Henry R. Glick

Innovation and reinvention in state policymaking: theory and the evolution of living will laws.

Most research on the diffusion of policy innovations focuses on the date of adoption and its correlates. This research examines an aspect of innovation which has received little attention: policy reinvention during the initial diffusion process and through amendment. The central proposition is that even though a set of laws or policies may be grouped into one broad, general category, states create substantively different policies through reinvention, which has important consequences for groups affected by the legislation. Hypotheses concerning the relationship between date of adoption and policy content and the effect of particular controversial policy provisions on reinventions are examined. The study has general implications for the study of the diffusion of innovations and policy in state politics.

The Role of Agenda Setting in Policy Innovation An Event History Analysis of Living-Will Laws

In this article we link theoretically and empirically the process of agenda setting to the diffusion of innovations across the American states. We use independent variables that reflect both agenda setting and the specific state context, and we hypothesize that a combination of these variables affects the likelihood of policy adoption in the various states. Employing event history analysis of pooled cross-sectional time series data on the adoption of living-will laws, we find that the best model of living-will adoptions includes both agenda setting and state context variables. Our findings demonstrate the importance of linking agenda setting with internal state characteristics to reach a more complete explanation of state policy making.

Environmental and Structural Variables as Determinants of Issues in State Courts of Last Resort

The linkage between state socioeconomic and political environments and issues found in decisions of state courts of last resort is explored. It is found that, in general, state courts of last resort in rural, politically undifferentiated states tend to decide larger proportions of private litigation than courts within more highly industrialized, politically competitive states. These latter courts of last resort tend to focus upon criminal law, civil liberties, and economic regulation cases. Multiple regression analysis shows that the six environmental descriptors and one court system variable-the presence or absence of an intermediate appellate court-explain a substantial portion of the variance in the distribution of issues among the states. The study demonstrates that environmental variables are important predictors to the kinds of decisions rendered by courts, and underscores the need for more systematic, comparative analysis of state judicial systems. A considerable body of research published in the last several years has demonstrated the important effects of socioeconomic and political diversification upon political processes and policy outputs. (Dye, 1966; Sharkansky and Hofferbert, 1972). Yet little research has been conducted on the impact of environmental differences on judicial processes and policy. This is not to suggest, however, than the linkage between environmental conditions and courts has been totally ignored. On the contrary, most models of the judicial processes make some reference to this linkage, and the systems model in particular underscores the effects of the flow of demands and conflict from the environment towards the judicial system. (Sigler, 1968; Goldman and Jahnige, 1970). However, while reference is often made to these relationships, the literature is still devoid of empirical research that systematically examines the impact of environment upon judicial action. To remedy this omission, the present study will offer a comparative examination of the relationship between socioeconomic and political conditions within the fifty American states, on the one hand, and issues decided by state courts of last resort on

Innovation in State Judicial Administration Effects on Court Management and Organization

The 50 states gradually are adopting centralized judicial management and court reorganization. Viewing change in judicial administration as part of the adoption of policy innovations, the research examines the impact of merit selection and a number of socioeconomic and political variables on patterns of innovation in the 50 states. Contrary to the expectations of legal reformers, merit selection has little or no bearing on decisions of state governments to develop modern, centralized court systems. Instead, general patterns of policy innovation and the overall size of state government are important correlates of judicial centralization and management.

Formal Judicial Recruitment and State Supreme Court Decisions

a system of selection within the state legislature, while still others utilize either a partisan or nonpartisan election. Finally, a movement has emerged in the past few decades which blends aspects of the election and appointment systems. Under the Missouri Plan, named for the state in which it was first adopted, the governor selects supreme court judges from a list of nominees compiled by a committee of legal and nonlegal community leaders. These appointed judges must subsequently run for reelection on their record at some specified time in the future and must continue to do so for the remainder of their

The Politics of Torts: Explaining Litigation Rates in the American States

Debate rages over whether Americans have become enormously litigious, but little research considers why Americans file cases in the first place or adequately considers rates of litigation over time. This article examines tort filings in ten representative states over a 20–year period and analyzes the impact of social, political, policy, and legal system factors that may account for case filings. We find that filing rates vary substantially over time within individual states, which adds to cautions about claims of general litigiousness. Our analysis also demonstrates that social complexity, opportunities for political participation, and social policy are the most important explanations for variations in filing rates. The tendency of Americans to use the courts to resolve disputes is related to the milieu in which they live and how the political system responds to demands for participation and social support.

Crime, public opinion and trial courts: An analysis of sentencing policy

Much recent research on public opinion and trial courts demonstrates a link between local attitudes and sentencing in highly visible criminal cases. However, such crimes are not typical of most trial court work. Our research examines relationships between public opinion, crime rates, and sentencing in routine cases, including armed and unarmed robbery, burglary, larceny, and possession of narcotics. The research includes over 6000 cases and measures public opinion in all twenty of Floridas trial court circuits. Except for possession of narcotics, no significant correlations were discovered between public opinion and sentencing, but high crime rates generally produced lenient sentences. The research questions the impact of public opinion on most litigation and suggests that judicial elites usually act without concern for local public opinion.

Social Environment, Public Opinion, and Judicial Policymaking a Search for Judicial Representation:

An important theme in research on judicial policymaking is a search for the role of courts as representative political institutions. The most general way that courts represent the public is through the relationship of patterns of judicial decisions to local public opinion and values. Most previous research provides only indirect evidence that courts represent public opinion. We examine the separate and combined effects of public opinion and social environments on criminal court sentencing as a way of isolating the effect of public opinion and progressing toward a general theory of judicial representation. The article examines patterns of sentencing in all 20 Florida judicial circuits. The findings are that courts do not respond to public opinion but they are sensitive to various social contexts surrounding the courts, particularly urban crime environments and the size of the nonwhite population. High crime rates and large nonwhite populations do stimulate public concern with crime, but public opinion does not relate to sentencing. High crime rates actually reduce sentencing severity. The article concludes that judicial representation does not occur and that it is incorrect for researchers to substitute crime rates for direct measures of public opinion in the mistaken belief that courts will respond to crime rates in the same way the public does.

Implementation and impact of the Patient Self Determination Act : preliminary survey and proposals for change

To promote advance medical directives, which the U.S. Supreme Court encouraged in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Congress enacted the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA). The law requires various medical facilities to inform patients of their rights under state law to execute advance medical directives. Results from in-depth interviews with hospital and nursing home administrators, however, reveal that although the law has been implemented, it is having little practical effect on patients and residents. Other requirements of the law also are being carried out with different amounts of energy. A different orientation for policymakers, medical institutions, and adult consumers to the right to die may be more effective than the current law.

The future of physician-assisted suicide.

Amy Hutchinson is Research Associate for Economic Research Services, Inc. She can be contacted care of Economic Research Services, Inc., 4901 Tower Court, Tallahassee, FL 32303 (E-mail: ahutch@ersnet.com). Henry R. Glick is Professor of Political Science, and Research Associate in the Pepper Institute on Aging and Public Policy at Florida State University. He can be contacted care of the Department of Political Science, Box 2230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2230 (E-mail: hglick@garnet.acns. fsu.edu).