Teena Wilhelm

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.

The Policymaking Role of State Supreme Courts in Education Policy

In this article, I examine the relationship between courts and legislatures from a comparative perspective. Specifically, I discuss how (1) the ideological composition of the bench, (2) the propensity of court involvement in a given policy area, and (3) the presence of an advisory opinion affect the number of bill introductions and policy enactments by state legislatures. Examination of education policy in the American states reveals that ideologically distant courts limit the number of bill introductions and bill enactments in state legislatures. Alternatively, the presence of an advisory opinion increases policy introduction and enactment in state legislatures. A fundamental implication of these findings is that courts exert the greatest impact on policy during the introduction stage of the legislative process. Previous studies have not examined the introduction stage and have therefore marginalized the real impact of court influence on policy.

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.

Deliberation Rules and Opinion Assignment Procedures in State Supreme Courts: A Replication

Conference discussion, voting, and opinion assignment affect court collegiality and policy output. We examine these institutional mechanisms at the state supreme courts and update decades-old research regarding these practices. We find significant differences between previous findings and our own. We note recent developments in deliberative rules and opinion assignment procedures at these courts and offer a preliminary analysis regarding their likely impact on court collegiality and doctrinal development. We conclude with suggestions for further research in light of our findings regarding strategic behavior and policy output at the state courts of last resort.

Education Finance Reform in the American States: A Discrete-Time Competing Risks Model

In this research, we develop a model that predicts the occurrence of education finance reform in the states. We improve upon existing studies of education finance reform that depict the process as a single event that may happen in only state supreme courts or state legislatures. We account for the possibility of reform via courts, legislatures or referendum as well as the possibility of repeated reform events. In this way, we have a more complete, more accurate picture of the reform movement in the states.

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.