Does judicial review by unelected judges damage public support for their decisions? This question has often been answered yes.
Experimental evidence shows that the public is less accepting of both appointed judges' rulings and court actions striking down laws. However, acceptance of judicial review itself does not depend on whether the decision came from an elected or appointed bench.
Experimental Design: Court simulation tasks were used to measure public response under controlled conditions.
Key Findings:
- Reduced Acceptance: Decisions by unelected judges (both striking down laws and general rulings) receive lower acceptance ratings than those made by elected judges.
- No Difference in Accepting Judicial Review's Use: Despite differences in accepting the decisions, the public accepts judicial review as a function regardless of who applied it.
Why It Matters:
This nuanced finding has significant implications for state-level institutional design debates. The results suggest that while unelected judges face lower acceptance overall, their ability to perform judicial review itself is not fundamentally undermined by lack of electoral mandate.
