All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

"New-Style" Judicial Campaigns and the Legitimacy of State High Courts
Unformatted Document Text:  The cross-level analytical strategy follows that adopted by Benesh (2006) and others. 24 -17- Gibson reports based on a Kentucky sample. To summarize: (1) the effect of campaign contributions was found to be more corrosive in Kentucky than in the national sample, even though its effect is substantial and negative in both studies; (2) few differences exist in the consequences of policy pronouncements; and (3) attack ads had a weak negative effect on candidates for judicial office in Kentucky, but none in this national sample. In general, the similarities in the findings greatly outnumber the dissimilarities. Sub-National Differences A national survey of course represents people living in states using vastly different methods of selecting judges for their high bench, including those living in states that do not ever force judges and candidates for judicial office to face the electorate. To this point, I have only considered those who live in states using elections to select or retain their judges. The data set allows me to assess the degree to which the views of citizens are dependent upon the type of selection/retention system used by the states. 24 I therefore created a dichotomy indicating whether supreme court judges in the respondent’s state were subject to a vote of the people (partisan elections, non-partisan elections, retention elections), or not (legislative and gubernatorial appointments, and “Missouri Plan” appointments without retention elections). Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73.3 %) live in states which use elections to select and/or retain their judges. The proper way to model this relationship is to add to the equation shown in Table 3 (above) (1) a dummy variable indicating whether elections are used, and (2) interaction terms between each of the manipulations and the dummy variable (and to analyze all respondents in the sample). The central hypotheses concern whether the effects of campaign activity differ according to whether judges in the respondent’s state must face the electorate. The proper statistical test asks whether the addition of the interaction terms leads to a statistically significant increase in explained variance in perceived

Authors: Gibson, James.
first   previous   Page 19 of 42   next   last



background image
The cross-level analytical strategy follows that adopted by Benesh (2006) and others.
24
-17-
Gibson reports based on a Kentucky sample. To summarize: (1) the effect of campaign contributions was
found to be more corrosive in Kentucky than in the national sample, even though its effect is substantial
and negative in both studies; (2) few differences exist in the consequences of policy pronouncements;
and (3) attack ads had a weak negative effect on candidates for judicial office in Kentucky, but none in
this national sample. In general, the similarities in the findings greatly outnumber the dissimilarities.
Sub-National Differences
A national survey of course represents people living in states using vastly different methods of selecting
judges for their high bench, including those living in states that do not ever force judges and candidates
for judicial office to face the electorate. To this point, I have only considered those who live in states
using elections to select or retain their judges. The data set allows me to assess the degree to which the
views of citizens are dependent upon the type of selection/retention system used by the states.
24
I therefore created a dichotomy indicating whether supreme court judges in the respondent’s state
were subject to a vote of the people (partisan elections, non-partisan elections, retention elections), or not
(legislative and gubernatorial appointments, and “Missouri Plan” appointments without retention
elections). Nearly three-fourths of the respondents (73.3 %) live in states which use elections to select
and/or retain their judges.
The proper way to model this relationship is to add to the equation shown in Table 3 (above) (1)
a dummy variable indicating whether elections are used, and (2) interaction terms between each of the
manipulations and the dummy variable (and to analyze all respondents in the sample). The central
hypotheses concern whether the effects of campaign activity differ according to whether judges in the
respondent’s state must face the electorate. The proper statistical test asks whether the addition of the
interaction terms leads to a statistically significant increase in explained variance in perceived


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.

first   previous   Page 19 of 42   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.