Search

A growing body of empirical research shows an association between public support for the US Supreme Court and both judicial independence and congressional court curbing activity. At the same time, studies of jurisdiction stripping show Congress' efforts to limit federal courts' jurisdiction are principally related to courts' workloads rather than ideological differences between courts and Congress. Here, the authors connect these streams of inquiry by testing the hypothesis of a negative relationship between public support for the Supreme Court and jurisdiction-stripping legislation. Contrary to prior studies, the authors find a positive relationship between Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court and jurisdiction stripping. This result indicates the need for additional research on the interactions among public opinion, federal courts, and Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing body of work examines the consequences of unequal participation in American democracy for electoral outcomes. However, this scholarship has ignored the potential impact of unequal voting for the quality of dynamic representation in the American political system. Using data from the General Social Survey (GSS), we examine the dynamic relationship between the policy preferences of voters and nonvoters in the American electorate. Further, we assess how unequal participation--and the incentives that it may give to policymaking elites--may moderate the relationship between the mass public and policy outcomes. Our analysis reveals that the policy preferences of voters and nonvoters respond in similar ways to the political and economic environment. In addition, we find no evidence that national policymaking elites are differentially responsive to changes in the preferences of voters and nonvoters.

Judicial deference to elected legislatures and executives on questions of constitutionality is motivated, in part, by a belief that unelected judges should not interfere with the application of the people's political authority by their elected representatives. This view assumes that unelected judges are unrepresentative of the people and that elected officials are faithful agents of their constituents. Canonical and contemporary research in political science, though, challenge these assumptions. The "regime politics" perspective proposes judicial majorities are typically partners in a national governing coalition and that judicial decisions--even those that invalidate or narrowly interpret laws created by elected institutions--tend to advance the interests of legislative majorities and the voters who support them. More recent "popular agency" theories of judicial power claim electoral majorities may make common cause with unelected judges in ways that stymie the political goals of elected representatives. This Essay describes these two perspectives on the relationship between majoritarian politics and judicial power and describes some of their implications for the problem of judicial deference. I argue first the regime politics view of judicial power suggests normative concerns about judicial deference to the political branches of government is misplaced. Meaningful and independent judicial scrutiny of legislative and executive policy making is foreign to a system in which courts, Congress, and president are members of the same team. In contrast, I argue the popular agency view of judicial independence suggests that courts' latitude to independently interrogate policy making by the elected branches of government will vary, in part, as a function of the public's perception of their elected representatives' trustworthiness. I conclude by identifying some political factors that may support diminished judicial deference to the choices of elected legislatures and executives in some cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We develop and assess an account of ideological asymmetries in public support for the Supreme Court. We find that specific support for the Supreme Court is more strongly negatively related to perceptions that the Court is overly liberal than perceptions that the Court is overly conservative. Our findings provide a more complete theoretical account of dynamics in specific support for the Supreme Court and indicate a mechanism behind the recent decline in the Supreme Court's public standing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is convincing evidence that Americans have high, stable levels of knowledge about the Supreme Court. Yet, this conclusion masks variance in political knowledge associated with ethnicity. Using data from surveys of Latinos and non-Latinos fielded before and after the Supreme Court's rulings in Arizona v. United States and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , we find Latinos know less about the Court than other Americans. However, Latinos' knowledge of the Court increased significantly between the surveys, while others' Supreme Court knowledge did not. We discuss the implications of this result for the Supreme Court's legitimacy and civic education policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is substantial evidence that American voters blame or credit the president for the state of the economy when making electoral decisions. However, a variety of findings on economic voting, cognitive biases in information processing, and party polarization indicate that both objective and subjective economic information should become less important to voters as partisan polarization increases. We evaluate whether partisan polarization attenuates the link between economic performance and citizens' votes. Methods: We estimate statistical models of the incumbent party vote shares in U.S. presidential elections from 1952 to 2016 including as predictive terms national partisan polarization (DW‐NOMINATE) and the interaction between polarization and economic growth (annualized second quarter GDP change in election years). Results: We find support for our expectation that greater partisan polarization mitigates the association between economic performance and American election returns. Conclusion: Economic performance exerts less influence on vote choices when parties are highly polarized than when they are not. Also, currently high levels of partisan polarization in the United States indicate elections will remain competitive, even if economic conditions otherwise favor or undermine an incumbent candidate's chances of winning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judicial protection of disfavored minorities against oppressive legislation in majoritarian separation-of-power systems raises a puzzle: Why don't legislative majorities enacting discriminatory legislation curb judicial power when judges use their power to protect minorities and stymie the legislation? We answer this question by showing that judicial protection of disfavored minorities can emerge as an unintended by-product of majoritarian politics. We develop a model that includes the two aspects of judicial review Alexander Hamilton discusses in The Federalist No. 78: Judicial protection of disfavored minorities against hostile popular majorities, and judicial protection of majority interests against legislative depredation. It is the institutional linkage between these functions that induces popular majorities, within limits, to side with judges against legislatures even when those judges protect minorities that popular majorities want to oppress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Americans continue to express greater and more stable levels of confidence in the Supreme Court than in Congress or the executive branch of the federal government, the Supreme Court's public standing has fallen steadily over the last fifteen years. A growing body of research in political science and related fields indicates that declining public support undermines judicial independence. To illustrate these effects, we estimate a statistical model of the Supreme Court's propensity to invalidate federal laws on constitutional grounds in each term from 1973 through 2014 and generate predictions of the number of federal laws struck down by the Supreme Court under various political conditions. This analysis shows how the decline in public support during the Roberts Court year has affected the Justices' willingness to invalidate federal laws. We argue that evidence of a link between persistent declines in the Supreme Court's public standing and lost judicial independence suggest that Chief Justice Roberts take a more aggressive public stance as an advocate for the Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Formal constitutional systems of separated powers often fail to sustain meaningful systems of checks and balances in presidential-style democracies. What conditions support balance in the separation of powers and what conditions provoke instability and conflict? We draw on Madisonian political theory and research addressing the separation of powers in the United States to develop a game theoretical model of inter-institutional stability and conflict within a separation of powers system. Two factors emerge as catalysts for institutional instability and conflict among the branches of government: high-stakes institutional rivalry combined with uncertainty about the public’s relative support for various branches of government. We apply the model to the experience of Honduras in 2008–2009 that resulted in the coup ousting President Zelaya which illustrates the difficulty of developing credible checks and balances. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]