Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Election Law (5)
- Courts (3)
- Law and Politics (3)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (3)
- Law and Society (2)
-
- Models and Methods (2)
- Political Science (2)
- Accounting (1)
- American Politics (1)
- Banking and Finance Law (1)
- Business (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Economics (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Organizations Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Ideological Consequences Of Selection: A Nationwide Study Of The Methods Of Selecting Judges, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
The Ideological Consequences Of Selection: A Nationwide Study Of The Methods Of Selecting Judges, Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
One topic that has gone largely unexplored in the long debate over how best to select judges is whether there are any ideological consequences to employing one selection method versus another. The goal of this study is to assess whether certain methods of selection have resulted in judiciaries that skew to the left or right compared with the public at large in those states. In particular, I examine the ideological preferences of state appellate judges in all 50 states over a 20-year period (1990-2010) as measured by their relative affiliation with the Republican or Democratic Party through campaign contributions, voter …
The Long Shadow Of Bush V. Gore: Judicial Partisanship In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna M. Shepherd
The Long Shadow Of Bush V. Gore: Judicial Partisanship In Election Cases, Michael S. Kang, Joanna M. Shepherd
Faculty Articles
Bush v. Gore decided a presidential election and is the most dramatic election case in our lifetime, but cases like it are decided every year at the state level. Ordinary state courts regularly decide questions of election rules and administration that effectively determine electoral outcomes hanging immediately in the balance. Election cases like Bush v. Gore embody a fundamental worry with judicial intervention into the political process: outcome-driven, partisan judicial decisionmaking. The Article investigates whether judges decide cases, particularly politically sensitive ones, based on their partisan loyalties more than the legal merits of the cases. It presents a novel method …
The Jekyll And Hyde Of First Amendment Limits On The Regulation Of Judicial Campaign Speech, Charles G. Geyh
The Jekyll And Hyde Of First Amendment Limits On The Regulation Of Judicial Campaign Speech, Charles G. Geyh
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
The Trial, The Bench, The Net, And The First Amendment: The Possibilities Of Reform In New York State Judicial Elections, Robert Magee
The Trial, The Bench, The Net, And The First Amendment: The Possibilities Of Reform In New York State Judicial Elections, Robert Magee
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Gratuities Debate And Campaign Reform – How Strong Is The Link?, George D. Brown
The Gratuities Debate And Campaign Reform – How Strong Is The Link?, George D. Brown
George D. Brown
The federal gratuities statute, 18 USC § 201(c), continues to be a source of confusion and contention. The confusion stems largely from problems of draftsmanship within the statute, as well as uncertainty concerning the relationship of the gratuities offense to bribery. Both offenses are contained in the same statute; the former is often seen as a lesser-included offense variety of the latter. The controversy stems from broader concerns about whether the receipt of gratuities by public officials, even from those they regulate, should be a crime. The argument that such conduct should not be criminalized can be traced to, and …
Money, Politics, And Impartial Justice, Joanna Shepherd
Money, Politics, And Impartial Justice, Joanna Shepherd
Faculty Articles
A centuries-old controversy asks whether judicial elections are inconsistent with impartial justice. The debate is especially important because more than 90 percent of the United States’ judicial business is handled by state courts, and approximately nine in ten of all state court judges face the voters in some type of election. Using a stunning new data set of virtually all state supreme court decisions from 1995 to 1998, this paper provides empirical evidence that elected state supreme court judges routinely adjust their rulings to attract votes and campaign money. I find that judges who must be reelected by Republican voters, …
[Tru/Fals]Isms: A Statistical Analysis Of Several Arkansas Judicial Election Bromides, Honorable Timothy Davis Fox
[Tru/Fals]Isms: A Statistical Analysis Of Several Arkansas Judicial Election Bromides, Honorable Timothy Davis Fox
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.
Safeguarding The Litigant's Constitutional Right To A Fair And Impartial Forum: A Due Process Approach To Improprieties Arising From Judicial Campaign Contributions From Lawyers, Mark Andrew Grannis
Safeguarding The Litigant's Constitutional Right To A Fair And Impartial Forum: A Due Process Approach To Improprieties Arising From Judicial Campaign Contributions From Lawyers, Mark Andrew Grannis
Michigan Law Review
This Note will argue that the improprieties arising from some campaign contributions are so egregious that they offend the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Consequently, states must either reform judicial campaigns to eliminate such improprieties, or, through mandatory judicial recusal or disqualification, respect the absolute constitutional right to an impartial forum. Part I of this Note will examine the history of disqualification at common law and in American practice, focusing on the extent to which it has been held to be a requirement of due process. Part II will argue that under the applicable due process standards, a …