Greg Goelzhauser
Biographic Data
| ID | 2279528 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Greg Goelzhauser |
| GIVEN NAMES | Greg |
| FAMILY NAME | Goelzhauser |
| SIGNATURE | GOELZHAUSER G |
| AFFILIATIONS | Utah State University |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-7770-6728 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 15 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 131 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 15 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2011 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 8 |
Merits Positions and Supreme Court Voting on Stays and Injunctions
This paper presents empirical evidence that Supreme Court voting on stays and injunctions is associated with justices’ expected preferences for resolving the merits. This result is especially pronounced when the merits remain pending before a lower court. Combined with a largely overlooked recent shift in the procedural context in which these applications arise, the latter finding helps explain increased decision salience and controversy. Emphasi…
The Impact of Oral Argument Attendance
How does oral argument attendance impact public perceptions of the judiciary? Judicial independence is partly contingent on public support, but the conditions that generate institutional good will are not well understood. We examine how judicial outreach and court exposure inform public attitudes. Leveraging a field-experiment randomizing in-person attendance at oral arguments conducted by a federal circuit court of appeals on a university campus…
Selecting Chief Justices by Peer Vote
What characteristics do state supreme court justices prioritize when choosing leaders? At the federal level, collegial court leaders are appointed or rotated by seniority. A plurality of states permit peer-vote selection, but the consequences of employing this mechanism are not well known. We develop a theory of chief justice selection emphasizing experience, bias, and politics. Leveraging within-contest variation and more than a half century’s w…
The State of American Federalism 2019–2020: Polarized and Punitive Intergovernmental Relations
The state of American federalism is characterized by polarization and punitiveness. As in previous years, political polarization continues to shape intergovernmental relations. But we also identify punitiveness as an increasingly prevalent aspect of vertical power sharing. Punitive federalism describes the national government’s use of threats and punishment to suppress state and local actions that run contrary to its policy preferences. In this A…
The State of American Federalism 2018–2019: Litigation, Partisan Polarization, and the Administrative Presidency
Several themes characterize the state of American federalism. Increasing political polarization shapes preferences with respect to locating the vertical balance of power. To implement these preferences, the federal government is primarily relying on regulatory rollback and unilateral action. With Congress largely unable or unwilling to check the executive branch, states have pushed back on use of the tools of the administrative presidency through…
Does Merit Selection Work: Evidence from Commission and Gubernatorial Choices
Does merit selection work? Existing evidence on institutional performance compares outcomes of interest across selection mechanisms, which does not account for the two-stage process that makes merit selection unique. Using information obtained from public records requests, this article analyzes the determinants of commission and gubernatorial selections from relevant candidate pools. The evidence suggests that although commissions and governors s…
Classifying Judicial Selection Institutions
The judicial selection classification problem is widely recognized but poorly understood. In this note, I identify the classification problem's three interrelated sources: ambiguous theoretical arguments, varying decision rules for categorizing merit selection states, and not accounting for interim selections in mixed systems. To demonstrate threats to inference posed by the classification problem, I replicate a study on opinion writing productiv…
The State of American Federalism 2017–2018: Unilateral Executive Action, Regulatory Rollback, and State Resistance
The state of American federalism in 2017–2018 is characterized by federal policy reversals, as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans continue to undo many of the Obama administration's policies. Two themes are highlighted in this essay. First, major policy changes continue to be undertaken primarily through unilateral executive action, even with Republicans holding the presidency and both the House and Senate. Ideological divisio…
The State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy Reversals and Partisan Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations
Unified Republican Party control of the federal government after the 2016 election brought a reversal of several Obama administration policies, especially those adopted via executive and administrative action in areas such as immigration, energy, the environment, and LGBT rights. The 2016 election also prompted a reversal of partisan perspectives with respect to federal-state relations, as Republicans in Washington moved to preempt state discreti…
Amicus Coalition Heterogeneity and Signaling Credibility in Supreme Court Agenda Setting
What makes lobbying coalitions successful? We contend that greater preference heterogeneity among members of a lobbying coalition enhances the credibility of its signals to a target audience. To test this theory, we analyze the relationship between the preference heterogeneity of state amicus coalitions at the agenda setting stage and the probability of the U.S. Supreme Court granting review in state-filed cases. The results suggest that petition…
Judicial Independence and Opinion Clarity on State Supreme Courts
We contribute to the literature on judicial independence and performance in the states by analyzing opinion clarity. Written opinions are the primary means of communication for state supreme court justices, and clarity is a core component of judicial performance. Using automated text analysis on a sample of state supreme court opinions from all 50 states, we find that variation in judicial retention systems is not associated with substantively me…
Analyzing Text Complexity in Political Science Research
This article analyzes the text complexity of political science research. Using automated text analysis, we examine the text complexity of a sample of articles from three leading generalist journals and four leading subfield journals. We also examine changes in text complexity across time by analyzing a sample of articles from the discipline’s flagship journal during a 100-year span. Although it is not surprising that a typical political science a…
State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court
What determines state success when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review? We suggest that states can improve the likelihood of securing Supreme Court review by coordinating litigation efforts. This coordination occurs in two ways. First, some states coordinate their appellate litigation efforts internally through the creation of state solicitors general offices. Second, external coordination occurs when states join amicus briefs at the ag…
Avoiding Constitutional Cases
Why does the Supreme Court avoid deciding cases it accepts for review? In this article, I contend that the Court uses procedural access doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness to sidestep constitutional cases when confronted with certain internal and external pressures. Using data from 1946 to 2001, the results suggest that the Court utilizes procedural tools to dismiss constitutional cases when preference heterogeneity on the Court in…
Diversifying State Supreme Courts
Why do some states diversify their supreme courts sooner than others? Using original data on the first black and female state supreme court justices, I contend that political and institutional pressures influence when states diversify their high courts. The results suggest that selection systems, institutions affecting turnover, and the appointment of political minorities to the United States Supreme Court are associated with states seating their…
The State of American Federalism 2019–2020: Polarized and Punitive Intergovernmental Relations
The state of American federalism is characterized by polarization and punitiveness. As in previous years, political polarization continues to shape intergovernmental relations. But we also identify punitiveness as an increasingly prevalent aspect of vertical power sharing. Punitive federalism describes the national government’s use of threats and punishment to suppress state and local actions that run contrary to its policy preferences. In this A…
Judicial Independence and Opinion Clarity on State Supreme Courts
We contribute to the literature on judicial independence and performance in the states by analyzing opinion clarity. Written opinions are the primary means of communication for state supreme court justices, and clarity is a core component of judicial performance. Using automated text analysis on a sample of state supreme court opinions from all 50 states, we find that variation in judicial retention systems is not associated with substantively me…
The State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy Reversals and Partisan Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations
Unified Republican Party control of the federal government after the 2016 election brought a reversal of several Obama administration policies, especially those adopted via executive and administrative action in areas such as immigration, energy, the environment, and LGBT rights. The 2016 election also prompted a reversal of partisan perspectives with respect to federal-state relations, as Republicans in Washington moved to preempt state discreti…
The State of American Federalism 2018–2019: Litigation, Partisan Polarization, and the Administrative Presidency
Several themes characterize the state of American federalism. Increasing political polarization shapes preferences with respect to locating the vertical balance of power. To implement these preferences, the federal government is primarily relying on regulatory rollback and unilateral action. With Congress largely unable or unwilling to check the executive branch, states have pushed back on use of the tools of the administrative presidency through…
Diversifying State Supreme Courts
Why do some states diversify their supreme courts sooner than others? Using original data on the first black and female state supreme court justices, I contend that political and institutional pressures influence when states diversify their high courts. The results suggest that selection systems, institutions affecting turnover, and the appointment of political minorities to the United States Supreme Court are associated with states seating their…
The State of American Federalism 2017–2018: Unilateral Executive Action, Regulatory Rollback, and State Resistance
The state of American federalism in 2017–2018 is characterized by federal policy reversals, as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans continue to undo many of the Obama administration's policies. Two themes are highlighted in this essay. First, major policy changes continue to be undertaken primarily through unilateral executive action, even with Republicans holding the presidency and both the House and Senate. Ideological divisio…
Does Merit Selection Work: Evidence from Commission and Gubernatorial Choices
