journalism stimulate voter participation in state supreme court elections?Journal of Law and Courts, 8(1), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1086/704742
42.
JuravichT.ShergoldP. R. (1988). The impact of unions on the voting behavior of their members. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41(3), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2523904
43.
KamC. D. (2007). Implicit attitudes, explicit choices: When subliminal priming predicts candidate preference. Political Behavior, 29(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9030-0
44.
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. Ohio State University Press.
KleinD.BaumL. (2001). Ballot information and voting decisions in judicial elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54(4), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.2307/449231
LangerL.BraceP. (2005). The preemptive power of state supreme courts: Adoption of abortion and death penalty legislation. Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00118.x
49.
LauR. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In LauR. R.SearsD. O. (Eds.), Political cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
LupiaA. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964228
51.
LupiaA. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944882
52.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge University Press.
McDermottM. L. (2006). Not for members only: Group endorsements as electoral information cues. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900207
55.
McKelveyR. D.OrdeshookP. C. (1985). Elections with limited information: A fulfilled expectations model using contemporaneous poll and endorsement data as information sources. Journal of Economic Theory, 36(1), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(85)90079-1
56.
McKelveyR. D.OrdeshookP. C. (1986). Information, electoral equilibria, and the democratic ideal. The Journal of Politics, 48(4), 909–937. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131005
MillerA. H.WlezienC.HildrethA. (1991). “A reference group theory of partisan coalitions.” The Journal of Politics53(4): 1134–1149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131871
RapoportR. B.StoneW. J.AbramowitzA. I. (1991). Do endorsements matter? Group influence in the 1984 democratic Caucuses. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962885
62.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 US 765 (2002).
63.
RockE.BaumL. (2010). The impact of high visibility contests for U.S. State court judgeships: Partisan voting in nonpartisan elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 10(4), 368–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244001001000405
64.
SalokarR. (2007). Endorsements in judicial campaigns: The ethics of messaging. Justice System Journal, 28(3), 342–357.
65.
SchaffnerB. F.MatthewS. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4), 559–581.
66.
SchaffnerB. F.StrebM.WrightG. (2001). Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/449205
67.
ShenF.DardisF. E.EdwardsH. H. (2011). Advertising exposure and message type: Exploring the perceived effects of soft-money television political ads. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2011.588097
UlrichS. (2023). PA supreme court: Money, endorsements may tip scale in primary. PoliticsPA.com. Published May 10, 2023 (Last Accessed October 13, 2023).
72.
WeissJ. C. (2006). Tough on crime: How campaign for state judiciary violate defendants’ due process rights. New York University Law Review, 81(3), 1101–1136.
73.
WilhelmT. (2007). The policymaking role of state supreme courts in education policy. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(2), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298007780907914
74.
WisemanR. (2002). So you want to stay a judge: Name and politics of the moment may decide your future. Journal of Law and Politics, 18(3), 643–690.
75.
WlezienC.MillerA. H. (1997). Social groups and political judgements. Social Science Quarterly, 78(3), 625–640.
76.
ZinniF. P.Jr.RohdebeckL. A.MatteiF. (1997). The structure and dynamics of group politics: 1964-1992. Political Behavior, 19(3), 247–282.
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.
