Search

This paper documents and analyzes the 2,277 witnesses who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means (Ways & Means) and the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (Finance) for the 110th (2007-2008), 111th (2009-2010) and the 112th Congresses (2011-2012). This allows us to measure the frequency of women as witness before committees controlled by Democrats (Nancy Pelosi as Speaker (2007-2010); Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader (2007-2012)), and Republicans (John Boehner as Speaker (2011-2012)). We construct a unique Congressional Record Representation Dataset (CRRD) using publicly-available committee reports and hearing transcripts to identify witnesses testifying before these committees to measure each committee as to its efforts to represent women and persons of color. This paper is the initial summary of our findings for witness representation before the tax-writing committees in terms of gender for the 110th through the 112th Congresses (the Review Period), and is the preliminary analysis of a larger project to measure and study the impact of women and persons of color testifying before multiple congressional committees from the 110th through the 115th Congresses. We presented this paper at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Extended versions of the CRRD are included in a forthcoming article by Caroline Bruckner titled, Doubling Down on a Billion Dollar Blind Spot: Women Business Owners and Tax Reform, which the American University Washington College of Law Business Law Review is publishing in Spring 2020.

peer-reviewed To date, Ireland has been a leading light in the provision of youth mental health services. However, cognisant of the efforts of governmental and non-governmental agencies working in youth mental health, there is much to be done. Barriers into care as well as discontinuity of care across the spectrum of services remain key challenges. This editorial provides guidance for the next stage of development in youth mental care and support that will require significant national engagement and resource investment. peer-reviewed

Community colleges occupy a growing role in the American education system. Their unique cross-section of students poses a challenge for teachers of political science. This paper uses information from a survey completed by over 2,000 students at 20 colleges and universities across the United States to shed light on some of the most significant differences between students at two- and four-year institutions. Most notably, students at two-year institutions are less interested in politics and political office than their counterparts at four-year institutions. This paper offers suggestions for narrowing this gap in the political science classroom.

“The word I would use to describe my position on the bench is lonely.” So said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2007, when asked to comment on her position on the U.S. Supreme Court after the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. After a year as the Court's only woman, Ginsburg had begun to feel the solitude that comes from judging alone, being the Court's only descriptive and often symbolic representative of women's interests. Ginsburg's position was not, sadly, as rare as we might hope in industrialized democracies. Although some countries, such as Canada, have had near majorities of women on their respective high courts, other countries, such as the United Kingdom, continue to have only one woman on their national tribunals.

This paper examines whether there is a continued gender gap in the political interest and engagement of first-year college students enrolled in introductory American politics classes. Using data from a survey completed by over 2,000 students at 20 colleges and universities across the United States, we look for variations in students' plans to vote, parental interest in politics, attention to political events, plans to influence public policy, and plans to run for office. We present evidence that while male and female students register to vote and plan to go to the polls at similar rates, female students are less likely to follow politics, to have an interest in influencing public policy, and to consider running for office than their male peers. With these trends in mind, we offer a number of suggestions for instructors to adopt both in and outside the classroom in an effort to warm this chilly climate.

In late 2000, the full import of the role of the Supreme Court in the political system was realized when, by the narrowest of margins, five Justices effectively decided the outcome of the November presidential election. In a case that presented the Court with issues of states rights, the proper role of the federal judiciary, and even the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the reputedly judicial activist adverse majority failed to see the irony of ruling that the Florida Supreme Court had incorrectly interpreted Florida law.' Bush v. Gore (2000), which originated in a Southern state, had impact far beyond the state of Florida and highlighted the highly political role of federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. Clearly, the Supreme Court of the United States can never again be referred to as the "least dangerous branch of government." There is no question that the Court can disturb the political "equilibrium by injecting new or rediscovered social problems or policy alternatives into the national dialogue" (Flemming, Bohte, and Wood 1997, 1247). While de facto selection of a president is not per se a policy alternative, a whole host of policies from abortion to education to taxes, as well as the future composition of the Court, will be affected by the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. This decision in many ways crystallized my general level of discomfort with the state of judicial politics research. As a student of constitutional law, I believed that many in the judicial politics subfield had traded an understanding in the richness of the output of the courts for the opportunity to explain why decisions already made were made without much attention to the actual politics of the Court or the implications of its output. The creation and distribution of the U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database, which includes 40 fields of infor