Does merit selection work? Existing evidence on institutional performance compares outcomes of interest across selection mechanisms, which does not account for the two-stage process that makes merit selection unique. Using information obtained from public records requests, this article analyzes the determinants of commission and gubernatorial selections from relevant candidate pools. The evidence suggests that although commissions and governors s…
Amicus Coalition Heterogeneity and Signaling Credibility in Supreme Court Agenda Setting
What makes lobbying coalitions successful? We contend that greater preference heterogeneity among members of a lobbying coalition enhances the credibility of its signals to a target audience. To test this theory, we analyze the relationship between the preference heterogeneity of state amicus coalitions at the agenda setting stage and the probability of the U.S. Supreme Court granting review in state-filed cases. The results suggest that petition…
Classifying Judicial Selection Institutions
The judicial selection classification problem is widely recognized but poorly understood. In this note, I identify the classification problem's three interrelated sources: ambiguous theoretical arguments, varying decision rules for categorizing merit selection states, and not accounting for interim selections in mixed systems. To demonstrate threats to inference posed by the classification problem, I replicate a study on opinion writing productiv…
Analyzing Text Complexity in Political Science Research
This article analyzes the text complexity of political science research. Using automated text analysis, we examine the text complexity of a sample of articles from three leading generalist journals and four leading subfield journals. We also examine changes in text complexity across time by analyzing a sample of articles from the discipline’s flagship journal during a 100-year span. Although it is not surprising that a typical political science a…
Selecting Chief Justices by Peer Vote
What characteristics do state supreme court justices prioritize when choosing leaders? At the federal level, collegial court leaders are appointed or rotated by seniority. A plurality of states permit peer-vote selection, but the consequences of employing this mechanism are not well known. We develop a theory of chief justice selection emphasizing experience, bias, and politics. Leveraging within-contest variation and more than a half century’s w…
Avoiding Constitutional Cases
Why does the Supreme Court avoid deciding cases it accepts for review? In this article, I contend that the Court uses procedural access doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness to sidestep constitutional cases when confronted with certain internal and external pressures. Using data from 1946 to 2001, the results suggest that the Court utilizes procedural tools to dismiss constitutional cases when preference heterogeneity on the Court in…
The Impact of Oral Argument Attendance
How does oral argument attendance impact public perceptions of the judiciary? Judicial independence is partly contingent on public support, but the conditions that generate institutional good will are not well understood. We examine how judicial outreach and court exposure inform public attitudes. Leveraging a field-experiment randomizing in-person attendance at oral arguments conducted by a federal circuit court of appeals on a university campus…
State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court
What determines state success when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review? We suggest that states can improve the likelihood of securing Supreme Court review by coordinating litigation efforts. This coordination occurs in two ways. First, some states coordinate their appellate litigation efforts internally through the creation of state solicitors general offices. Second, external coordination occurs when states join amicus briefs at the ag…
Avoiding Constitutional Cases
Why does the Supreme Court avoid deciding cases it accepts for review? In this article, I contend that the Court uses procedural access doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness to sidestep constitutional cases when confronted with certain internal and external pressures. Using data from 1946 to 2001, the results suggest that the Court utilizes procedural tools to dismiss constitutional cases when preference heterogeneity on the Court in…
Diversifying State Supreme Courts
Why do some states diversify their supreme courts sooner than others? Using original data on the first black and female state supreme court justices, I contend that political and institutional pressures influence when states diversify their high courts. The results suggest that selection systems, institutions affecting turnover, and the appointment of political minorities to the United States Supreme Court are associated with states seating their…
State Coordinating Institutions and Agenda Setting on the U.S. Supreme Court
What determines state success when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for review? We suggest that states can improve the likelihood of securing Supreme Court review by coordinating litigation efforts. This coordination occurs in two ways. First, some states coordinate their appellate litigation efforts internally through the creation of state solicitors general offices. Second, external coordination occurs when states join amicus briefs at the ag…
Judicial Independence and Opinion Clarity on State Supreme Courts
We contribute to the literature on judicial independence and performance in the states by analyzing opinion clarity. Written opinions are the primary means of communication for state supreme court justices, and clarity is a core component of judicial performance. Using automated text analysis on a sample of state supreme court opinions from all 50 states, we find that variation in judicial retention systems is not associated with substantively me…
Analyzing Text Complexity in Political Science Research
This article analyzes the text complexity of political science research. Using automated text analysis, we examine the text complexity of a sample of articles from three leading generalist journals and four leading subfield journals. We also examine changes in text complexity across time by analyzing a sample of articles from the discipline’s flagship journal during a 100-year span. Although it is not surprising that a typical political science a…
Amicus Coalition Heterogeneity and Signaling Credibility in Supreme Court Agenda Setting
What makes lobbying coalitions successful? We contend that greater preference heterogeneity among members of a lobbying coalition enhances the credibility of its signals to a target audience. To test this theory, we analyze the relationship between the preference heterogeneity of state amicus coalitions at the agenda setting stage and the probability of the U.S. Supreme Court granting review in state-filed cases. The results suggest that petition…
The State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy Reversals and Partisan Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations
Unified Republican Party control of the federal government after the 2016 election brought a reversal of several Obama administration policies, especially those adopted via executive and administrative action in areas such as immigration, energy, the environment, and LGBT rights. The 2016 election also prompted a reversal of partisan perspectives with respect to federal-state relations, as Republicans in Washington moved to preempt state discreti…
Does Merit Selection Work: Evidence from Commission and Gubernatorial Choices
Does merit selection work? Existing evidence on institutional performance compares outcomes of interest across selection mechanisms, which does not account for the two-stage process that makes merit selection unique. Using information obtained from public records requests, this article analyzes the determinants of commission and gubernatorial selections from relevant candidate pools. The evidence suggests that although commissions and governors s…
Classifying Judicial Selection Institutions
The judicial selection classification problem is widely recognized but poorly understood. In this note, I identify the classification problem's three interrelated sources: ambiguous theoretical arguments, varying decision rules for categorizing merit selection states, and not accounting for interim selections in mixed systems. To demonstrate threats to inference posed by the classification problem, I replicate a study on opinion writing productiv…
The State of American Federalism 2017–2018: Unilateral Executive Action, Regulatory Rollback, and State Resistance
The state of American federalism in 2017–2018 is characterized by federal policy reversals, as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans continue to undo many of the Obama administration's policies. Two themes are highlighted in this essay. First, major policy changes continue to be undertaken primarily through unilateral executive action, even with Republicans holding the presidency and both the House and Senate. Ideological divisio…
The State of American Federalism 2018–2019: Litigation, Partisan Polarization, and the Administrative Presidency
Several themes characterize the state of American federalism. Increasing political polarization shapes preferences with respect to locating the vertical balance of power. To implement these preferences, the federal government is primarily relying on regulatory rollback and unilateral action. With Congress largely unable or unwilling to check the executive branch, states have pushed back on use of the tools of the administrative presidency through…
The State of American Federalism 2019–2020: Polarized and Punitive Intergovernmental Relations
The state of American federalism is characterized by polarization and punitiveness. As in previous years, political polarization continues to shape intergovernmental relations. But we also identify punitiveness as an increasingly prevalent aspect of vertical power sharing. Punitive federalism describes the national government’s use of threats and punishment to suppress state and local actions that run contrary to its policy preferences. In this A…
Selecting Chief Justices by Peer Vote
What characteristics do state supreme court justices prioritize when choosing leaders? At the federal level, collegial court leaders are appointed or rotated by seniority. A plurality of states permit peer-vote selection, but the consequences of employing this mechanism are not well known. We develop a theory of chief justice selection emphasizing experience, bias, and politics. Leveraging within-contest variation and more than a half century’s w…
The Impact of Oral Argument Attendance
How does oral argument attendance impact public perceptions of the judiciary? Judicial independence is partly contingent on public support, but the conditions that generate institutional good will are not well understood. We examine how judicial outreach and court exposure inform public attitudes. Leveraging a field-experiment randomizing in-person attendance at oral arguments conducted by a federal circuit court of appeals on a university campus…
Merits Positions and Supreme Court Voting on Stays and Injunctions
This paper presents empirical evidence that Supreme Court voting on stays and injunctions is associated with justices’ expected preferences for resolving the merits. This result is especially pronounced when the merits remain pending before a lower court. Combined with a largely overlooked recent shift in the procedural context in which these applications arise, the latter finding helps explain increased decision salience and controversy. Emphasi…
Political science (14 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (12 works) · Law (11 works) · Politics (10 works) · Law (9 works) · Supreme court (9 works) · State (computer science (8 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (7 works) · Legal and Constitutional Studies (7 works) · Electoral Systems and Political Participation (6 works)