All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

"New-Style" Judicial Campaigns and the Legitimacy of State High Courts
Unformatted Document Text:  For the full results of the interactive regressions, see Table D.1 in Appendix D. 25 Following Benesh (2006, 704), I also controlled for a number of institutional factors such as level of 26 professionalism, dissent rates, and the rate of the exercise of judicial review (see her footnote 8, p. 700).The addition of these variables to the interactive equation has no effect whatsoever, largely because, as inBenesh’s analysis, these variables have no relationship with the dependent variable of this analysis. I have re-run all of this analysis with a more restricted indicator of type of selection/retention system: 27 partisan and non-partisan elections versus all other systems. The results are extremely similar to thosereported in Table D.1 and discussed in the text above, with no modifications whatsoever required in thesubstantive conclusions. -18- institutional legitimacy, and whether any of the sets of interaction terms achieve significance (see Cohen et al. 2003). The analysis reveals that only two of the interaction terms are statistically significant. Both have to do with the policy talk variables. When these two interaction terms are added to the basic equation, R 2 changes by 1.8 %, which is statistically significant at p < .05. The interaction terms are quite 25 interesting: In states with elected judges, the coefficient for the condition under which the candidate expresses his policy views is a trivial .04. However, in states without elections, the coefficient is -.24, indicating that policy talk detracts from legitimacy. Similarly, while the coefficient for the policy promises condition is +.11 in states with elections, it is -.16 in states without elections. 26 From this analysis, an important amendment to the findings reported in Table 3 (above) emerges: The general finding that policy statements by judicial candidates have no deleterious effects on institutional legitimacy is confined to states employing elections to select and/or retain their judges. In states with no such processes, citizens (presumably) have little direct experience with judicial campaigning and they therefore find it objectionable when they are exposed to such activity in the experiment. 27 Care must be taken, however, with this finding, for two reasons. First, the sample was, of course, not designed to be representative of individual states, and, second, this interactive effect is not confirmed on the issues of campaign contributions and attack ads. Perhaps this indicates that campaign

Authors: Gibson, James.
first   previous   Page 20 of 42   next   last



background image
For the full results of the interactive regressions, see Table D.1 in Appendix D.
25
Following Benesh (2006, 704), I also controlled for a number of institutional factors such as level of
26
professionalism, dissent rates, and the rate of the exercise of judicial review (see her footnote 8, p. 700).
The addition of these variables to the interactive equation has no effect whatsoever, largely because, as in
Benesh’s analysis, these variables have no relationship with the dependent variable of this analysis.
I have re-run all of this analysis with a more restricted indicator of type of selection/retention system:
27
partisan and non-partisan elections versus all other systems. The results are extremely similar to those
reported in Table D.1 and discussed in the text above, with no modifications whatsoever required in the
substantive conclusions.
-18-
institutional legitimacy, and whether any of the sets of interaction terms achieve significance (see Cohen
et al. 2003).
The analysis reveals that only two of the interaction terms are statistically significant. Both have
to do with the policy talk variables. When these two interaction terms are added to the basic equation,
R
2
changes by 1.8 %, which is statistically significant at p < .05. The interaction terms are quite
25
interesting: In states with elected judges, the coefficient for the condition under which the candidate
expresses his policy views is a trivial .04. However, in states without elections, the coefficient is -.24,
indicating that policy talk detracts from legitimacy. Similarly, while the coefficient for the policy
promises condition is +.11 in states with elections, it is -.16 in states without elections.
26
From this analysis, an important amendment to the findings reported in Table 3 (above) emerges:
The general finding that policy statements by judicial candidates have no deleterious effects on
institutional legitimacy is confined to states employing elections to select and/or retain their judges. In
states with no such processes, citizens (presumably) have little direct experience with judicial
campaigning and they therefore find it objectionable when they are exposed to such activity in the
experiment.
27
Care must be taken, however, with this finding, for two reasons. First, the sample was, of course,
not designed to be representative of individual states, and, second, this interactive effect is not confirmed
on the issues of campaign contributions and attack ads. Perhaps this indicates that campaign


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
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 20 of 42   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.