Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Researchers find appointed justices outperform elected counterparts

Date:
February 22, 2013
Source:
Princeton University
Summary:
State supreme court justices who don't face voters are generally more effective than their elected counterparts, according to new research.

State supreme court justices who don't face voters are generally more effective than their elected counterparts, according to research led by Princeton University political scientists.

The research combines data about almost 6,000 state supreme court rulings nationwide between 1995 and 1998 with a new theoretical model to reach the conclusions that appointed justices generally bring a higher quality of information to the decision-making process, are more likely to change their preconceived opinions about a case, and are less likely to make errors than elected justices.

"Judges may be appointed to state supreme courts, elected in competitive elections or face retention elections. We wanted to see whether these selection methods can be associated with differences in the attributes of the judges themselves and with differences in the ways these judges interact with each other in the court," said Matias Iaryczower, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton, who conducted the research with Princeton graduate student Garrett Lewis and Matthew Shum, a professor of economics at the California Institute of Technology.

According to the researchers, the information quality for justices who don't face voters is on average 33 percent larger than that of justices who face retention elections at some point after being appointed and 39 percent larger than that of justices who are elected. That means justices who don't face voters in general demonstrate a greater ability to analyze information about a case to reach a correct decision under the law.

Error rates are low overall, Iaryczower said, but differences based on how justices are selected are meaningful. Justices appointed for life and appointed justices with political reappointment on average have a lower probability of reaching an incorrect decision (0.1 percent) than both justices who face retention elections (0.5 percent) and justices who are elected (0.3 percent).

The work is detailed in an article published in January in the Journal of Public Economics.

"A longstanding question in economics and political sciences involves whether public officials should be elected or appointed. A theoretical literature has argued that elections may serve to discipline public officials but may also provide incentives for officials to inappropriately pander to shifts in public opinion," said Brian Knight, a professor of economics at Brown University and co-editor of the paper. "The research by Iaryczower, Lewis and Shum provides one of the first efforts to quantify these advantages and disadvantages of elections."

In search of correct decisions

The researchers, who are interested in the differences between elected and appointed government officials, put their focus on justices of state supreme courts because these courts of last resort are similar institutions in each of the 50 states. But their members are selected in different ways -- through appointment, election or retention elections. In addition, the courts are working to the same goal: determining the correct decisions under the law.

Data used in the research came primarily from the State Court Data Project, which provides a detailed compilation of data from state supreme court cases in all 50 states from 1995 through 1998. The data includes the particulars of each case, including how each justice ruled, and additional data on each of the 520 justices who served on one of the courts during that time period. The researchers focused on 5,958 criminal cases the courts ruled on in the period.

Information on each case and justice was coded by the researchers, who then applied a model that looked at how bias and information quality interact to shape each justice's decisions.

"We can think of each judge as endowed with two key components for decision-making, which can vary depending on the characteristics of the case and the individual justice," Iaryczower said. "The first is a bias parameter, representing the justice's individual preferences (coming from ideology, a legal position, personal experiences, etc). The second is a parameter measuring the quality of the justice's information: her ability to go from the facts of the case to a correct decision under the law."

Iaryczower offered an example from another context to explain the ideas of bias and quality of information as they are applied in the research: "Consider two senior faculty members from different disciplines deciding a junior appointment. Both professors would support hiring a candidate who excels at research. Each faculty member, however, might be more inclined to hire within the faculty member's own field. She might be 'biased' toward thinking that her own discipline is more relevant, or useful, for advancing science.

"On the other hand, both professors might differ in their ability to evaluate the candidates' research potential based on their own understanding of the candidates' writings and achievements. This is the 'quality of their information'."

In a similar way, the model created by the researchers attempts to measure the interaction of bias and information quality in decision-making by justices.

Estimating error rates

The researchers also used the model to estimate how often justices made errors in their rulings, meaning they reach an incorrect decision under the law.

"We cannot know on a case-by-case basis what is the right answer, but we can attach a probability to each decision being correct under the law, given the votes of all justices and the characteristics of the case," Iaryczower said. "Once we have recovered the bias and quality of information of all justices in the court, we can compute theoretically the probability of making a mistake."

The researchers also estimated the probability that judges vote differently than they would have in the absence of case-specific information. Their measure is the probability that a justice would decide a case differently than what she would decide it without case-specific information. This is captured in a "FLEX" score. The average FLEX score -- on a scale from zero to one -- was 0.37 for elected justices and 0.60 for justices appointed for life, reflecting that appointed justices are more willing to change their preconceived opinions about a case.

The research on state supreme courts is part of a set of projects Iaryczower and his collaborators are pursuing in a similar vein. They are also looking at the workings of deliberations in appeals courts and the impact of campaign contributions to decision-making in courts.

The research described in the Journal of Public Economics article was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Princeton University. The original article was written by Michael Hotchkiss. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Matias Iaryczower, Garrett Lewis, Matthew Shum. To elect or to appoint? Bias, information, and responsiveness of bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Public Economics, 2013; 97: 230 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.08.007

Cite This Page:

Princeton University. "Researchers find appointed justices outperform elected counterparts." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 22 February 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130222121049.htm>.
Princeton University. (2013, February 22). Researchers find appointed justices outperform elected counterparts. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 23, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130222121049.htm
Princeton University. "Researchers find appointed justices outperform elected counterparts." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130222121049.htm (accessed July 23, 2014).

Share This




More Science & Society News

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Boeing Ups Outlook on 52% Profit Jump

Boeing Ups Outlook on 52% Profit Jump

Reuters - Business Video Online (July 23, 2014) Commercial aircraft deliveries rose seven percent at Boeing, prompting the aerospace company to boost full-year profit guidance- though quarterly revenues missed analyst estimates. Bobbi Rebell reports. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
9/11 Commission Members Warn of Terror "fatigue" Among American Public

9/11 Commission Members Warn of Terror "fatigue" Among American Public

Reuters - US Online Video (July 22, 2014) Ten years after releasing its initial report, members of the 9/11 Commission warn of the "waning sense of urgency" in combating terrorists attacks. Mana Rabiee reports. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
CDC Head Concerned About a Post-Antibiotic Era

CDC Head Concerned About a Post-Antibiotic Era

AP (July 22, 2014) Sounding alarms about the growing threat of antibiotic resistance, CDC Director Tom Frieden warned Tuesday if the global community does not confront the problem soon, the world will be living in a devastating post-antibiotic era. (July 22) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Raw: First Lady Says `Drink Up' More Water

Raw: First Lady Says `Drink Up' More Water

AP (July 22, 2014) First lady Michelle Obama, along with help from some children, unveiled a temporary sign on the White House's South Lawn. It's part of her initiative to get Americans to drink more water. (July 22) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins