No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Judicial Accountability and Racial Disparity in Criminal Appeals
... 61 However, it is also likely that there are unanticipated or 60. See Harvey and Yntiso (2021) for a somewhat similar pattern in the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court (New York's intermediate appellate court). A study of panel decisions in federal pleading cases found no effect of having one woman on the panel but there was an effect of having two women (Burbank andFarhang 2021, 2257-58). ...
During at least part of the post–World War II period, the constitutions of thirty-six states called for the popular election of the judges of the states’ highest courts. In practice, only slightly more than half of those judges (excluding strictly interim appointees) initially obtained their positions by election. This article examines the likelihood of initial election in actual practice, how it has varied over time, and various factors that might be related to election versus appointment (e.g., type of election, mandatory retirement). It concludes that state norms play a substantial role in determining patterns of actual selection.
The twenty‐first century has been one of democratic backsliding. This has stimulated wide‐ranging scholarship on the causes of democratic erosion. Yet an overarching framework that identifies actors, behaviors, and decision processes has not been developed. I offer such a structure that includes elites (e.g., elected officials, the judiciary), societal actors (e.g., social movements, interest groups, media), and citizens. I discuss erosive threats stemming from each actor and the concomitant role of psychological mechanisms. The framework highlights the challenge of arriving at a holistic explanation of erosion within a given country during a finite period. It also accentuates why scholars should regularly consider the implications of their specific findings for democratic stability. I conclude by discussing various lessons and suggestions for how to study democratic backsliding.
Existing research on electoral sentencing cycles consistently finds that elected judges levy longer sentences when they are up for re-election. However, this research finding had previously drawn exclusively on data from four states. Using newly collected sentencing data on seven additional states, we find substantial, and previously un-noted, heterogeneity in the strength of sentencing cycles. This heterogeneity appears to be explained by cross-state differences in informal norm of whether incumbent judges get challenged in judicial elections. We show that variation is explain by the baseline probability of having a challenger and the number of donations per electoral race. That variation, in turn, is not well explained by observable formal electoral institutions.
We show that propensity score matching (PSM), an enormously popular method of preprocessing data for causal inference, often accomplishes the opposite of its intended goal—thus increasing imbalance, inefficiency, model dependence, and bias. The weakness of PSM comes from its attempts to approximate a completely randomized experiment, rather than, as with other matching methods, a more efficient fully blocked randomized experiment. PSM is thus uniquely blind to the often large portion of imbalance that can be eliminated by approximating full blocking with other matching methods. Moreover, in data balanced enough to approximate complete randomization, either to begin with or after pruning some observations, PSM approximates random matching which, we show, increases imbalance even relative to the original data. Although these results suggest researchers replace PSM with one of the other available matching methods, propensity scores have other productive uses.
This paper investigates whether judge political affiliation contributes to racial and gender disparities in sentencing using data on over 500,000 federal defendants linked to sentencing judge. Exploiting random case assignment, we find that Republican-appointed judges sentence black defendants to 3.0 more months than similar nonblacks and female defendants to 2.0 fewer months than similar males compared to Democratic-appointed judges, 65 percent of the baseline racial sentence gap and 17 percent of the baseline gender sentence gap, respectively. These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion.
This article develops a new test for identifying racial bias in the context of bail decisions-a high-stakes setting with large disparities between white and black defendants. We motivate our analysis using Becker's model of racial bias, which predicts that rates of pretrial misconduct will be identical for marginal white and marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially unbiased. In contrast, marginal white defendants will have higher rates of misconduct than marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially biased, whether that bias is driven by racial animus, inaccurate racial stereotypes, or any other form of bias. To test the model, we use the release tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to identify the relevant race-specific misconduct rates. Estimates from Miami and Philadelphia show that bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We find suggestive evidence that this racial bias is driven by bail judges relying on inaccurate stereotypes that exaggerate the relative danger of releasing black defendants. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.
This paper explores the possibility that criminal court judges engage in discriminatory sentencing in response to judicial elections. I use a research design that (1) distinguishes between the effects of judicial elections versus preferences and (2) separates the effects of judicial elections versus the elections of other public officials. I find that incarceration rates rise by 2.4 percentage points in the final six months of the election cycle, but only for black, not white felons. These effects are more pronounced in districts where the median voter is expected to have higher levels of racial prejudice toward blacks.
Most state supreme court justices have time-bound terms that require them to be reappointed or reelected after a certain amount of time. In three American states, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia, the legislature has the sole power to retain justices. Legislatures, and their specialized judiciary committees, are well positioned to monitor judicial behavior and can reject retention for justices who are unacceptable. This turns the legislature’s oversight authority into influence over policy making by justices who still need to be reappointed to additional terms. But some justices (co-partisans) are insulated from this influence by their connections to the majority party, which substantially increases the likelihood of their retention. I show that, between 1995 and 2014, justices appointed by the minority party who were eligible for a new term voted more in line with the preferences of their legislature than those who were no longer eligible for a new term due to mandatory or voluntary retirement. No similar effect is found among appointees of the majority party. To support my argument that it is the legislature’s reappointment authority that gives them this power, I conduct a placebo test to show that governors in these states enjoy no comparable influence on reappointment-seeking justices. This legislative influence represents a substantial limitation on judicial independence.
