Judicial Diversity Research Articles

Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts

This paper evaluates the substantive consequences of judicial diversity on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Because of the small percentage of racial minorities on the federal bench, the key question in evaluating these consequences is not whether minority judges simply vote differently from non-minority judges, but whether their presence on appellate courts influences their colleagues and also affects case outcomes. Using matching methods, I show that black judges are significantly more likely than white judges to support affirmative action programs. In fact, the random assignment of a black counter-judge - a black judge sitting with two white judges - to a three-judge panel of the Courts of Appeals nearly ensures that the panel will vote in favor of an affirmative action program. Thus, the substantive consequences of racial diversity on the Courts of Appeals are quite large.

Lobbying Judges Motivated by Countermajoritarian Concerns

The present paper develops a dynamic model of judicial decision-making where judges are assumed to be influenced by counter-majoritarian concerns. The analysis yielded two important insights. First, insofar as the policy standard can be interpreted as a constitutional standard, our analysis suggests that original constitutional intent is unlikely to be important in the long-run. Second, the present paper suggests an important distinction between judicial deference and judicial diversity not made in the existing separation-of-powers literature. In particular, where the judiciary becomes less deferential to the statutory interpretations of other institutions, we find that elected political actors respond, strategically, by announcing policy platforms designed to curb the lesser judicial deference; that is, politicians announce policy platforms that perfectly offset the lesser judicial deference. Increased judicial diversity is different. It has a real impact on the steady-state policy standard that operates through judicial lobbying. A more diverse judiciary leads to more lobbying, which, in turn, impacts the evolution of the prevailing policy standard over time. Although the increased effort exerted on judicial lobbying reduces resources available for valued consumption and increases uncertainty with respect to judicial outcomes, as the foregoing analysis will reveal, it also has the potential to act as a social-welfare-increasing constraint on a suboptimally-biased political process.

Detailing Judicial Difference

In January 2004 Baroness Brenda Hale became the first woman to sit on the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Five years on, she has brought to her judicial role a lightness of touch that belies her increasingly significant impact on the court’s jurisprudence. Early forecasts that she would be “just a bit different” from her male companions have proved prophetic. However such assessments have stemmed primarily from a focus on her decision-making on a case-by-case basis. But what of her jurisprudence as a whole? This paper considers arguments for a more sustained and coherent methodological approach to analyses of Baroness Hale’s (and other judges’) jurisprudence as a framework through which to better understand and explore the potential of judicial difference and to better inform current debates about increasing judicial diversity in England and Wales.

What a difference difference makes: gendered harms and judicial diversity

Taking the UK Ministry of Justice's ongoing quest to ensure a more diverse judiciary as its starting point and backdrop, this paper establishes the House of Lords' decision in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. K (FC); Fornah (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] as a lens through which to explore the ‘difference’ of the woman judge and, in particular, the developing jurisprudence of Baroness Hale—the first (and only) female law lord in the UK. It argues that Baroness Hale's candid recognition and articulation of the gendered nature of the experiences and violence in Fornah's story reveals not only the difference difference (in whatever form) might make to understandings of the judge, judging and justice but also the importance of recognising the transformative potential of judicial diversity to create a space in which difference is celebrated and valued on its own terms, a place where difference can truly make a difference.

Gender, Race, and Intersectionality on the Federal Appellate Bench

While theoretical justifications predict that a judge's gender and race may influence judicial decisions, empirical support for these arguments has been mixed. However, recent increases in judicial diversity necessitate a reexamination of these earlier studies. Rather than examining individual judges on a single characteristic, such as gender or race alone, this research note argues that the intersection of individual characteristics may provide an alternative approach for evaluating the effects of diversity on the federal appellate bench. The results of cohort models examining the joint effects of race and gender suggest that minority female judges are more likely to support criminal defendants' claims when compared to their colleagues on the bench, even after controlling for other important factors. This suggests that our understanding of judicial behaviors may be assisted by the inclusion of how individual characteristics overlap rather than examining those characteristics alone.

Diversity in State and Federal Appellate Courts: Change and Continuity Across 20 Years

We examine the levels of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity and use of selection systems in state and federal appellate courts in the United States for the year 2005 and compare them with our earlier findings for a twenty-year period. We observe no recent increases in the number of state courts employing the merit system of selection, and other systems also remain stable, as continuity currently defines the types of selection systems used in the states. However, we find an increasing number and percentage of state and federal appellate judges who are women and members of racial and ethnic minorities, with change being the order of the day for these nontraditional judges joining the bench. Finally, we show that particular methods of selection are unrelated to rates of judicial diversity. Specifically, we find that the merit system, once derided by some as disfavoring nontraditional judges, continues to have no apparent association with diversity. While there are myriad rationales for state policy makers to choose one particular selection method over any other, our findings affirm, once again, that associated levels of diversity need not be included in that decision.