This work is part of the "SAGE Reference Series on Leadership" and provides undergraduate students with an authoritative reference resource on leadership issues specific to women and gender. It covers historical and contemporary barriers to women's leadership and issues of gender bias and discrimination, but also places a strong focus on positive aspects and opportunities for leadership in various domains. The two-volume set is centered on the 100 most important topics, issues, questions and debates specific to women and gender. By focusing on 100 key topics, more detailed information and depth of discussion is provided than typically found in an encyclopedia entry but not as much jargon, detail or density as a journal article or a research handbook chapter. Key Themes: women and public leadership in the American context; women's global leadership; and women as leaders in the business sector, the nonprofit and social service sector, religion, academia, public policy, advocacy, the media, sports, and the arts.

In announcing his nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court on July 2, 1991, George Bush described him as “a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind,” and proclaimed his belief that Thomas would “be a great Justice.” While many legal and political commentators had predicted that Clarence Thomas stood an excellent chance of being Bush's nominee to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall, few were quick to echo Bush's assessment that Thomas was:… the best qualified at this time …. Clarence Thomas … fits my description of the best man at the right time. … I kept my word to the American people and to the Senate by picking the best man for the job on the merits. (New York Times, 2 July 1991)Even as Bush offered Thomas's name in nomination, the skeptics were muttering about the hyperbole that surrounded the announcement. Thomas's total lack of courtroom experience and his generally undistinguished record as a jurist led many to question his qualifications to serve on the High Court. Concern with his general absence of legal credentials prompted the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to rate Thomas merely as “Qualified”—making him the only nominee with such a low rating to serve on the Supreme Court.The authority and prestige of the United States Supreme Court have always rested on its support from the other branches of government and, perhaps even more importantly, on the support of the American public.

Claire L. Felbinger passed away suddenly at her home on Wednesday, May 28, due to a complication from multiple sclerosis (MS). At the time of her death, she had been employed at the Japan International Transport Institute.

In a series of decisions handed down during the 1988-1989 term, the U.S. Supreme Court sent clear signals that its equal protection analysis and affirmative action jurisprudence are undergoing reexamination. The most important affirmative action decision during the term was City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. The Court ruled that Richmond's minority business enterprise program, which set aside 30 percent of the dollar amount of government construction contracts for minority-owned firms, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In the wake of Croson, federal and state courts have considered other cases involving set-aside programs, while a number of other programs have been abandoned, placed under evaluation, or modified to meet the guidelines laid down by the Court.

The twenty participants in this seminar came from a variety of colleges and universities that ranged from major research institutions to small teaching colleges. The academic ranks and interests of those in attendance also were diverse. This heterogeneity of participants was intentional and designed to facilitate a meaningful exchange of ideas and perspectives on the topics to be discussed. Formal class sessions were held for three and one-half hours each morning. The instructor made herself available for individual discussions later each day. Seminar participants were urged to take advantage of the unique location of the seminar. It was held at the APSA convention site only a few blocks away from the Martin Luther King, Jr. birth site and the MLK Center for Nonviolent Social Change.The focus of this seminar in the main was to explore the role that interest groups have played and are likely to continue to play in the judicial process. Our focus was on the federal level, particularly the United States Supreme Court. Given the varied backgrounds and interests of those attending this seminar, it was believed that such an approach would provide a broader and richer understanding of not only the development of law concerning civil rights but also of the judicial process itself.After introductions the first morning, we immediately launched into a discussion of the readings for the day. They were designed to acquaint the participants with some of the literature on interest group litigation. Interestingly, however, the focus of our attention was immediately turned to the idea of “group” and what was meant by interest group or social movement. Several participants had been grappling with these questions in their own research, and others had had extensive experience in a diverse set of groups. A lengthy discourse from varied perspectives then ensued.

