Martha Humphries Ginn

Do Judges Follow the Law When There Is No Fear of Reversal

Some political scientists maintain that Supreme Court justices are more likely than other appellate court judges to vote their ideological preferences. It is argued that Supreme Court justices may vote their preferences without constraint from precedent because of a lack of electoral or political accountability, absence of ambition for higher office, and status as a member of a court of last resort that controls its own docket. While this explanation of attitudinal voting is widely accepted, it has never been tested. As a first test of the asserted institutional foundations of attitudinal voting, the voting of United States Courts of Appeals judges in tort diversity cases is examined. In such cases, appeals court judges benefit from all of the institutional features thought to advance attitudinal voting, except complete docket control. Despite these benefits, the votes of the appeals court judges appear to be highly constrained by law and precedent.

Examining the Effects of Information, Attorney Capability, and Amicus Participation on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making

Focusing on litigators or amicus curiae, a significant amount of scholarship has examined the impact of information on Supreme Court decision making. Taking into account that justices have varying degrees of substantive expertise across issues, we model the interaction of justice expertise with these external sources of information. Specifically, we test whether justices are more likely to be influenced by attorney capability in cases where they have less substantive legal expertise. We also explore whether justices’ reliance on amici is conditional on their own expertise, as well as the overall quality of the litigants’ attorneys. As anticipated, this research finds that as the justice’s legal expertise increases, the influence of attorney capability tends to decrease. Moreover, as the expertise of the judge and/or the quality of the attorneys increase, the impact of amici tends to decrease.

Online Education in Public Affairs: Current State and Emerging Issues

The advances in, and diffusion of, technology have resulted in a growth of online educational opportunities. While programs in public affairs are part of this proliferation in online education, there is limited information on the current state of online education in this area. Using data collected from a survey of 96 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) affiliated institutions, this exploratory study provides an overview of the current landscape of online education in the fields of Master of Public Administration and Master of Public Policy (MPA/MPP). Areas studied include the rationales for offering or not offering online education, concerns with technology, modes of online instruction, student services, faculty and staff demands, and enrollment patterns. The primary goal stated for offering courses and degrees online is to reach more students. We found substantial diversity in teaching methods and types of degrees and concentrations, which suggests students and instructors alike are attracted to online education due to its flexibility. Surprisingly, we did not find any significant problems with technological concerns. Apprehension about the quality and effectiveness of online education persist in the field of public affairs, as well concerns about faculty and staff workloads in online education. Finally, this survey suggests that the most successful schools are those that offer particularized degree concentrations that are able to recruit from a niche market.

Teaching with Tocqueville: Assessing the Utility of Using “Democracy” in the American Government Classroom to Achieve Student-Learning Outcomes

There is a debate in Political Science concerning how best to teach American Government courses. We investigate whether students learn more effectively with texts from the great tradition or from textbooks and other secondary sources. Which medium better guides students toward becoming better citizens? We examine how teaching “The Great Tradition” may increase success in student-learning outcomes. We examine four categories of learning outcomes in the Introduction to American Government classroom: general knowledge, knowledge of current events, civic engagement, and civic virtue. These outcomes were pretested and posttested with a quasi-experimental design. The experimental group studied Tocquevilles Democracy in America, while the control group studied traditional textbooks. The purpose of this project is to see if reading Tocqueville increases success in student-learning outcomes over classes that do not. We test two main sets of hypotheses. The first set concerns group/overall class improvement, and the second set deals with individual student improvement. Our results demonstrate that students’ mean improvement scores pre- to posttest increase more in the experimental sections than in the control sections for the general knowledge, civic engagement, and civic virtue learning components. This research suggests a return to the “classics” as a pedagogical innovation.

Vouching for the Court? How High Stakes Affect Knowledge and Support of the Supreme Court

Building on the geographic constituency theory of awareness of Supreme Court decisions, we conducted a panel survey in Cleveland, Ohio before and after Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which upheld state-funded vouchers in religious schools. We found several characteristics predict awareness: news consumption, income, and knowledge of and positive feelings toward the Court. Our results also showed those vested in the outcome, such as African Americans, religious individuals, and parents were more likely to change their attitudes in favor of the decision and become more positive toward the institution. These findings help us understand the circumstances under which some individuals may become vested in court decisions.