Richard L. Vining

Measuring Case Salience in State Courts of Last Resort

Scholars recognize that both citizens and elites may alter their behavior in response to salient stimuli. Epstein and Segal’s (2000) measure of salience for the United States Supreme Court provided a valid and reproducible way to assess the political salience of cases. No comparable measure exists for state high courts. The authors introduce a measure of case salience for state supreme courts that is comprehensive and similar to the Epstein-Segal measure. We discuss the utility of this measure, compare it to several alternatives, provide descriptive statistics, and discuss the relationship between case salience and judicial behavior in state supreme courts.

Grassroots Mobilization in the Digital age: Interest Group Response to Supreme Court Nominees

This study examines how ten interest groups used electronic mail to mobilize their supporters in response to the Supreme Court nominations of John G. Roberts, Jr., Harriet Miers, and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. The effects of group characteristics and goals, the dynamics of the confirmation process, and prior behavior are evaluated. Logit results reveal that group traits and preferences influence the likelihood of requests for action and donations. Funding requests were also conditioned by the stage of the process. The findings show that interest groups use Supreme Court turnover as an opportunity for political advocacy and organizational maintenance.

Bias and the Bar

The vetting of potential federal judges by the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association (ABA) is politically controversial. Conservatives allege the Standing Committee is biased against Republican nominees. The ABA and its defenders argue the ABA rates nominees objectively based on their qualifications. The authors investigate whether accusations of liberal bias have merit. They analyze all individuals nominated to the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1977 to 2008. Using genetic matching methods and ordered logit models, the authors find evidence of bias against Republican nominees in the ABA’s ratings. They conclude by discussing the implications of these results.

The Causes and Consequences of Gubernatorial Endorsements: Evidence From State Supreme Court Elections

Governors are generally the best-known figures in state politics. They have many roles, including service as political leaders in their states. One aspect of this role is the promotion of their favored policies and electoral candidates. We examine why governors endorse candidates for state-level office using data from partisan and nonpartisan state supreme court elections from 1999 to 2008. We examine both decisions to endorse and whether endorsements influence electoral results. Our findings indicate that a governor’s decision to endorse a candidate is the product of pragmatic considerations and executive resources. We also conclude that governors’ endorsements have a significant effect on electoral outcomes.

Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage: The Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate

Presidents often see a Supreme Court nomination as an opportunity to leave a lasting mark on policy. Recent studies speculate that focusing on Supreme Court nominees affects presidential success beyond the confirmation process, but this has not been established systematically. We develop and test a hypothesis stating that presidents who get into a battle to promote a controversial Supreme Court nominee will see delays and failures in their efforts to promote their legislative agenda in the Senate and fill lower level judicial vacancies. We test our theory using data on presidential policy agenda items from 1967 to 2010 and lower level judicial nominations from 1977 to 2010. We find that increased efforts in promoting confirmation reduce the likelihood of timely Senate approval of important policy proposals and nominees to federal district courts.

A Market-Based Model of State Supreme Court News Lessons from Capital Cases

In this article, we present and test a market-based model of news content about state courts of last resort. We test our theory by examining newspaper coverage of decisions in death penalty cases. Our empirical results indicate that news elements of drama, novelty, and sensationalism influence coverage of state high courts’ death penalty cases rather than traditional indicators of legal salience. News content either anywhere in a newspaper or on its front page is influenced by similar factors, but front-page coverage is more sensitive to dramatic conviction reversals and the rarity of executions in a given state. Our results suggest that traditional explanations of the relationship between crime and newsworthiness have limited impact on media attention given to state supreme courts. Media coverage of state high courts is instead associated primarily with the behavior of the court and its justices.