Judicial diversity, the woman judge and fairy tale endings

The story of the woman judge as one of exclusion and isolation plagued with allegations of bias is well documented. Interestingly, despite significant differences in time and place, a common theme unites these tales: the woman judge is a dangerous outsider, a threat to the aesthetic norm. The judicial climate, at least in most of the common law world, is somewhat chilly: reactions to her presence on the bench vary from the largely indifferent to the downright hostile. Why is this? After all, most people, perhaps acknowledging the political and democratic gains underlying calls for a more representative judiciary, would wish to encourage – or at least not discourage – judicial diversity.Taking the stories of the woman judge as its starting point, this paper contends that underlying these tales is an image of the judge that is as much intuitive as it is reasoned; that our understanding of the judge and judging is as much derived from the imagination as from what is conventionally considered as rational thought. Thus, the paper deploys the narrative strategies of fairy tales in an attempt to disrupt the imaginative hold of familiar yet particular images that infuse and distort current discourses on adjudication. It suggests that despite the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ ongoing quest to increase diversity within the judiciary, current initiatives do not confront fully these instinctive images. As a result, their narrative of inclusiveness and difference fails. In response, the paper appeals to the imagination as a route toward engendering new conceptions on the judge and judging, the possibility of truly diverse judiciaries and, perhaps, a fairy tale ending to the woman judge’s story.

An Economic Analysis of Judicial Diversity Part I: Judicial Promotions

This paper provides a quantitative study of the drivers of diversity among senior judicial appointments in England and Wales. The raw data for the 275 High Court judges serving between 1985 and 2005 display large differences in promotions to the Court of Appeal across background groups. Adjusting for censoring, 58% of the traditional group (a private education, or a state education followed by Oxbridge and a leading London set) are predicted to be promoted, compared to a figure of 19% for the non-traditional group (ex-Circuit judges or a state education not followed by Oxbridge and a leading London set). Estimating a simple structural model of promotion committee decision-making, we show that the majority of this difference can be explained by promotion-relevant characteristics. Both youth and a civil/public law specialism were positively associated with promotion and the non-traditional group was older at appointment and disproportionately specialised in family and crime. That said, even after controlling for experience and a range of judicial performance measures, membership of the traditional group was still associated with a two-fold increase in the odds of being chosen for promotion by a given committee.

Explaining Judicial Diversity: The Differential Ability of Women and Minorities to Attain Seats on State Supreme and Appellate Courts

AbstractRepresentation in political institutions, including the judiciary, is an important consideration for both political scientists and citizens. What factors systematically influence diversity among judges? In particular, does the method of selection affect the relative success of political minorities in attaining a seat on the bench? The answers to these questions have substantial normative and theoretical implications. We examine judges on all state supreme and intermediate appellate courts in 1985 and 1999 to assess the influence of various structural, political, and demographic factors on judicial diversity. We demonstrate that the ability of political minorities to attain a place in the judiciary is not solely a function of any single factor. Instead, their success is influenced by a multifaceted combination of factors contingent on time and the level of the court, and these influences differ for women and for minorities.

Johnson and Nixon Appointees to the Lower Federal Courts: Some Socio- Political Perspectives

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesJohnson and Nixon Appointees to the Lower Federal Courts: Some Socio- Political PerspectivesSheldon GoldmanSheldon Goldman Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 34, Number 3Aug., 1972 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2129289 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 7Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1972 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Margaret Williams Women's Representation on State Trial and Appellate Courts, Social Science Quarterly 88, no.55 (Dec 2007): 1192–1204.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00498.xMark S. Hurwitz, Drew Noble Lanier Explaining Judicial Diversity: The Differential Ability of Women and Minorities to Attain Seats on State Supreme and Appellate Courts, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3, no.44 (Aug 2016): 329–352.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000300300401Alissa Pollitz Worden The judge's role in plea bargaining: An analysis of judges' agreement with prosecutors' sentencing recommendations, Justice Quarterly 12, no.22 (Aug 2006): 257–278.https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500092671Richard C. Feiock Support for Business in the Federal District Courts, American Politics Quarterly 17, no.11 (Nov 2016): 96–104.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8901700105Elliot E. Slotnick Review Essay on Judicial Recruitment and Selection, Justice System Journal 13, no.11 (Sep 2014): 109–124.https://doi.org/10.1080/23277556.1988.10871089 C. K. Rowland , Robert A. Carp , and Ronald A. Stidham Judges' Policy Choices and the Value Basis of Judicial Appointments: A Comparison of Support for Criminal Defendants among Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy Appointees to the Federal District Courts, The Journal of Politics 46, no.33 (Oct 2015): 886–902.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130860 Michael W. Giles , and Thomas G. Walker Judicial Policy-Making and Southern School Segregation, The Journal of Politics 37, no.44 (Oct 2015): 917–936.https://doi.org/10.2307/2129183

