Does Quality Matter? Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections

Hall, Melinda Gann; Bonneau, Chris W.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00167.x

Cited by 95 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In that case we confound the competence effects of term limits with pre-existing differences in average quality. In order to control for this possibility, we include a variable reflecting the governor's years of political experience prior to becoming governor, which is a standard proxy for a politician's quality, measured at the time of entering office (Bond, Covington, and Fleisher 1985;Hall and Bonneau 2006;Jacobson 1989;Van Dunk 1997). 10 Finally, we include state fixed effects, year fixed effects, and state-specific linear time trends to address any remaining unobserved heterogeneity.…”

Section: Independent Variables and Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits

Alt

Mesquita²,

Rose³

2011

The Journal of Politics

204

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We exploit variation in U.S. gubernatorial term limits across states and time to empirically estimate two separate effects of elections on government performance. Holding tenure in office constant, differences in performance by reelectioneligible and term-limited incumbents identify an accountability effect: reelection-eligible governors have greater incentives to exert costly effort on behalf of voters. Holding term-limit status constant, differences in performance by incumbents in different terms identify a competence effect: later-term incumbents are more likely to be competent both because they have survived reelection and because they have experience in office. We show that economic growth is higher and taxes, spending, and borrowing costs are lower under reelection-eligible incumbents than under term-limited incumbents (accountability), and under reelected incumbents than under first-term incumbents (competence), all else equal. In addition to improving our understanding of the role of elections in representative democracy, these findings resolve an empirical puzzle about the disappearance of the effect of term limits on gubernatorial performance over time.E lections play two potential roles in representative democracy. First, elections may mitigate moral hazard by creating accountability; that is, politicians may take costly actions on behalf of voters because they know that they will only be reelected if their performance exceeds some standard (e.g., Barro 1973;Ferejohn 1986). Second, elections may mitigate adverse selection by allowing voters to select competent types who perform better, in expectation, than an unknown challenger. Moreover, in the absence of term limits, elections allow voters to retain incumbents whose competence has increased through experience (Padro i Miquel and Snyder 2006). Thus, over time elections may help voters weed out bad types and retain good types (e.g., Ashworth 2005; Ashworth and Bueno de Mesquita 2008;Fearon 1999;Gordon, Huber, and Landa 2007;Gowrisankaran, Mitchell, and Moro 2008;Zaller 1998). 1 Empirically distinguishing the accountability and competence effects of elections has proven difficult. While Fearon (1999) emphasizes a trade-off between accountability and competence (or selecting good types), in many theoretical models, both effects operate in the same direction (Ashworth 2005;Ashworth and Bueno de Mesquita 2006;Banks and Sundaram 1998;Besley 2006;Duggan 2000). Voters' threat to reelect only incumbents believed to be good types gives politicians an incentive to exert effort in order to try to convince voters that they are ''good'' (that is, more competent than they really are). For this reason, behavior by voters that alleviates adverse selection simultaneously alleviates moral hazard.We devise an empirical strategy to isolate the two effects by exploiting variation in the length of gubernatorial term limits. The basic argument is as follows. The relative performance of incumbents in the same term, some of whom are eligible to run again and some of whom a...

show abstract

Section: Independent Variables and Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits

Alt

Mesquita²,

Rose³

2011

The Journal of Politics

204

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2004, fifty-five percent of Republicans and forty-five percent of Democrats voted straight tickets in Texas elections (Mack, 2006). The level of uncertainty for voters that Baum discussed seems to be diminishing in recent years because Hall and Bonneau (2006) found that experienced challengers for judicial seats, however, enjoy a higher rate of success against incumbents with the electorate apparently considering the qualifications of the candidate in making their voting decisions.…”

Section: Judicial Elections: An Overview and Discussion Of Important mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hall and Bonneau (2006) indicated that quality is related to experience, with both appointed and elected judges generally having extensive experience on the bench or in the legal profession. Surprisingly, the literature does not suggest other proxy measures for candidate quality and experience seems like the best measure logically (compared to something like law school attended, etc.)…”

Section: Judicial Elections: An Overview and Discussion Of Important mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisdiction Matter?

Monroe¹,

Mitchell²,

Payne³

2015

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of both the Texas Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals makes it possible to test several important hypotheses of elections held between 1988 and 2008 using a variety of statistical tools related to the impact that subject matter jurisdiction (civil versus criminal) has on the outcomes of an election. In this comparative analysis, this article shows that the factors that influence election outcomes for seats on one court are different than those factors that influence outcomes on the other. New information is learned about the importance of demographic variables, judicial or legislative experience, and performance in the state bar poll.

show abstract

“…One of the main areas of concern is the influx of money into judicial elections, which is why there has been increased attention by judicial scholars to the effects of campaign contributions on judicial decision making (Bonneau 2005;Hall and Bonneau 2006). Advocates of an independent judiciary free from electoral pressures cite the growing number of studies showing a relationship between contributions and case outcomes.…”

Section: Previous Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

Rebe

2016

ARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the causal connection between attorney contributions and judicial decisions in elective states. The results show that contributions are a significant predictor of appellant success in state supreme courts when judges receive contributions from the attorneys for the appellant. However, this relationship is contingent on the competitiveness of the judicial seat. The analysis shows that judges who received a low percentage of the vote in the previous election are more likely to vote with contributors than judges who received a high percentage. This evidence bolsters the argument that contributions directly affect decision making when judges feel electoral pressure. The results also support the proposition that elected judges are more likely to vote with donors in states with nonpartisan ballots. While the contribution amounts are higher in partisan states, the judges in the nonpartisan sample are more closely aligned with their contributors when it comes to decision making.

show abstract

Does Quality Matter? Challengers in State Supreme Court Elections

Cited by 95 publications

References 54 publications

Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits

Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits

An Exploratory Analysis of Judicial Elections in Texas: Does Subject Matter Jurisdiction Matter?

Analyzing the Link between Dollars and Decisions: A Multi-State Study of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About