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.
