Author's Keywords: judicial behavior, gender, courts	Convention Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41102_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Manning, Kenneth. "Gender and Decision-Making in the Federal Courts: Testing the Critical Mass Theory" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, Sep 01, 2005 <Not Available>. 2011-03-14 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41102_index.html>

Manning, K. L. , 2005-09-01 "Gender and Decision-Making in the Federal Courts: Testing the Critical Mass Theory" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2011-03-14 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41102_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: The role of gender in influencing judicial behavior has been the subject of much public law scholarship. The results of these studies, however, have been mixed. At the same time, a body of scholarship has suggested that the presence of a �critical mass� of women may be necessary before substantive behavioral differences emerge. We analyzed 42,226 cases handed down by 1,350 judges over a 28-year span, from 1977 to 2004. Our results indicate that women jurists exhibit distinctive behavior when there is a critical mass of women on a court, deciding cases in a more liberal fashion than their fellow male partisans. When there is no critical mass of women on a court, however, we find that women and men decide cases in a similar manner.

The Politics of Judicial Decision-Making and Redistricting: Do Federal Judges Revert to Partisanship When it Comes to Representation?

The Limits of Judicial Modeling: Comparing Theories of Judicial Decision-Making in Separation of Powers Cases