The Effects of Judicial Campaign Activity on the Legitimacy of Courts: A Survey-Based Experiment, Pennsylvania, 2007.

As elections for state judicial offices have become "noisier, nastier, and costlier" (Schotland 2002), court observers have become increasingly concerned about the consequences of campaign activity for the perceived impartiality of judges and the legitimacy of courts. Unfortunately, however, little systematic evidence exists on how citizens view their state judiciaries and whether those views are shaped by the campaign activities of candidates for judicial office. Perhaps the alarmists are correct about the corrosive effects of politicized campaigning; but perhaps they are instead incorrect to the extent that the American people actually prefer judges to engage in real, policy-based contests for judicial office.The purpose of this paper is to investigate the consequences of judicial campaign activity for the perceived legitimacy of the Pennsylvania judiciary. Based on a panel survey of registered Pennsylvanian voters — conducted before, during, and after the 2007 election — we rely upon a formal, video-based experiment in which subjects are exposed to actual advertisements and related campaign communications broadcast by and about candidates for judicial offices. Our central hypothesis is that those exposed to highly politicized content will extend less legitimacy to courts. The process we believe involved in the changing of attitudes is one in which citizens learn that courts are just "ordinary political institutions," and, as such, have no special claims to respect and legitimacy. We find mixed support for the hypothesis that the "new-style" of judicial campaigns poses important threats to the nation's elected courts. Politicized campaign ads do detract from court support, although we find practically no difference between traditional campaign ads (e.g., presenting endorsements from groups) and strong attack ads. But this finding must be understood within the context of the 2007 election increasing court support for all respondents, even those exposed to the most politicized ad content. Being exposed to politicized ads seems to retard the benefits of elections, but not eliminate them. Our findings suggest that it may be necessary to re-think the expectations the American people hold of their elected judges and courts, and how perceived impartiality and institutional legitimacy can be protected in the context of sharp debate over the policies judges make. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]