Someone like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees

Abstract

Extant research on public support for judicial nominees finds that ideological congruence with the nominee is the most important factor in an individual’s decision to support a nominee. The research presented in this article develops the theory that for individuals from underrepresented groups, a shared descriptive identity with the nominee will moderate the negative effect of ideological distance. We test our theory using the nominations of Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Furthermore, we conduct placebo tests to determine whether the effect of ideology is moderated for underrepresented groups when a shared descriptive identity is not present. We find that in the context of the Thomas nomination, a shared racial identity led to increased support for Thomas among liberal African Americans. We find similar effects in the case of Kagan and conservative women. In the case of Sotomayor, we find that a shared ethnic identity led to increased support among conservative Latinos, regardless of gender. We conclude by discussing the implications our findings have for descriptive representation and presidential selection of judicial nominees.

Voters’ evaluation of (contra-)prototypical political candidates. An experimental test of the interaction of candidate gender and policy positions cues in Flanders (Belgium)

“…This study, however, also shows that for individuals from underrepresented groups, a shared descriptive identity with the nominee will moderate the negative effect of ideological distance(Badas & Stauffer, 2018).…”

“…Accordingly, when voters are presented information regarding the policy positions of a candidate, such information is expected to affect voter evaluations of the candidate. There is some empirical evidence to support this assumption: experiments demonstrate that party labels on judicial nominees crowd out the influence of ethnicity and race in the assessment of such nominees (Sen, 2017) and that ideological congruence with the nominee is the most important factor in an individual's decision to support a nominee (Badas & Stauffer, 2018). 3 Furthermore, Kirkland and Coppock (2018) find that information on party affiliation tends to crowd out the influence of candidate experience and Badas and Stauffer (2019) empirically demonstrate that shared partisanship between candidate and voter is the best predictor of vote choice in partisan elections.…”

Michelle Obama as a Political Symbol: Race, Gender, and Public Opinion toward the First Lady

“…Morgan and Buice (2013) suggest that women's presence in nonelected executive positions can help to shape broader attitudes about women's political roles. In the U.S. context, Badas and Stauffer (2018) find that in the absence of ideological congruence, U.S. Supreme Court nominees are able to elicit support from Americans who share a nominee's gender, race, or ethnicity.…”

“…See also Badas and Stauffer (2018), who demonstrate high levels of support for Thomas even among liberal and Democratic African Americans.…”

Latino Judges on the Federal District Court: ¿Cómo Deciden?

“…(Ashenfelter et al, 1995; Harris & Sen, 2019; Kritzer, 1978; Kulik et al, 2003; Segal & Spaeth, 2002). The relationship between race and judicial decision-making is common in the literature (Badas & Stauffer, 2018; A. Cohen & Yang, 2018; Collins & Moyer, 2008; Grossman, Gazal-Ayal, Pimentel, & Weinstein, 2016; Kastellec, 2013; Mustard, 2001; Scherer, 2004; Scherer & Curry, 2010; Tiede et al, 2010; Walker & Barrow, 1985).…”