Michael J Nelson
Biographic Data
| ID | 3594524 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Michael J Nelson |
| GIVEN NAMES | Michael J |
| FAMILY NAME | Nelson |
| SIGNATURE | NELSON M J |
| AFFILIATIONS | Pennsylvania State University |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-7665-7557 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 50 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 422 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 50 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1988 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 10 |
Preferences or principles? The ‘noncompliance penalty’ and the limits of public support for the rule of law
When will individuals support government noncompliance with the written law? A bedrock principle of the rule of law is that politicians who fail to comply with written law will face political consequences. Drawing on survey experiments fielded in two consolidated democracies, we introduce the noncompliance penalty , the loss of public support for a government action that contravenes the law. The results show that citizens do penalize governmental…
Judging Judicial Nominees
What determines public support for judicial nominees? We argue that support for nominees is based on policy congruence, and a nominee’s candor at her confirmation hearing can assist citizens as they try to align their support for a nominee with their own policy preferences. When nominees are evasive, other cues, such as past practice experience and interest group statements, can help citizens align their policy preferences with their support for …
Abortion Bans and Interstate Migration
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling created a patchwork of abortion regulations across the U.S. Proponents of federalism argue that the easy exit option federalism entails allows people to flee areas that restrict rights. We ask whether people flee or avoid moving to states with abortion bans. We argue that dislike of abortion bans is strongest among those directly affected (women, doctors), the affluent, and the highly educated, and that these grou…
Institutional Structures and Judicial Legitimacy
Despite high-profile arguments about the negative consequences of judicial elections for judicial legitimacy, empirical evidence is ambiguous, at best. Drawing on more than 28,000 survey responses, representative at the state level, we find no evidence that elected courts are less legitimate than appointed courts. To further explore this finding, we draw upon a survey of Wisconsin, a state that has experienced a large amount of politicized judici…
Devolving Dobbs
Scholars have come to understand that the state supreme courts play a vital role in American politics, a conclusion driven home by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that abortion rights must be fought out in the individual states. At the same time, little research has ever focused on how the mass publics in the states view their high courts, and especially on whether people are willing to extend those institutions legitimacy. Our purpose in …
The consistency principle
A growing body of research theorizes that partisanship can undermine democracy as citizens prioritize their political interests over abstract norms and values. We argue that crises might counteract intense partisanship by giving citizens clarity on the threats posed by rule of law violations. Examining the differential application of a law – a breach of democratic norms – we draw on an experiment embedded in representative surveys of Germany, the…
Gender Stereotypes and Candidate Qualifications in Judicial Elections
A large literature documents the effects of gendered stereotyping on the outcomes of legislative and executive elections. Less attention has been paid to the effects of these stereotypes on judicial elections, a venue where candidates might encounter unique stereotypes. Further, existing research on judicial elections prioritizes one form of qualification—prior judicial experience—leaving unaddressed the effects of other professional experiences …
Evaluating Excuses
The political actors who make policy often delegate their implementation to others. Yet for a variety of reasons, ranging from intransigence to incompetence, political agents tasked with implementation may not faithfully implement policies. If those charged with implementation can frame their noncompliance in a way that engenders sympathy, implementors may be able to disrupt the policymaking process with limited public backlash. We examine if the…
Examining changes in teachers’ perceptions of external and internal barriers in their integration of educational digital resources in K-12 classrooms
This study examined changes in teachers’ perceptions of external barriers, internal barriers, and their integration of digital educational resources across two years through variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Participants included 301 in-service middle and high school teachers from 18 schools in the United States. The results of variable-centered approaches showed some significant changes in external barriers and teacher behavior b…
In Electoral Disputes, State Justices Are Less Reliable GOP Allies than the U.S. Supreme Court—That’s the “Problem” the Independent State Legislature Claim Hopes to Solve
Scholars have identified serious drawbacks to the independent state legislature (ISL) claim, which precludes state-court review of election laws, thus preventing state guarantees like “free and fair elections” from being enforced. Considering its flaws, we ask why ISL would be pursued so fervently and why the Supreme Court, in Moore v. Harper, adopted a version of it. Examining data that compare election-law outcomes in federal and state supreme …
Accountability for Court Packing
How does the public respond to court-packing attempts? Longstanding accounts of public support for courts suggest voters retaliate against incumbents who seek to manipulate well-respected courts. Yet incumbents might strategically frame their efforts in bureaucratic terms to minimize the public’s outcry or use court-packing proposals to activate a partisan base of support. Drawing on a series of survey experiments, we demonstrate that strategic p…
Are courts “different?” Experimental evidence on the unique costs of attacking courts
U.S. courts have long been thought to be held in special regard by the American public, and public support is theorized to protect institutions from interbranch aggression. At the same time, recent research underscores that institutional fealty and public reaction to court curbing is shaped by partisan concerns. Drawing on a survey experiment fielded in the U.S., we evaluate whether (1) the public is uniquely punitive toward incumbents who seek t…
The Costs of Court Curbing
Canonical models of interbranch relations assume that incumbents undermine well-respected courts at their own peril. Although court-curbing proposals are frequent in diverse political and institutional contexts, there have been few efforts to examine the electoral costs of interbranch aggression. Drawing upon vignette and conjoint experiments, we find some evidence that the public will punish incumbents for attacks on courts. However, the size of…
Response to Benjamin G. Bishin, Thomas J. Hayes, Matthew B. Incantalupo, and Charles Anthony Smith’s Review of Judging Inequality
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Cognitive engagement with technology scale
Coursework, field experiences, and the technology beliefs and practices of preservice teachers
Judging prosecutors
Prosecutors have immense discretion to determine which offenses to charge, which cases to take to trial, and which sentences to recommend. Yet, even though many of the prosecutors who exercise this discretion over important crimes must face the electorate to keep their jobs, we know little about how the use of this discretion affects prosecutors’ electoral fortunes. Drawing on two experiments embedded in a nationally representative survey, we dem…
The Economic Costs of Democratic Backsliding? Backsliding and State Location Preferences of US Job Seekers
Political checks on democratic backsliding can be ineffective. But, there may be economic costs for backsliding regimes if talented individuals seeking job opportunities prefer to not live in backsliding areas. Of course, factors other than the quality of democracy may be more important to job seekers, limiting the efficacy of this economic check. We test these possibilities in an area characterized as experiencing backsliding—the US states—using…
Judging Inequality
What role have courts, especially the state high courts, played in the rise of inequality in America? In this article, we report key findings from our recent book, Judging Inequality. We begin by describing the data we collected about cases and judges, illustrating the wide degree of variation across courts and justices in the propensity to decide in favor of greater political, legal, economic, and social equality. Second, we describe our measure…
Judging Inequality
Human Capital in Court
Human capital theory suggests that work experience acquired through on-the-job-training primes people to be more successful. Empirical validations of this hypothesis are numerous, but limited evidence of the relevance of human capital for courtroom advocacy exists. We examine whether the outcomes obtained by experienced attorneys are significantly better than the outcomes they would have obtained as novices. Adopting a strategy for credible causa…
Party Competition and Policy Liberalism
Party competition is foundational to the study of modern politics, affecting outcomes as varied as policy choices, political participation, and the quality of representation. Scholars have long argued that increased levels of party competition are associated with more liberal policy making. By this logic, parties in close competition with one another try to expand their bases of support by catering to the desires of those who tend to abstain from…
How Interpersonal Contact Affects Appellate Review
Prominent explanations for appellate review prioritize the ideological alignment of the lower and reviewing courts. We suggest that interpersonal relationships play an important role. The effect of an appellate judge's ideology on her decision to reverse depends on the level of interpersonal contact between the trial and appellate judge due to information provided by social and professional interactions. Relying on a dataset of all published Four…
The Stability and Durability of the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
Is support for the US Supreme Court stable over time? Recent studies present conflicting evidence about the extent to which dissatisfaction with the Court’s performance affects its public support. Drawing on a four-year panel study of Americans’ support for the Supreme Court, we demonstrate that the Court’s support has been remarkably stable in the aggregate, although there has been systematic change at the individual level. These individual-leve…
Teacher Educator Technology Integration Preparation Practices Around TPACK in the United States
Given the strong influence of teachers educators' pedagogical modeling on new teachers' capacity to use technology to support student learning, this study sought to answer two interrelated questions: (a) How are teacher educators and teacher education programs currently working to prepare teachers to integrate technology? and (b) How are teacher educators implementing the TPACK (complex integration of technological [T], pedagogical [P], and conte…
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology
Bartels and Johnston have recently presented evidence suggesting that the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court is grounded in the ideological preferences and perceptions of the American people. In addition, they offer experimental data purporting to show that dissatisfaction with a single Court decision substantially diminishes the institution's legitimacy. These findings strongly break with earlier research on the Court's institutional support, …
The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court
Research on the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court has blossomed of late, with scholars investigating many different hypotheses derived from legitimacy theory. As the theory has been pushed, a number of new controversies have emerged. Here, we identify four such debates: (a) whether the Court's legitimacy rests on satisfaction with its performance, (b) whether support for the Supreme Court reflects the polarization of politics in the contemporary…
Ignorance or Opposition? Blank and Spoiled Votes in Low-Information, Highly Politicized Environments
Voters often make the effort to go to the polls but effectively throw their vote away by leaving their ballot blank or intentionally spoiled. Typically construed as anomalous or errant, we argue that blank and spoiled ballots are empirically differentiable and politically informative. We consider self-reported vote choice from a nationally representative survey following the 2011 Bolivian elections, in which 60 percent of votes cast were blank or…
How Does Hyperpoliticized Rhetoric Affect the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
Many believe that President Trump's criticisms of the judiciary pose real and immediate threats to judicial legitimacy. However, framing theory suggests that source credibility is a prerequisite for such frames to be effective. Relying on an experiment embedded in a multiwave, nationally representative sample of Americans, we examine whether public attacks on the judiciary—by either Trump or distinguished law professors—affect the US Supreme Cour…
Change in Institutional Support for the US Supreme Court
Political pundits and scholars alike have recently noticed that public judgments of how well the US Supreme Court is doing its job have plummeted. Yet, the meaning of this drop for the larger legitimacy of the Court is not as clear as the poll data themselves. Some believe that dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings threatens the institution’s legitimacy. Conventional legitimacy theory, on the other hand, posits a “reservoir of goodwill” throug…
The Stability and Durability of the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
Is support for the US Supreme Court stable over time? Recent studies present conflicting evidence about the extent to which dissatisfaction with the Court’s performance affects its public support. Drawing on a four-year panel study of Americans’ support for the Supreme Court, we demonstrate that the Court’s support has been remarkably stable in the aggregate, although there has been systematic change at the individual level. These individual-leve…
The Costs of Court Curbing
Canonical models of interbranch relations assume that incumbents undermine well-respected courts at their own peril. Although court-curbing proposals are frequent in diverse political and institutional contexts, there have been few efforts to examine the electoral costs of interbranch aggression. Drawing upon vignette and conjoint experiments, we find some evidence that the public will punish incumbents for attacks on courts. However, the size of…
The Transmission of Legal Precedent among State Supreme Courts in the Twenty-First Century
Theories of legislative policy diffusion are well formed and extensively tested, but scholars know far less about the diffusion of legal policy and reasoning. Three decades ago, Caldeira's “The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts” examined this topic, but the intervening decades have been marked by considerable changes in both technology and the institutional structure of state supreme courts. We explore the effect of…
Opportunity and Overrides
Existing theories of legislative-judicial relations emphasize the role of public support for the judiciary on the likelihood of legislative compliance. Although Congress can strengthen or weaken the Supreme Court’s decisions after initial compliance, the role of public support for the judiciary on subsequent legislative action is unclear. We develop a theory of legislative-judicial interactions, which suggests that Congress considers the court’s …
Oh, Mi
Studies of state judicial selection systems require accurate classification of electoral \nsystems. While agreement exists for most states, Ohio and Michigan are difficult to classify. In this paper, we discuss the different practices and explain how, in the absence of candidates’ party affiliation on the ballot, elections in these states may justifiably be classified as partisan. Replicating the results of an important study on participation in …
The Economic Costs of Democratic Backsliding? Backsliding and State Location Preferences of US Job Seekers
Political checks on democratic backsliding can be ineffective. But, there may be economic costs for backsliding regimes if talented individuals seeking job opportunities prefer to not live in backsliding areas. Of course, factors other than the quality of democracy may be more important to job seekers, limiting the efficacy of this economic check. We test these possibilities in an area characterized as experiencing backsliding—the US states—using…
