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.
AbromowitzA. I. (1995). It’s abortion, stupid: Policy voting in the 1992 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 57(1), 176–186.
2.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
3.
BadasA.StaufferK. 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
BerkmanM.EisensteinJ. (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
6.
BonicaA.WoodruffM. 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
BonneauC. W.HallM. G. (2009). In In defense of judicial elections. Routledge.
9.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.De BoefS.LinT. (2004). The dynamics of the partisan gender gap. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404001315
10.
BoyeaB. 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.
BraceP.HallM. 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.
BurrellB. 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.
CaugheyD.WarshawC. (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.
CaugheyD.WarshawC. (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.
CrespinM. H.DeitzJ. 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-MeyerM. (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.
DolanK. (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.
FleischmannA.SteinL. (1998). Campaign contributions in local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(3), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088044
19.
FranciaP. L.GreenJ. C.HerrnsonP. S.PowellL. W.WilcoxC. (2003). The financiers of congressional elections. Columbia University Press.
20.
FrederickB. J.StrebM. 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.
GillR. D.EugenisK. (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.
GillionD. Q.LaddJ. M.MeredithM. (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-GrantE.CrosskillJ. (2011). Gender affinity effects in vote choice in westminster systems: Assessing flexible voters in Canada. Politics and Gender, 7(1), 223–250.
24.
HallM. G.BonneauC. 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
HerrnsonP. S.LayJ. C.StokesA. 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.
HoganR. 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
HughesD. (2019). New-style campaigns in state supreme court elections. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 19(2), 127–154.
30.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. 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.
KritzerH. (2021). Polarization and partisanship in state supreme court elections. Judicature, 105(3), 65–75.
32.
MartinD. 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
PaolinoP. (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.
PartinR. 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.
PlutzerE.ZippJ. (1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/297738
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088412
40.
SorensenA.ChenP. (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.
SquireP.ButcherJ. (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.
ThomasC. S.BoyerM. L.HrebenarR. J. (2003). Interest groups and state supreme court elections. Judicature, 87(1), 135–149.
43.
ThomsenD. M.SwersM. 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-RinehartS. (1992). Gender consciousness and politics. Routledge.
45.
TolleyE.BescoR.SeviS. (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.
ViningJ.RichardL.WilhelmT. (2012). The chief justice as advocate-in-chief. Judicature, 95(6), 267–274.
47.
WestE. A. (2022). Ingroup bias, partisanship, and gendered voting. Political Psychology, 43(6), 1147–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12807
48.
WilhelmT.ViningR. L.Jr.BoldtE. D.BlackB. M.BlackR. 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.
WinesM. (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.
