9
H3B
C
: Non-discretionary opinion assignments encourage unanimous decision outcomes within
elected courts.
Size of office for the state supreme courts also varies, ranging from five to nine justices.
Behavior is more constrained in smaller political offices, as smaller office structures reduce independence
within the courts (Shapley and Schubert 1954; Rohde 1972). With increased court size, justices face less
pressure to join a majority opinion, as the value of an individual vote decreases.
H4
C
:
Larger court size is negatively related to the event of unanimous decision outcomes.
Contextual Environment
Political environments are additionally important factors in judicial decision-making (Brace and
Hall 1993). More extreme state ideology provides a constraining influence on judicial behavior, reducing
dissensus in elected states. Research suggests the impact of public ideology is limited in appointed states,
since direct public feedback does not exist (Brace and Hall 1997, 1999).
H5
C
:
Extreme state ideology is positively related to the event of unanimous decision outcomes
within elected states, while no relationship is expected in appointed courts.
Levels of electoral competition are identified as important features of the state political
environmental. Within elected states, greater electoral competition may contribute to greater consensus
and less dissent behavior (Brace and Hall, 1995).
H6
C
:
The level of electoral competition is positively related to the event of unanimous decision
outcomes, while no relationship is expected in elected courts.
Case Characteristics
The legal approach to jurisprudence suggests that judges and courts render decisions by applying
law based on the features of the case (see Strumpf, 1988). Recognizing the importance of legal factors,
the following integrates two features of state supreme court cases.
Case salience is noted to strongly effect case outcomes (Maltzman, Spriggs, and Walhlbeck,
2000; Brace and Hall, 1995, 1997) with saliency is noted by the submission of an amicus briefs to the
court.
H7
C
:
Greater case saliency is negatively related to the event of unanimity.
Given the possibility of appeal, state supreme court justices likely cannot ignore important legal
issues regardless of their personal preferences.
Therefore, more complex cases with more legal
challenges should decrease consensus (Brace and Boyea, 2004).
H8
C
:
Greater appeal complexity is negatively related to the event of unanimity.
Together these hypotheses provide a theoretical approach to understanding judicial behavior at
the state court level. Consistent with past neo-institutional approaches to judicial decision-making, these
hypotheses reason that courts and justices are responsive to many factors, including the diversity of the
Convention