This article considers the institutional and environmental factors that influence the degree of countermajoritarian judicial activism among state supreme courts. In our analysis, we consider two indicators of such activism: the tendency of each state court to overturn acts of the legislature and the extent to which each court engages in tort innovation. We find, contrary to much conventional wisdom, that courts in states where judges are most insulated from local partisan politics are the least likely to exhibit activist behavior. Rather, the most activist courts are in states where justices reach office through district-based electoral systems. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of judicial activism and judicial behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brace, Paul, and Melinda Gann Hall.1995. Studying the courts comparatively: The view from the American statesPolitical Research Quarterly48:5-30.
2.
Brown v.Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S 483 (1954).
3.
Canon, Bradley C.1982. A framework for the analysis of judicial activism In Supreme court activism and restraint, edited by Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb. Lexington, MA : Lexington Books.
4.
Canon, Bradley C., and Lawrence Baum.1981. Patterns of adoptions of tort law innovations: An application of diffusion theory to judicial doctrinesAmerican Political Science Review75:975-87.
5.
Council of State Governments.1971-1983. The book of the statesLexington, KY: Council of State Governments.
6.
Emmert, Craig F.1988. Judicial review in state supreme courts: Opportunity and activismPaper presented at the 1988 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April
7.
—. 1992. An integrated case-related model of judicial decision making: Explaining state supreme court decisions in judicial review casesJournal of Politics54:543-52.
8.
Gibson, James L.1978. Judges'role orientations, attitudes, and decisions: An interactive modelAmerican Political Science Review72:11-24.
9.
—. 1983. From simplicity to complexity: The development of theory in the study of judicial behaviorPolitical Behavior5:7-43.
10.
—. 1991. Decision making in appellate courts In The American courts: A critical assessment, edited by John B. Gates and Charles A. Johnson. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
11.
Glick, Henry R., and Kenneth Vines.1973. State court systemsEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Hall, Melinda Gann.1992. Electoral politics and strategic voting in state supreme courtsJournal of Politics54:427-46.
13.
Hall, Melinda Gann, and Paul Brace.1989. Order in the courts: A neo-institutional approach to judicial consensusWestern Political Quarterly42:391-407.
14.
—. 1992. Toward an integrated model of judicial voting behaviorAmerican Politics Quarterly20:147-68.
15.
Hamilton, Alexander.1982. The Federalist papersNew York : Bantam Books.
16.
Howard, J. Woodford.1981. Courts of appeal in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuitsPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Lamb, Charles M.1982. Judicial restraint on the supreme court In Supreme court activism and restraint, edited by Stephen Halpern and Charles M. Lamb. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
18.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
19.
Scheb, John M. II, Terry Bowen, and Gary Anderson.1991. Ideology, role orientation, and behavior in state courts of last resortAmerican Politics Quarterly19:324-35.
20.
Scheb, John M. II, Thomas D. Ungs, and Allison L. Hayes.1989. Judicial role orientations, attitudes, and decision making: A research noteWestern Political Quarterly42:427-35.
21.
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth.1993. The supreme court and the attitudinal modelNew York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Spaeth, Harold J , and Stuart H. Teger.1982. Activism and restraint: A cloak for the justices' policy preferences In Supreme court activism and restraint, edited by Stephen C. Halpern and Charles M. Lamb. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
23.
Wenzel, James P.1988. Socialization to the judicial rolePaper presented at the 1988 meeting of the Southwestern Political Science Association, Houston, TX, April
