Voter response to salient judicial decisions in retention elections

Allison Harris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Even at their most salient, judicial retention elections do not increase turnout on Election Day. However, those who vote often participate in judicial retention races at higher levels than usual following salient judicial decisions. I use a series of difference-in-differences analyses to estimate the effect of the Iowa Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage on the subsequent retention races. I find that retention race participation was higher than we would have otherwise expected after the decision. Scholars often cite the infrequence with which justices are removed as evidence of justices’ relative independence from voters in retention elections, but the overwhelming retention of these justices does not mean they are independent from voters. Increases in the number of ballots cast in these races is perhaps more important than increases in negative votes when it comes to judicial independence, because each vote is an evaluation of the justices, whether positive or negative.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)170-191
Number of pages22
JournalLaw and Social Inquiry
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

voter
election
justice
legalization
Supreme Court
marriage
participation
evaluation
evidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Law

Cite this

Harris, Allison. / Voter response to salient judicial decisions in retention elections. In: Law and Social Inquiry. 2019 ; Vol. 44, No. 1. pp. 170-191.
@article{d3375accd32d42c38be788f7ca2119ec,
title = "Voter response to salient judicial decisions in retention elections",
abstract = "Even at their most salient, judicial retention elections do not increase turnout on Election Day. However, those who vote often participate in judicial retention races at higher levels than usual following salient judicial decisions. I use a series of difference-in-differences analyses to estimate the effect of the Iowa Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage on the subsequent retention races. I find that retention race participation was higher than we would have otherwise expected after the decision. Scholars often cite the infrequence with which justices are removed as evidence of justices’ relative independence from voters in retention elections, but the overwhelming retention of these justices does not mean they are independent from voters. Increases in the number of ballots cast in these races is perhaps more important than increases in negative votes when it comes to judicial independence, because each vote is an evaluation of the justices, whether positive or negative.",
author = "Allison Harris",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/lsi.2018.21",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "170--191",
journal = "Law and Social Inquiry",
issn = "0897-6546",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Voter response to salient judicial decisions in retention elections. / Harris, Allison.

In: Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 44, No. 1, 01.02.2019, p. 170-191.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Voter response to salient judicial decisions in retention elections

AU - Harris, Allison

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Even at their most salient, judicial retention elections do not increase turnout on Election Day. However, those who vote often participate in judicial retention races at higher levels than usual following salient judicial decisions. I use a series of difference-in-differences analyses to estimate the effect of the Iowa Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage on the subsequent retention races. I find that retention race participation was higher than we would have otherwise expected after the decision. Scholars often cite the infrequence with which justices are removed as evidence of justices’ relative independence from voters in retention elections, but the overwhelming retention of these justices does not mean they are independent from voters. Increases in the number of ballots cast in these races is perhaps more important than increases in negative votes when it comes to judicial independence, because each vote is an evaluation of the justices, whether positive or negative.

AB - Even at their most salient, judicial retention elections do not increase turnout on Election Day. However, those who vote often participate in judicial retention races at higher levels than usual following salient judicial decisions. I use a series of difference-in-differences analyses to estimate the effect of the Iowa Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage on the subsequent retention races. I find that retention race participation was higher than we would have otherwise expected after the decision. Scholars often cite the infrequence with which justices are removed as evidence of justices’ relative independence from voters in retention elections, but the overwhelming retention of these justices does not mean they are independent from voters. Increases in the number of ballots cast in these races is perhaps more important than increases in negative votes when it comes to judicial independence, because each vote is an evaluation of the justices, whether positive or negative.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066150023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066150023&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/lsi.2018.21

DO - 10.1017/lsi.2018.21

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85066150023

VL - 44

SP - 170

EP - 191

JO - Law and Social Inquiry

JF - Law and Social Inquiry

SN - 0897-6546

IS - 1

ER -