This paper provides a theoretical and empirical analysis of the intrinsic preferences of state appellate court judges. We construct a panel data set using published decisions from all state supreme courts from 1947 to 1994. We estimate the effects of changes in judges’ employment conditions on a number of measures of judicial performance. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that judges are intrinsically motivated to provide high-quality decisions and that at the margin they prefer quality over quantity. When judges face less time pressure—whether from the introduction of an intermediate appellate court, the weakening of electoral demands, or an increased salary—they write more well-researched opinions that are cited more often by other judges. These effects are strongest when judges have more discretion to select their portfolios of cases.
We discuss a method for improving causal inferences called ‘‘Coarsened Exact Matching’’ (CEM), and the new ‘‘Monotonic Imbalance Bounding’’ (MIB) class of matching methods from which CEM is derived. We summarize what is known about CEM and MIB, derive and illustrate several new desirable statistical properties of CEM, and then propose a variety of useful extensions. We show that CEM possesses a wide range of statistical properties not available in most other matching methods but is at the same time exceptionally easy to comprehend and use. We focus on the connection between theoretical properties and practical applications. We also make available easy-to-use open source software for R, Stata, and SPSS that implement all our suggestions.
We study how media environments interact with political institutions that structure the accountability of public officials. Specifically, we quantify media influence on the behavior of US state court judges. We analyze around 1.5 million criminal sentencing decisions from 1986 to 2006 and new data on the newspaper coverage of 9,828 trial court judges. Since newspaper coverage is endogenous, we use the match between newspaper markets and judicial districts to identify effects. We find that newspaper coverage significantly increases sentence length by nonpartisan elected judges for violent crimes. For partisan elected and appointed judges, there are no significant effects.
This paper contains additional details of the data and the estimation of the model in our paper "Preferences and Incentives of Appointed and Elected Public Officials: Evidence from State Trial Court Judges". We describe the details in the following order: (1) the main features of sentencing data and the aggregation procedure, (2) details of the judicial selection systems in Kansas, (3) data on political climate, (4) data on exit decisions, (5) an alternative specification for the reelection probability of appointed judges, and (6) the procedure of counterfactual experiments.
Using rich data linking federal cases from arrest through to sentencing, we find that initial case and defendant characteristics, including arrest offense and criminal history, can explain most, but not all, of the large raw racial disparity in federal sentences. Across the sentence distribution, blacks receive sentences that are almost 10% longer than comparable whites arrested for the same crimes. Most of this disparity can be explained by prosecutors’ initial charging decisions, particularly the filing of charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Ceteris paribus, the odds of black arrestees facing such a charge are 1.75 times higher than those of white arrestees.
Whether judges respond to political pressure is an important question occupying social scientists. We present evidence that Washington State judges respond to such pressure by sentencing serious crimes more severely. Sentences are around 10% longer at the end of a judge's political cycle than the beginning; deviations above the sen-tencing guidelines increase by 50% across the electoral cycle. We conduct robustness and falsification exercises and distinguish between judges' election cycles and other offi-cials' by exploring non-linear effects of electoral proximity. Our findings inform debates over judicial elections, and highlight the interaction between judicial discretion and the influence of judicial elections.
This article examines the impact of jury racial composition on trial outcomes using a data set of felony trials in Florida
between 2000 and 2010. We use a research design that exploits day-to-day variation in the composition of the jury pool to isolate quasi-random variation in the composition of the seated jury, finding evidence that (i) juries formed from all-white
jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap
in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member. The impact of jury race
is much greater than what a simple correlation of the race of the seated jury and conviction rates would suggest. These findings
imply that the application of justice is highly uneven and raise obvious concerns about the fairness of trials in jurisdictions
with a small proportion of blacks in the jury pool.
What is the marginal effect of competitiveness on the power of electoral incentives? Addressing this question empirically is difficult because challenges to incumbents are endogenous to their behavior in office. To overcome this obstacle, we exploit a unique feature of Kansas courts: 14 districts employ partisan elections to select judges, while 17 employ noncompetitive retention elections. In the latter, therefore, challengers are ruled out.We find judges in partisan systems sentence more severely than those in retention systems. Additional tests attribute this to the incentive effects of potential competition, rather than the selection of more punitive judges in partisan districts.
This study shows that the political preferences of those responsible for retaining judges are strongly associated with judicial voting. The evidence supports the widespread belief that judges respond to political pressure in an effort to be reelected or reappointed. Using a data set of decisions in state supreme courts from 1995-98, I find that state supreme court judges who face retention decisions by Republicans tend to decide cases in accord with standard Republican policy. Judicial behavior is correspondingly liberal for judges facing retention decisions by Democrats. The results are strongest for judges facing partisan reelections. Among judges with conservative fundamental ideologies, those facing Democratic retention agents vote more liberally than those facing Republican retention agents. Similarly, judges' voting changes when the political preferences of the retention agents change. Judges with permanent tenure and judges in their last term do not respond to the same forms of political pressure. (c) 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved..
Legislation to limit workplace discrimination is among the most common reforms in labor market policy of the past 50 years.
Its effectiveness depends on enforcement of the legislation by state and federal agencies and, ultimately, the courts. This
paper uses information on discrimination charges in the United States between 1973 and 2000 to analyze whether the number
of charges filed is correlated with the method by which state judges are selected. We find evidence that states that appoint
their judges have significantly fewer anti-discrimination charges being filed.
Judicial Diversity: A Work in Progress
- Rachel Krester
- Antonio Brandveen
- Conrad Singer
- Genine Edwards
- Michael Sonberg
- Lizbeth Gonzalez