Elected vs. Appointed Judges: A Surprising Difference in Precedent Adherence

New research investigates how retention systems affect judges' adherence to precedent.

Data & Methods

Analyzed nearly 5,000 votes from over 400 state court of last resort judges across all US states.
Compared outcomes based on three main retention methods: partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and institutional appointments (like judicial commissions or state legislatures).

Key Findings

Judges retained via election are significantly more likely to join majorities that overturn precedent.
Most of this effect occurs in high-profile cases receiving media attention.
Elections do not appear to moderate the judges' behavior approaching their term's end.
Nonpartisan elections show no difference from institutional appointment methods.

Why It Matters

This study provides crucial insights into how election mechanics influence judicial decision-making regarding landmark legal principles.

Article card for article: Stare Decisis and the Electoral Connection: Do Retention Systems Affect Judges' Deference to Precedent?

Stare Decisis and the Electoral Connection: Do Retention Systems Affect Judges' Deference to Precedent? was authored by Michael K. Miller and Michelle Tuma. It was published by Sage in SPPQ in 2020.