Gender Affinity,Ideology,and the Contributions of Individuals to Women State Supreme Court Candidates

Abstract

Is there a gender affinity effect present in the amount of contributions individuals donate to candidates for state supreme courts, and if so, is it moderated by ideology? Using data from FollowTheMoney.org and the Bonica and Woodruff common space measures of state judicial ideology, we find both a “gender affinity” effect and an effect of ideology. More specifically, we find that women donors provide greater support to women candidates, whereas women candidates are disadvantaged among male donors. Moreover, the financial support for women candidates is moderated by the candidate’s ideology, with more liberal women candidates enjoying greater levels of financial support from women contributors and less support from male donors. We suggest this pattern of contribution decisions can affect the pool of viable women candidates for state supreme courts.

Keywords

gender affinity ideology contributions state supreme courts elections

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abromowitz

A. I.

(1995). It’s abortion, stupid: Policy voting in the 1992 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 57(1), 176–186.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Badas

Stauffer

K. E.

(2018). Someone like me: Descriptive representation and support for supreme court nominees. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917724006

Badas

Stauffer

K. E.

(2019). Voting for women in nonpartisan and partisan elections. Electoral Studies, 57(1), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.10.004

Berkman

Eisenstein

(1999). State legislators as congressional candidates: The effects of prior experience on legislative recruitment and fundraising. Political Research Quarterly, 52(3), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/449146

Bonica

Woodruff

M. J.

(2015). A common space measure of state supreme court ideology. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31(3), 472–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewu016

Bonneau

C. W.

(2007). Campaign fundraising in state supreme court elections. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00447.x

Bonneau

C. W.

Hall

M. G.

(2009). In In defense of judicial elections. Routledge.

Box-Steffensmeier

J. M.

De Boef

Lin

(2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404001315

10.

Boyea

B. D.

(2017). Individual contributions to state supreme court campaigns: Context and the impact of institutional design. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 17(3), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440016687334

11.

Brace

Hall

M. G.

(2001). Haves' versus 'have notes' in state supreme courts: Allocating docket space and wins in power asymmetric cases. Law & Society Review, 35(2), 393–417.

12.

Burrell

B. C.

(1985). Women’s and men’s campaigns for the U.S. House of representatives, 1972-1982: A finance gap? American Politics Quarterly, 13(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x8501300301

13.

Caughey

Warshaw

(2016). The dynamics of state policy liberalism, 1936 - 2014. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12219

14.

Caughey

Warshaw

(2018). Policy preferences and policy change: Dynamic responsiveness in the American states, 1936–2014. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055417000533

15.

Crespin

M. H.

Deitz

J. L.

(2010). If you can't join 'em, beat 'em: The gender gap in individual donations to congressional candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909333131

16.

Crowder-Meyer

(2022). How gender, race, ethnicity, and their intersections shape Americans’ issue priorities. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 43(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2021.1971506

17.

Dolan

(2008). Is there a ‘gender affinty’ effect in amrican politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in U.S. House elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907307518

18.

Fleischmann

Stein

(1998). Campaign contributions in local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(3), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088044

19.

Francia

P. L.

Green

J. C.

Herrnson

P. S.

Powell

L. W.

Wilcox

(2003). The financiers of congressional elections. Columbia University Press.

20.

Frederick

B. J.

Streb

M. J.

(2008). Women running for judge: The impact of sex on candidate success in state intermediate appellate court elections^*. Social Science Quarterly, 89(4), 937–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00592.x

21.

Gill

R. D.

Eugenis

(2019). Do voters prefer women judges? Deconstructing the competetive advantage in state supreme court elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 19(4), 399–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440019847771

22.

Gillion

D. Q.

Ladd

J. M.

Meredith

(2020). Party polarization, ideological sorting and the emergence of the US partisan gender gap. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000285

23.

Goodyear-Grant

Crosskill

(2011). Gender affinity effects in vote choice in westminster systems: Assessing flexible voters in Canada. Politics and Gender, 7(1), 223–250.

24.

Hall

M. G.

Bonneau

C. W.

(2006). Does quality matter? Challengers in state supreme court elections. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00167.x

25.

Herrnson

P. S.

Curry

(2011). Issue voting and partisan defections in congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00014.x

26.

Herrnson

P. S.

Lay

J. C.

Stokes

A. K.

(2003). Women running 'as women': Candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. The Journal of Politics, 65(1), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00013

27.

Hogan

R. E.

(2007). The effects of candidate gender on campaign spending in state legislative elections. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5), 1092–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00493.x

28.

Holbrook

T. M.

Weinschenk

A. C.

(2014). Money, candidates, and mayoral elections. Electoral Studies, 35(1), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.02.002

29.

Hughes

(2019). New-style campaigns in state supreme court elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 19(2), 127–154.

30.

Iyengar

Westwood

S. J.

(2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152

31.

Kritzer

(2021). Polarization and partisanship in state supreme court elections. Judicature, 105(3), 65–75.

32.

Martin

D. J.

(2019). Playing the women’s card: How women respond to female candidates’ descriptive versus substantive representation. American Politics Research, 47(3), 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18776622

33.

Mullen

(2021). gender: Predict gender from names using historical data. R package version 0.6.0. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.gender

34.

Myrick

(2024). Mapping state supreme court abortion rights decisions. State Court Report. Available at: https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mapping-state-supreme-court-abortion-rights-decisions

35.

Paolino

(1995). Group-salient issues and group representation: Support for women candidates in the 1992 senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111614

36.

Partin

R. W.

(2002). Assessing the impact of campaign spending in governors' races. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088072

37.

Plutzer

Zipp

(1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/297738

38.

Rosenthal

C. S.

(1995). The role of gender in descriptive representation. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800307

39.

Sanbonmatsu

(2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088412

40.

Sorensen

Chen

(2021). Identity in campaign finance and elections: The impact of gender and race on money raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House elections. Political Research Quarterly, 75(3), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211022846

41.

Squire

Butcher

(2021). An update to the Squire state court of last resort professionalization index. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 21(3), 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2020.7

42.

Thomas

C. S.

Boyer

M. L.

Hrebenar

R. J.

(2003). Interest groups and state supreme court elections. Judicature, 87(1), 135–149.

43.

Thomsen

D. M.

Swers

M. L.

(2017). Which women can run? Gender, partisanship, and candidate donor networks. Political Research Quarterly, 70(2), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917698044

44.

Tolleson-Rinehart

(1992). Gender consciousness and politics. Routledge.

45.

Tolley

Besco

Sevi

(2022). Who controls the purse strings? A longitudinal study of gender and donations in Canadian politics. Politics and Gender, 18(1), 244–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x20000276

46.

Vining

Richard

Wilhelm

(2012). The chief justice as advocate-in-chief. Judicature, 95(6), 267–274.

47.

West

E. A.

(2022). Ingroup bias, partisanship, and gendered voting. Political Psychology, 43(6), 1147–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12807

48.

Wilhelm

Vining

R. L.

Jr. Boldt

E. D.

Black

B. M.

Black

R. C.

(2020). Judicial reform in the American states: The chief justice as political advocate. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 20(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440020907975

49.

Wines

(2024). Abortion could decide control of state supreme courts. New York Times, p. A20.

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.

0.00 MB

0.33 MB