Half a century ago, on January 11, 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General's office released a landmark report on the health consequences of smoking. That report received massive media attention and triggered a steadily growing number of federal, state, and local restrictions on the advertising, sale, and use of cigarettes. Little is known about the report's impact on American public opinion because all the timely public opinion polls that measured the report's impact were privately commissioned by the tobacco industry and were not made publicly available. A review of these polls shows that the 1964 Surgeon General's report had a large and immediate effect on Americans' beliefs that cigarettes were a cause of lung cancer and of heart disease. However, the report had less impact on public preferences for government action or on smoking rates.

Evidence for the Supreme Court's legitimacy-conferring role is measured by examining shifts in pre- and postdecision public opinions polls. A study of 18 poll shifts since the 1930s indicates that the average pre- to postdecision poll shift is virtually zero. Under limited circumstances, however, larger poll shifts toward the Court's position do occur, especially when the Court makes liberal, activist decisions and when a time-lag variable is allowed for.

Evidence suggests that the modern Supreme Court reflects nationwide public opinion in nearly three-fifths of its decisions. The post-New Deal Court has been especially majoritarian in federal-level disputes and in “crisis times” cases. Overall, the modern Court appears to be as majoritarian as other American policymakers.

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.Since the work of V. 0. Key, several surveys have tested representation in primary elections. In many states, however, open-precinct caucuses and conventions supplement or replace primaries as a basis for "grass roots" party organization and in presidential delegate selection. Contrary to most assumptions, one state party's open-precinct caucuses were found to perform as well as equivalent primaries in representing policy, candidate or party-related attitudes, although performing somewhat worse in demographic representation.* I wish to express my appreciation to Frank Sorauf and Charles Backstrom of the University of Minnesota for their assistance and comments on an earlier version of this article. Data were made available by Robert Coursen, of the Minneapolis Tribune News Research Department, and computer analysis assisted by the University of Minnesota and the University of Texas at Arlington. Brenda Rice and Marget Hagen provided editorial assistance in revising this manuscript.