Sisters Under the Mink? Critical Mass and Women Justices on State High Courts

Abstract

Numerous political science studies have examined - and validated - the 'differential viewpoints' theory across various political contexts. Gender differences have been demonstrated in public opinion and voting, Congress and legislative behavior, and interest groups. But voluminous research on courts and judicial behavior has yielded mixed results at best. Regardless, scholars appear unwilling to dismiss the notion of different voice in the judiciary. Although, there is some indication that a gender-based critical mass effect existed in the North Carolina Supreme Court, those findings were not transferable to other state high courts. In fact, our examination of five state high courts (some with critical mass and some without) indicated that an effect is seen when any disruptions occur on the court. The strongest effects were seen when political direction of the court shifted (through minority-majority changes), indicating that justices likely identify more highly overall with their political party or political beliefs than their gender. In light of these findings in other states, it seems likely that the effect seen in North Carolina is not an indicator of gender-based critical mass theory but rather an indicator of a court disruption caused by a new member joining the court.Our data also suggests that the strategy of new members diverges between (1) an expressive strategy of entering the court determined to make an immediate impact through participation or (2) a reticence strategy of choosing to watch and learn the institutional and political norms of the court before increasing participation.