gress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise of religious beliefs. The language employed is enigmatic, reflecting the delicate balance that the Constitution seeks to strike among the individual, the state and religion. The mosaic of religious groups in colonial America and the concern by the Founders to protect their religious freedom was "one of the forces that ultimately led to the adoption of a secular Constitution that included specific mention of free exercise and disestablishment" (Pfeffer, 1977: 13). As the branch of government whose responsibility it is to decide the constitutionality of federal and state laws that challenge the relationship between religion and the state, the judiciary is faced with the unenviable task of adjudicating disputes that fall within the language of the First Amendment. Since the 1940s, when it first began applying the religion clauses to the states, the Court has ruled on the constitutionality of prayer and Bible reading in public schools, government assistance to parochial schools as well as general issues of what the state may legitimately demand from an individual without impinging on the free exercise of his or her religious beliefs. The aim of the Court has been to strike a balance between respect for the role of religion in American public life while prohibiting state preference for any religious faith. It is hardly surprising, then, that the fruits of its labors have been greeted with less than unanimous satisfaction from the competing interests of religious and non-religious groups. To expect anything more would be to discount the complex question of what limits the Constitution places on religion as a moral and educational component in our public and social order. Public school systems have often been the battleground for the most controversial cases involving religion and state. While these cases now most often involve prayer or government assistance to parochial schools, the first great debate involving religious instruction in the public schools-the teaching of creationism or evolution as the basis for the origins of man-has returned to the courts albeit in a more sophisticated form. This essay addresses the impact that the new wave of "creationism-evolution" cases recently decided in the federal courts have had on the place of religion in the public schools. Specifically, we look

Using a modified resource mobilization perspective this article introduces hypotheses concerning the motivation for the development of countermovements. The anti-ERA Movement is used as a case study to explore the theoretical model of countermovements and constitutional change that is proposed.

Research on interest group litigation long has focused almost exclusively on liberal groups. This examination undertakes an analysis of conservative group use of the courts during the Burger Court era. Contrary to widespread expectation, conservative groups litigate in a strategic fashion but do so through the more limited form of participation--the amicus curiae brief--which they view as an effective lobbying device. In fact, conservative groups have used the amicus curiae brief with increasing frequency since the mid-1970s.

Scholars have long recognized that interest groups realize the importance of the courts as policymakers and as vehicles of social and political change. We examined the amicus curiae participation of the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement in criminal cases before the Burger Court from 1969–1982. We found that AELE, a conservative law-enforcement organization, has been the most successful interest group as participant as amid. Moreover, we found that criminal law is yet another area of law in which interest groups are using the Supreme Court to achieve and protect their policy interests.

In 1969 Nathan Hakman published a report of his investigation of the role of interest groups in Supreme Court litigation. He found that interest groups filed amicus curiae briefs in only 18.6 percent1 of the 1,175 "noncommercial"2 cases decided by the Supreme Court between 1928 and 1966. Participation as amicus curiae illustrates only one aspect of litigation activity, and at that one of the most limited, but Hakman took this as a reliable indicator that interest group activity in the courts was less frequent than was commonly supposed. Based on these findings, Hakman attacked the view that amicus participation was a form of political action. Such a view, he argued, was mere "scholarly folklore" (Hakman, 1969: 199). Hakman's observations can be understood best in the

prevailing parties were not entitled to recover their costs or attorneys' fees when they successfully advanced their claims on the merits. In 1964 this situation changed dramatically; passage of Title II of the Civil Rights Act coupled with a subsequent expansive Supreme Court interpretation of that provision, quickly led to erosion of the rule. In this paper we attempt to examine the demise of this longstanding public policy and the consequences of this change. The importance of such an analysis lies in the fact that (1) it is an issue that never has been studied by political scientists, and (2) it is an issue of paramount interest to all of the parties involved in this controversy: interest groups, Congress, and the courts. Interest groups litigating in the public interest depend on attorneys' fees awards for a substantial proportion of their operating expenses. Congress was especially concerned with implementation of civil rights laws and with appeasing affected "friendly" groups, and the Supreme Court, which was innundated with public interest lawsuits, quickly came to view attorneys' fees provisions as impediments to the orderly administration of justice. To facilitate an examination of this issue our paper is divided into two sections. In the first, we trace the evolution of the American rule. In the second, we demonstrate how the issue of attorneys' fees supports elements contained in various theories of pressure group politics. Seen in this light, fee shifting provides one issue by which to bridge several accepted notions of interest group activity. THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN RULE