Collaborative Research: Comprehensive Analysis of Judicial Decision-Making

协同研究：司法决策综合分析

• 批准号: 0615838
• 负责人: M Hood
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Georgia Research Foundation Inc
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-08-15 至 2009-07-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0615838&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Collaborative; Research; Comprehensive; Analysis; Judicial

AbstractThe Best Judges Money Can Buy? Campaign Contributions and the Texas Supreme CourtThe cost of campaigning has grown tremendously, especially for those candidates running for positions on state high courts. Along with this trend, many have been quick to note that lawyers and corporate interests have been contributing to these candidates at unprecedented levels. In 2000, state supreme court candidates raised a record $45 million. Critics of judicial campaign contributions maintain that judges should be guided in their decisions by the law alone; they should not be unduly influenced by litigants, interest groups, and lawyers who contribute to their campaigns (Justice at Stake Campaign 2002; 2004; Texans for Public Justice 1998; 2001). Others argue that contributors are participating in the established selection process and that it is difficult to show that contributions have an effect on judicial decisions (Schotland, Cheek, and Champagne 2001). This debate regarding the effect of campaign contributions on judicial decisions provides the starting point for the present study. We propose to analyze cases decided by the Texas Supreme Court from 1990 through 2000. Texas is an ideal setting for the study because it has been the scene of some of the most expensive and hard-fought judicial campaigns; other states are now going through similar experiences (Cheek and Champagne 2005; Justice at Stake Campaign 2004). We will examine three key aspects of state supreme court decision making: the decision to accept (or reject) a case for review; the court's decision on the merits; and individual justices' votes. Most studies provide an incomplete picture of state supreme court decision making because they fail to take into account the case selection process (Brace, Hall, and Langer 2001). Our study will analyze approximately 6,500 petitions for review; 1,100 case decisions; and over 9,000 individual votes. We will develop comprehensive explanatory models for all three phases of judicial decision making; including variables to measure judicial ideology, the political environment, case issues, litigant status, attorney experience, and law firm size. These observations will then be merged with data on campaign contributions by litigants, attorneys, law firms, and interest groups for both appellants and respondents. We plan to apply advanced statistical techniques to the questions at hand, including the use of sample selection techniques to model both docket access and case outcomes simultaneously. In addition, we will also control for potential endogeneity issues by utilizing instruments for the campaign finance measures employed. Intellectual Merit: The intellectual merit of the proposed study is substantial for four reasons. First, it is one of the few studies that will examine all three aspects of judicial decision making, including case selection, court decisions, and individual justices' votes. Second, the research setting, Texas, is a bellwether state; the findings will apply to many other states. Third, the proposed study will involve a number of justices and encompass an extended time frame characterized by a great deal of partisan and ideological change. Moreover, the study will include a larger number of petitions, case decisions, and individual justices' votes than any previous study examining the effect of campaign contributions on judicial decisions. Finally, the proposed study will develop more comprehensive models in an effort to provide a more complete explanation for the role of campaign contributions in judicial decision making than those found in prior research. Broader Impact: The broader impact of the proposed study is multi-faceted. First, it will provide new information for presentation in judicial politics, state politics, and Texas politics courses. Second, it will provide an opportunity for students at the University of Georgia and UT-Permian Basin to learn about research through direct participation in the research process. The impact will be especially dramatic at UTPB, a Hispanic serving institution with limited exposure to research supported by the National Science Foundation. Finally, our study will provide additional information on current debates over the use of partisan election as the means for choosing judges (Cheek and Champagne 2000; 2005). Building on the findings of prior research, our study offers a new, more rigorous empirical test of a direct linkage between the interests associated with judicial campaign contributions and subsequent behavior of judges who received those campaign contributions.

金钱能买到的最好的法官？竞选捐款和得克萨斯州最高法院竞选费用大幅增加，特别是对那些竞选州高等法院职位的候选人来说。 沿着这一趋势，许多人很快注意到，律师和公司利益一直在以前所未有的水平为这些候选人做出贡献。2000年，州最高法院候选人筹集了创纪录的4500万美元。对司法竞选捐款持批评态度的人认为，法官在作出决定时应仅以法律为指导;他们不应受到诉讼当事人、利益集团和为其竞选捐款的律师的不当影响（Justice at Stake Campaign 2002; 2004; Texans for Public Justice 1998; 2001）。另一些人则认为，捐助者参与了既定的选择过程，很难证明捐助对司法裁决有影响（Schotland，Cheek，and香槟2001）。这场关于竞选捐款对司法判决的影响的辩论为本研究提供了起点。我们建议分析案件决定由得克萨斯州最高法院从1990年到2000年。得克萨斯州是这项研究的理想场所，因为它是一些最昂贵和最艰难的司法运动的现场;其他州现在也在经历类似的经历（奇克和香槟2005年;正义的赌注运动2004年）。 我们将研究州最高法院决策的三个关键方面：决定接受（或拒绝）复审案件;法院对案情的决定;以及个别法官的投票。大多数研究提供了一个不完整的图片州最高法院的决策，因为他们没有考虑到案件的选择过程（布雷斯，霍尔和兰格2001年）。我们的研究将分析大约6，500份审查请愿书; 1，100个案件决定;和9，000多张个人选票。我们将为司法决策的所有三个阶段开发全面的解释模型;包括衡量司法意识形态，政治环境，案件问题，诉讼地位，律师经验和律师事务所规模的变量。 然后，这些观察结果将与诉讼人、律师、律师事务所和上诉人和答辩人的利益集团的竞选捐款数据合并。 我们计划将先进的统计技术应用于手头的问题，包括使用样本选择技术来同时模拟备审访问和案件结果。 此外，我们亦将利用竞选财务措施的工具控制潜在的内部监控问题。知识价值：拟议研究的知识价值是实质性的，原因有四。首先，这是为数不多的研究之一，将审查所有三个方面的司法决策，包括案件选择，法院判决，和个别法官的投票。第二，研究背景，得克萨斯州，是一个领头羊状态;研究结果将适用于许多其他国家。第三，拟议的研究将涉及一些大法官，并包括一个以大量党派和意识形态变化为特征的长期框架。此外，这项研究将包括更多的请愿书，案件的决定，和个人法官的投票比以往任何研究审查的影响，竞选捐款对司法决定。最后，拟议的研究将开发更全面的模型，努力提供一个更完整的解释，在司法决策中的作用，竞选捐款比那些发现在以前的研究。更广泛的影响：拟议研究的更广泛影响是多方面的。首先，它将为司法政治，州政治和德克萨斯州政治课程提供新的信息。其次，它将为格鲁吉亚大学和UT二叠纪盆地的学生提供一个机会，通过直接参与研究过程来了解研究。这种影响在UTPB尤其显著，UTPB是一家西班牙裔服务机构，对美国国家科学基金会支持的研究接触有限。最后，我们的研究将提供更多的信息，目前的辩论使用党派选举作为选择法官的手段（奇克和香槟2000年; 2005年）。 基于先前研究的结果，我们的研究提供了一个新的，更严格的实证检验与司法竞选捐款和随后的行为谁收到这些竞选捐款的法官的利益之间的直接联系。