View in EDS

Democratizing U.S. Courts: Perceived Representation and Support for Judicial Elections.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Democratizing U.S. Courts: Perceived Representation and Support for Judicial Elections.
Authors: Armaly, Miles T., Bruce, John M.
Source: Political Research Quarterly; Mar2025, Vol. 78 Issue 1, p72-86, 15p
Subject Terms: JUDICIAL elections, RACIAL & ethnic attitudes, RACISM, PERCEIVED benefit, TERM limits (Public office), SEXISM
Abstract: The American mass public abstractly supports the federal judiciary, but supports concrete alterations to the institution (e.g., term limits). We argue that some efforts to alter the institution are not exclusively punitive, but relate to broader, non-judicial orientations toward government. Using nationally representative data from the 2020 Cooperative Election Study (CES), we find that attitudes toward representation and which types of people ought to hold power underlie support for judicial elections. Specifically, perceived representation, believing men to be better suited to politics than women, and holding racist attitudes are related to support for appointments over elections, even when controlling for diffuse support, perceived judicial politicization, and other relevant measures regarding the judiciary. We argue such individuals wish to maintain the appointment system which has yielded perceived benefits. Additionally, political sophistication exacerbates these effects. Rather than just a way to alter courts for delivering displeasing policy, support for some judicial changes may relate to efforts to democratize, and thereby diversify, courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Political Research Quarterly is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Complementary Index
Description
Abstract:The American mass public abstractly supports the federal judiciary, but supports concrete alterations to the institution (e.g., term limits). We argue that some efforts to alter the institution are not exclusively punitive, but relate to broader, non-judicial orientations toward government. Using nationally representative data from the 2020 Cooperative Election Study (CES), we find that attitudes toward representation and which types of people ought to hold power underlie support for judicial elections. Specifically, perceived representation, believing men to be better suited to politics than women, and holding racist attitudes are related to support for appointments over elections, even when controlling for diffuse support, perceived judicial politicization, and other relevant measures regarding the judiciary. We argue such individuals wish to maintain the appointment system which has yielded perceived benefits. Additionally, political sophistication exacerbates these effects. Rather than just a way to alter courts for delivering displeasing policy, support for some judicial changes may relate to efforts to democratize, and thereby diversify, courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10659129
DOI:10.1177/10659129241286891