Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T19:36:48.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collegial Influence and Judicial Voting Change: The Effect of Membership Change on U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Scott R. Meinke  and
Kevin M. Scott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the source of voting changes by appellate judges provides an important window into the factors that shape the votes of the judges more generally. We argue that membership changes, by altering the collegial context in which judges make their choices, affect the information environment, long-term collegial considerations, and short-term strategic calculations. As a result, membership change should lead to greater uncertainty and more frequent voting changes among continuing justices in the term following a replacement. We test this proposition by looking at vote change by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate analyses: justices' votes on search-and-seizure cases since Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and on the progeny of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Our results support the argument that the collegial context helps explain changes in voting choices. Our analysis suggests that collegial considerations are an important component of judges' behavior and merit further evaluation in a cross-national context.

Type
Articles of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 909 - 938
Copyright
© 2007 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article reflects the views of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Congressional Research Service or the Library of Congress. For helpful comments and conversations on this work, we thank Lawrence Baum, Lauren Bell, Eileen Braman, Corey Ditslear, Rich Pacelle, Jeff Staton, and Margaret Williams, and we thank Carl Marchioli for excellent research assistance. Portions of this research were presented at the 2005 American Political Science Association annual meeting. Authors are listed alphabetically.

References

References

Allen, David W., & Wall, Diane E. (1987) “The Behavior of Women State Supreme Court Justices: Are They Tokens or Outsiders?,” 12 Justice System J. 232–45.Google Scholar
Asher, Herbert B., & Weisberg, Herbert F. (1978) “Voting Change in Congress: Some Dynamic Perspectives on an Evolutionary Process,” 22 American J. of Political Science 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1988) “Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court,” 82 American Political Science Rev. 905–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1992) “Membership Change and Collective Voting Change in the United States Supreme Court,” 54 J. of Politics 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1995) “Measuring Policy Change in the Rehnquist Court,” 23 American Politics Q. 373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (1997) The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2004) The Supreme Court, 8th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence (2006) Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, et al. (1998) “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series—Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable,” 42 American J. of Political Science 1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C. (2002) The U.S. Court of Appeals and the Law of Confessions. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., & Martinek, Wendy L. (2002) “State Supreme Court Decision Making in Confession Cases,” 23 Justice System J. 109–33.Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2003a) “The Justice-Centered Rehnquist Court Database, 1986–1998 Terms,” The S. Sidney Ulmer Project: U.S. Supreme Court Databases, http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm (accessed 7 July 2005).Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2003b) “The Justice-Centered Burger Court Database, 1969–1985 Terms,” The S. Sidney Ulmer Project: U.S. Supreme Court Databases, http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm (accessed 7 July 2005).Google Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2005) “The Justice-Centered Warren Court Database, 1953–1969 Terms,” The S. Sidney Ulmer Project: U.S. Supreme Court Databases, http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm (accessed 7 July 2005).Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul (1980) “Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A Reexamination,” 24 American J. of Political Science 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, & Stier, Marc (1996) “Retesting Segal and Spaeth's Stare Decisis Model,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1036–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., & Zorn, Christopher J. W. (1998) “Of Time and Consensual Norms in the Supreme Court,” 42 American J. of Political Science 874–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Charles, et al. (2000) “Strategic Auditing in a Political Hierarchy: An Informational Model of the Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions,” 43 American Political Science Rev. 162–85.Google Scholar
Cross, Frank B., & Tiller, Emerson H. (1998) “Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeal,” 107 Yale Law J. 2155–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1996) “The Norm of Stare Decisis,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1018–35.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Knight, Jack (1998) The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Hoekstra, Valerie, et al. (1998) “Do Political Preferences Change? A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 60 J. of Politics 801–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, & Segal, Jeffrey A., et al. (2001) “The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 45 American J. of Political Science 362–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Roy B. (2004) Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada. Vancouver, BC: Univ. of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Giles, Micheal W., et al. (2001) “Picking Federal Judges: A Note on Policy and Partisan Selection Agendas,” 54 Political Research Q. 623–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M. (1993) “‘Freshman Effects’ for Supreme Court Justices,” 37 American J. of Political Science 1142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausegger, Lori, & Haynie, Stacia (2003) “Judicial Decisionmaking and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division,” 37 Law & Society Rev. 635–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen (2002) “The Logic of Strategic Defection: Judicial Decision-Making in Argentina Under Dictatorship and Democracy,” 96 American Political Science Rev. 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen (2005) Courts under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A., et al. (2004) “Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals,” 48 American J. of Political Science 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A. (2006) Judging on a Collegial Court: Influences on Appellate Decision Making. Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford Jr. (1968) “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice,” 62 American Political Science Rev. 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A., & Sager, Lawrence G. (1986) “Unpacking the Court,” 96 Yale Law J. 82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., & Richards, Mark J. (2005) “The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court's Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence,” 33 American Politics Research 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanier, Drew N., & Wood, Sandra L. (2001) “Moving on Up: Institutional Position, Politics and the Chief Justice,” 22 American Rev. of Politics 93–127.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (1996) “Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court,” 90 American Political Science Rev. 581–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, et al. (2000) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2002) “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999,” 10 Political Analysis 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., & Quinn, Kevin M. (2005) “Can Ideal Point Estimates Be Used as Explanatory Variables?” Unpublished paper, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter C. (2004) “Blocs, Swarms, and Outliers: Conceptualizing Disagreement on the Modern Supreme Court of Canada,” 42 Osgood Hall Law J. 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinke, Scott R. (2005) “Long-Term Change and Stability in House Voting Decisions: The Case of the Minimum Wage,” 30 Legislative Studies Q. 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter F. (1964) Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Narayan, Paresh Kumar, & Smyth, Russell (2005) “The Consensual Norm on the High Court of Australia: 1904–2001,” 26 International Political Science Rev. 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoll, Jennifer (1999) “A Study of Unanimity on the Court: Can We Assume the Supreme Court Wants Unanimous Decisions?” Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, & Segal, Jeffrey A. (1990) “Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the Supreme Court's Reaction to Its First Female Member,” 10 Women & Politics 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L., et al. (2002) “Attitudinal Dimensions of Supreme Court Decision Making in Canada: The Lamer Court, 1991–1995,” 55 Political Research Q. 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostberg, C. L. (2003) “Acclimation Effects on the Supreme Court of Canada: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Judicial Folklore,” 84 Social Science Q. 704–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Barbara (2002) “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Supreme Court's Reaction to Its Second Female Member,” 24 Women & Politics 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revesz, Richard L. (1997) “Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the D.C. Circuit,” 83 Virginia Law Rev. 1717–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Mark J., & Kritzer, Herbert M. (2002) “Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making,” 96 American Political Science Rev. 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokeach, Milton (1968) Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon (1962) “The 1960 Term of the Supreme Court: A Psychological Analysis,” 56 American Political Science Rev. 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1984) “Predicting Supreme Court Cases Probabilistically: The Search and Seizure Cases, 1962–1981,” 78 American Political Science Rev. 891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1985) “Measuring Change on the Supreme Court: Examining Alternative Models,” 29 American J. of Political Science 461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. (1997) “Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts,” 91 American Political Science Rev. 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Cover, Albert D. (1989) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Rev. 557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (1996) “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices,” 40 American J. of Political Science 971–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., & Spaeth, Harold J. (2002) Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., et al. (1995) “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited,” 57 J. of Politics 812–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russell (2002) “Historical Consensual Norms in the High Court of Australia,” 37 Australian J. of Political Science 255–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russell (2003) “Explaining Historical Dissent Rates in the High Court of Australia,” 41 J. of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russell (2005) “The Role of Attitudinal, Institutional and Environmental Factors in Explaining Variations in the Dissent Rate on the High Court of Australia,” 40 Australian J. of Political Science 519–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Russell, & Narayan, Paresh Kumar (2004) “Hail to the Chief! Leadership and Structural Change in the Level of Consensus on the High Court of Australia,” 1 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., & Lindquist, Stefanie A. (1996) “Not the Whole Story: The Impact of Justices' Values on Supreme Court Decision Making,” 40 American J. of Political Science 1049–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., et al. (1994) “A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals,” 56 J. of Politics 425–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. (2005) “The Original United States Supreme Court Database, 1953–2005 Terms,” The S. Sidney Ulmer Project: U.S. Supreme Court Databases, http://www.as.uky.edu/polisci/ulmerproject/sctdata.htm (accessed 7 July 2005).Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., & Segal, Jeffrey A. (1999) Majority Rule or Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II, & Hansford, Thomas G. (2001) “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent,” 63 J. of Politics 1091–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Winkle, Steven R. (1996) “Three-Judge Panels and Strategic Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Presented at the Conference on the Scientific Study of Judicial Politics, St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Wetstein, Matthew E., & Ostberg, C. L. (2005) “Strategic Leadership and Political Change on the Canadian Supreme Court: Analyzing the Transition to Chief Justice,” 38 Canadian J. of Political Science 653–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. (1976) “Linear Models for Evaluating Conditional Relationships,” 20 American J. of Political Science 349–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorn, Christopher J. W. (2001) “Generalized Estimating Equation Models for Correlated Data: A Review with Applications,” 45 American J. of Political Science 470–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (1954).Google Scholar
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 138 (1954).Google Scholar
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar