Suchergebnisse

The writing of a majority opinion is the most important task for judges and justices on collegial courts because they must be able to explain and justify the court's decision in a way that will be understood by other legal and political actors. For state supreme court justices, we argue that the opinion-writing process is driven by the information the opinion author has as well as internal institutional constraints. In this article, we examine the length of opinions produced by state supreme courts to determine whether there are differences in the opinion-writing process between elected and appointed courts. Using an original dataset comprising all education cases decided by state supreme courts from 1995 to 2005, we find, consistent with our expectations, that elected justices appear to be more concerned with audiences external to the court in writing opinions, whereas appointed justices are more likely to respond to internal constraints and conditions.

AbstractThe opinion-writing process is a vital yet understudied aspect of judicial decision making on state supreme courts. We argue that this process is influenced by the political context and particularly by institutional rules that serve to reactivate and reinforce divisions among justices, leading to less cooperation on the court. We test our theory with original data comprising all education cases decided from 1995 to 2005 in all 50 states and find evidence to support our theory. Specifically, we find that elections lead to fewer unanimous decisions and more separate written opinions, indicating that judicial elections may have a more pervasive effect on the daily work of these courts than previously thought.