Backgrounds, Attitudes and the Voting Behavior of Judges: A Comment on Joel Grossman's Social Backgrounds and Judicial Decisions

Previous articleNext article No AccessViews and OpinionsBackgrounds, Attitudes and the Voting Behavior of Judges: A Comment on Joel Grossman's Social Backgrounds and Judicial DecisionsSheldon GoldmanSheldon Goldman Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 31, Number 1Feb., 1969 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2128567 Views: 11Total views on this site Citations: 17Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1969 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Susanne Schorpp and Rebecca Reid The Differential Effect of War on Liberal and Conservative Judges on the US Courts of Appeals, Journal of Law and Courts 5, no.11 (Feb 2017): 1–31.https://doi.org/10.1086/690048Tracey E. George, Taylor Grace Weaver The Role of Personal Attributes and Social Backgrounds on Judging, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2016).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2841244Rachel J Cahill-O'Callaghan Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2014: Reframing the judicial diversity debate: personal values and tacit diversity, Legal Studies 35, no.11 (Jan 2018): 1–29.https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12074Greg Goelzhauser Silent Acquiescence on the Supreme Court, Justice System Journal 36, no.11 (Nov 2014): 3–19.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2014.969854Donald R Songer, John Szmer, Susan W Johnson Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Journal of Political Science 44, no.22 (Jun 2011): 389–409.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423911000151Dona Roy, Donald R. Songer Does the Attitudinal Model Explain Unanimous Reversals?, Justice System Journal 31, no.33 (Dec 2013): 342–372.https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767974Jennifer Barnes Bowie, Donald R. Songer Assessing the Applicability of Strategic Theory to Explain Decision Making on the Courts of Appeals, Political Research Quarterly 62, no.22 (Jun 2009): 393–407.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908319253Virginia A. Hettinger, Stefanie A. Lindquist, Wendy L. Martinek Separate Opinion Writing On The United States Courts Of Appeals, American Politics Research 31, no.33 (Jul 2016): 215–250.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X03251196Rorie L. Spill, Michael J. Licari, Leonard Ray Taking on Tobacco: Policy Entrepreneurship and the Tobacco Litigation, Political Research Quarterly 54, no.33 (Sep 2001): 605–622.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400306James N. Schubert, Steven A. Peterson, Glendon Schubert, Stephen Wasby Observing Supreme Court Oral Argument: A Biosocial Approach, Politics and the Life Sciences 11, no.11 (May 2016): 35–52.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0730938400017196T. M. Hagle, H. J. Spaeth Voting Fluidity and the Attitudinal Model of Supreme Court Decision Making, Political Research Quarterly 44, no.11 (Mar 1991): 119–128.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299104400107Jeffrey A. Segal Supreme Court Support for the Solicitor General: the Effect of Presidential Appointments, Western Political Quarterly 43, no.11 (Sep 2016): 137–152.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300110 Donald R. Songer Nonpublication in the United States District Courts: Official Criteria Versus Inferences from Appellate Review, The Journal of Politics 50, no.11 (Oct 2015): 206–215.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131049Saul Brenner, Theodore S. Arrington Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes, Political Behavior 9, no.11 (Jan 1987): 75–86.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987280 Saul Brenner , and Theodore Arrington William O. Douglas: Consistent Civil Libertarian or Parabolic Supporter?, The Journal of Politics 45, no.22 (Oct 2015): 490–496.https://doi.org/10.2307/2130137C. K. Rowland, Robert A. Carp The relative effects of maturation, time period, and appointing president on district judges' policy choices: A cohort analysis, Political Behavior 5, no.11 (Jan 1983): 109–133.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989988Sheldon Goldman Voting Behavior on the United States Courts of Appeals Revisited, American Political Science Review 69, no.22 (Aug 2014): 491–506.https://doi.org/10.2307/1959082