Collaborative Research: Comprehensive Analysis of Judicial Decision-Making

最好的评委：钱能买到吗？竞选捐款和德克萨斯州最高法院竞选费用大幅增长，特别是对那些竞选州高等法院职位的候选人来说。除了这一趋势，许多人很快注意到，律师和企业利益集团对这些候选人的贡献达到了前所未有的水平。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，法官的决定应该仅受法律的指导；他们不应该受到诉讼当事人、利益集团和为他们的竞选活动做出贡献的律师的过度影响(2002年；2004年；德克萨斯人争取公共正义；2001年)。其他人则认为，捐款人参与了既定的遴选程序，很难证明捐款对司法裁决有影响(肖特兰、切克和香槟，2001)。关于竞选捐款对司法裁决的影响的辩论为本研究提供了起点。我们建议分析从1990年到2000年由德克萨斯州最高法院裁决的案件。德克萨斯州是这项研究的理想背景，因为它曾是一些成本最高、竞争最激烈的司法活动的地点；其他州现在也在经历类似的经历(Cheek and Chample 2005；利害关系正义运动2004)。我们将审查州最高法院决策的三个关键方面：接受(或拒绝)复审案件的决定；法院对案情的决定；以及个别大法官的投票。大多数研究提供了州最高法院决策的不完整图景，因为它们没有考虑到案件选择过程(Brace，Hall，and Langer 2001)。我们的研究将分析大约6500份复审请愿书；1100份案件裁决；以及9000多张个人选票。我们将为司法决策的所有三个阶段建立全面的解释模型；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当事人、律师、律师事务所和利益集团为上诉人和受访者提供的竞选捐款的数据合并。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对摘要访问和病例结果进行建模。此外，我们还将利用所采用的竞选资金措施的工具来控制潜在的内生性问题。智力价值：这项拟议研究的智力价值是巨大的，原因有四个。首先，这是为数不多的几项研究之一，它将审查司法决策的所有三个方面，包括案件选择、法院裁决和法官个人投票。其次，研究的背景是德克萨斯州，它是一个领头羊；研究结果将适用于其他许多州。第三，拟议的研究将涉及多名大法官，并涵盖以大量党派和意识形态变化为特征的延长时间框架。此外，这项研究将包括更多的请愿书、案件裁决和法官个人的投票，而不是之前任何一项研究竞选捐款对司法裁决的影响。最后，拟议的研究将开发更全面的模型，以努力比以前的研究更全面地解释竞选捐款在司法决策中的作用。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，它将为佐治亚大学和犹他州-二叠纪盆地的学生提供机会，通过直接参与研究过程来了解研究。UTPB的影响将尤其显著，这是一家为拉美裔服务的机构，对国家科学基金会支持的研究的敞口有限。最后，我们的研究将提供关于目前关于利用党派选举作为挑选法官手段的辩论的补充资料(Cheek and Chample，2000；2005)。在先前研究结果的基础上，我们的研究对与司法竞选捐款相关的利益与收到这些竞选捐款的法官随后的行为之间的直接联系提供了一个新的、更严格的实证检验。

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.