Measuring Subjective Ideological Disagreement with the US Supreme Court
Conventional wisdom suggests that judicial legitimacy should be relatively unaffected by satisfaction with the ideological direction of judicial policy making. Recent studies challenge this assertion. The key to resolving this conundrum is estimating individual-level satisfaction with the ideological direction of judicial policy making reliably and validly. We examine the accuracy of several common measures of the concept. We find that 40% of the…
The 2011 judicial elections in Bolivia
The impact of field experiences on prospective preservice teachers’ technology integration beliefs and intentions
Judicial Selection and the Democratization of Justice
In 2011, Bolivia became the first modern country to directly elect national judges. Reformers heralded the adoption of judicial elections as a “democratization of justice,” by which institutional independence would be assured, public confidence in the judiciary might be expanded, and various maladies of the judicial system would find resolution. We evaluate the elections in light of these objectives. We show candidates were advantaged when voters…
Responsive Justice
Do elected judges and prosecutors change their behavior to reflect public opinion after they receive information about constituent preferences? In this article I use a unique measure of public opinion—votes on an initiative to legalize marijuana—to examine the responsiveness of prosecutors and trial court judges to a strong, issue-specific, constituency-level opinion signal. I find that, at least in recent drug cases in Colorado, both prosecutors…
New Evidence for a Positive Relationship between De Facto Judicial Independence and State Respect for Empowerment Rights
Does increased judicial independence lead to increased state respect for empowerment rights? Initial research on this topic suggested an affirmative answer, but new data calls this into question. We use new measures and modeling approaches to re-examine the effect of de facto judicial independence on state respect for empowerment rights. Empowerment rights include the rights to electoral self-determination, domestic movement, foreign movement, re…
The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence
Most decisions about policy adoption require preference aggregation, which makes it difficult to determine how and when an individual can influence policy change. Examining how frequently a judge is cited offers insight into this question. Drawing upon the psychological concept of social identity, we suggest that shared group memberships can account for differences in policy influence. We investigate this possibility using the demographic and pro…
Accountability for Court Packing
How does the public respond to court-packing attempts? Longstanding accounts of public support for courts suggest voters retaliate against incumbents who seek to manipulate well-respected courts. Yet incumbents might strategically frame their efforts in bureaucratic terms to minimize the public’s outcry or use court-packing proposals to activate a partisan base of support. Drawing on a series of survey experiments, we demonstrate that strategic p…
The President and the Court
On 5 February 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, reacting to a long string of Supreme Court decisions that were hostile to New Deal, asked Congress to empower him to pack Court with as many as six new justices, one for every sitting justice 70 years or older who, having served at least ten years, declined to retire. The proposal was highly controversial from start, and whatever chance for passage may have had was lost that spring when Court abandoned i…
Devolving Dobbs
Scholars have come to understand that the state supreme courts play a vital role in American politics, a conclusion driven home by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that abortion rights must be fought out in the individual states. At the same time, little research has ever focused on how the mass publics in the states view their high courts, and especially on whether people are willing to extend those institutions legitimacy. Our purpose in …
Human Capital in Court
Human capital theory suggests that work experience acquired through on-the-job-training primes people to be more successful. Empirical validations of this hypothesis are numerous, but limited evidence of the relevance of human capital for courtroom advocacy exists. We examine whether the outcomes obtained by experienced attorneys are significantly better than the outcomes they would have obtained as novices. Adopting a strategy for credible causa…
How to Lose Cases and Influence People
Dissenting opinions are common in the US Supreme Court even though they take time and effort, risk infuriating colleagues, and have no precedential value. In spite of these drawbacks, dissents can potentially contribute to future legal development. We theorize that dissenting justices who use more memorable language are more successful in achieving such long-term impact. To test this theory, we amass an original dataset of citations to dissenting…
Are courts “different?” Experimental evidence on the unique costs of attacking courts
U.S. courts have long been thought to be held in special regard by the American public, and public support is theorized to protect institutions from interbranch aggression. At the same time, recent research underscores that institutional fealty and public reaction to court curbing is shaped by partisan concerns. Drawing on a survey experiment fielded in the U.S., we evaluate whether (1) the public is uniquely punitive toward incumbents who seek t…
Judging Inequality
What role have courts, especially the state high courts, played in the rise of inequality in America? In this article, we report key findings from our recent book, Judging Inequality. We begin by describing the data we collected about cases and judges, illustrating the wide degree of variation across courts and justices in the propensity to decide in favor of greater political, legal, economic, and social equality. Second, we describe our measure…
The President and the Court
On 5 February 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, reacting to a long string of Supreme Court decisions that were hostile to New Deal, asked Congress to empower him to pack Court with as many as six new justices, one for every sitting justice 70 years or older who, having served at least ten years, declined to retire. The proposal was highly controversial from start, and whatever chance for passage may have had was lost that spring when Court abandoned i…
Factors favoring houseplant container infestation with Aedes aegypti larvae in Marília, São Paulo, Brazil
Since reinvasion of São Paulo State by the Aedes aegypti (L.) mosquito in 1985, flower pots and vases have been important larval habitats despite educational messages focusing on their control. The objectives of this study were to characterize flower pots and vases as larval habitats with respect to the quantities present and infested, the types of plants involved, and the specific locations of the mosquito larvae; to explore local names for hous…
The 2011 judicial elections in Bolivia
Oh, Mi
Studies of state judicial selection systems require accurate classification of electoral \nsystems. While agreement exists for most states, Ohio and Michigan are difficult to classify. In this paper, we discuss the different practices and explain how, in the absence of candidates’ party affiliation on the ballot, elections in these states may justifiably be classified as partisan. Replicating the results of an important study on participation in …
Responsive Justice
Do elected judges and prosecutors change their behavior to reflect public opinion after they receive information about constituent preferences? In this article I use a unique measure of public opinion—votes on an initiative to legalize marijuana—to examine the responsiveness of prosecutors and trial court judges to a strong, issue-specific, constituency-level opinion signal. I find that, at least in recent drug cases in Colorado, both prosecutors…
The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court
Research on the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court has blossomed of late, with scholars investigating many different hypotheses derived from legitimacy theory. As the theory has been pushed, a number of new controversies have emerged. Here, we identify four such debates: (a) whether the Court's legitimacy rests on satisfaction with its performance, (b) whether support for the Supreme Court reflects the polarization of politics in the contemporary…
Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology
Bartels and Johnston have recently presented evidence suggesting that the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court is grounded in the ideological preferences and perceptions of the American people. In addition, they offer experimental data purporting to show that dissatisfaction with a single Court decision substantially diminishes the institution's legitimacy. These findings strongly break with earlier research on the Court's institutional support, …
Ignorance or Opposition? Blank and Spoiled Votes in Low-Information, Highly Politicized Environments
Voters often make the effort to go to the polls but effectively throw their vote away by leaving their ballot blank or intentionally spoiled. Typically construed as anomalous or errant, we argue that blank and spoiled ballots are empirically differentiable and politically informative. We consider self-reported vote choice from a nationally representative survey following the 2011 Bolivian elections, in which 60 percent of votes cast were blank or…
Judicial Independence
Judicial Behavior
Judicial Selection and the Democratization of Justice
In 2011, Bolivia became the first modern country to directly elect national judges. Reformers heralded the adoption of judicial elections as a “democratization of justice,” by which institutional independence would be assured, public confidence in the judiciary might be expanded, and various maladies of the judicial system would find resolution. We evaluate the elections in light of these objectives. We show candidates were advantaged when voters…
The Transmission of Legal Precedent among State Supreme Courts in the Twenty-First Century
Theories of legislative policy diffusion are well formed and extensively tested, but scholars know far less about the diffusion of legal policy and reasoning. Three decades ago, Caldeira's “The Transmission of Legal Precedent: A Study of State Supreme Courts” examined this topic, but the intervening decades have been marked by considerable changes in both technology and the institutional structure of state supreme courts. We explore the effect of…
Change in Institutional Support for the US Supreme Court
Political pundits and scholars alike have recently noticed that public judgments of how well the US Supreme Court is doing its job have plummeted. Yet, the meaning of this drop for the larger legitimacy of the Court is not as clear as the poll data themselves. Some believe that dissatisfaction with the Court’s rulings threatens the institution’s legitimacy. Conventional legitimacy theory, on the other hand, posits a “reservoir of goodwill” throug…
Opportunity and Overrides
Existing theories of legislative-judicial relations emphasize the role of public support for the judiciary on the likelihood of legislative compliance. Although Congress can strengthen or weaken the Supreme Court’s decisions after initial compliance, the role of public support for the judiciary on subsequent legislative action is unclear. We develop a theory of legislative-judicial interactions, which suggests that Congress considers the court’s …
New Evidence for a Positive Relationship between De Facto Judicial Independence and State Respect for Empowerment Rights
Does increased judicial independence lead to increased state respect for empowerment rights? Initial research on this topic suggested an affirmative answer, but new data calls this into question. We use new measures and modeling approaches to re-examine the effect of de facto judicial independence on state respect for empowerment rights. Empowerment rights include the rights to electoral self-determination, domestic movement, foreign movement, re…
How to Lose Cases and Influence People
Dissenting opinions are common in the US Supreme Court even though they take time and effort, risk infuriating colleagues, and have no precedential value. In spite of these drawbacks, dissents can potentially contribute to future legal development. We theorize that dissenting justices who use more memorable language are more successful in achieving such long-term impact. To test this theory, we amass an original dataset of citations to dissenting…
Group Identities and Experiences with Legal Authorities
Black and white Americans hold vastly different explicit attitudes about law, justice, and the legal system. But to what extent are the views of blacks toward the legal system homogeneous? We argue that identities and experiences color the extent to which blacks exhibit high levels of support for the legal system. First, we discuss how both personal and vicarious experiences with the legal system vary among blacks, and explain how individuals who…
The Battle for the Court
How do judicial elections affect judicial policymaking? The answer to this question has interested lawmakers, lawyers, and scholars for decades. The Battle for the Court tackles this question, drawing on data on Ohio Supreme Court elections over the past four decades to explain the role that Ohio’s voters, judges, and interest groups have played in the development of tort law in that state. With a focus on tort law—a much-understudied topic in po…
The Intergroup Foundations of Policy Influence
Most decisions about policy adoption require preference aggregation, which makes it difficult to determine how and when an individual can influence policy change. Examining how frequently a judge is cited offers insight into this question. Drawing upon the psychological concept of social identity, we suggest that shared group memberships can account for differences in policy influence. We investigate this possibility using the demographic and pro…
Judging Judicial Review in the American States
Does the use of judicial review by unelected judges harm public support for their decisions? Scholars have often answered this question in the affirmative. We examine the extent to which the use of judicial review reduces the ability of judges to achieve acceptance of their decisions, arguing that decisions made by elected judges may be more palatable to the public. Our experimental evidence demonstrates that the public is less prone to accept bo…
How Does Hyperpoliticized Rhetoric Affect the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy
Many believe that President Trump's criticisms of the judiciary pose real and immediate threats to judicial legitimacy. However, framing theory suggests that source credibility is a prerequisite for such frames to be effective. Relying on an experiment embedded in a multiwave, nationally representative sample of Americans, we examine whether public attacks on the judiciary—by either Trump or distinguished law professors—affect the US Supreme Cour…
Government reputational effects of Covid-19 public health actions
The tradeoff between short-term economic and public health has been very salient in debates surrounding U.S. government responses to COVID-19. But highly salient choices by very visible executive branch leaders, like state COVID-19 public health actions, have implications beyond current economic performance. We argue that by shaping perceptions of state governments, or state “reputations”, these responses may affect how individuals evaluate econo…
Measuring Subjective Ideological Disagreement with the US Supreme Court
Conventional wisdom suggests that judicial legitimacy should be relatively unaffected by satisfaction with the ideological direction of judicial policy making. Recent studies challenge this assertion. The key to resolving this conundrum is estimating individual-level satisfaction with the ideological direction of judicial policy making reliably and validly. We examine the accuracy of several common measures of the concept. We find that 40% of the…
Deferring, Deliberating, or Dodging Review
While panel effects—instances in which panel composition affects the votes cast by judges—have been widely documented, scholars are unsure why these patterns persist. We outline three possible mechanisms, acquiescence, deliberation, and strategy, through which panel effects might occur; develop indicators for each; and test them using a data set of search and seizure cases decided by the US courts of appeals between 1953 and 2010. Our analysis pr…
The impact of field experiences on prospective preservice teachers’ technology integration beliefs and intentions
Political science (40 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (34 works) · Law (34 works) · Law (29 works) · Politics (25 works) · Psychology (22 works) · Sociology (17 works) · Supreme court (16 works) · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (15 works) · Social Psychology (15 works)