A Neoinstitutional Theory of Senate Voting on Supreme Court Justices

尽管参议院在确认最高法院大法官的过程中发挥着重要作用，但对影响参议员投票的因素的了解却很少。本项目通过发展一种唱名投票理论来解决这一缺陷，该理论将参议员描绘为主要为其选民的利益而行动。然而，参议员们对最高法院的组成有自己的个人偏好。此外，总统可以对参议员施加奖惩，以影响他们的投票。因此，参议员必须权衡以下方面的成本和收益：1)支持对立的选民意愿；2)追求自己的政策目标；3)支持或反对总统的提名人。为了评估参议员对寻求影响其确认投票的各种行为者施加的权重，本项目开发了一个可测试的模型，用于研究公众舆论、被提名人的意识形态感知以及围绕提名的政治环境如何共同影响参议员的投票。该模型的组成部分包括总统的受欢迎程度和权力、参议员及其选民的意识形态偏好、被提名人的意识形态和资格，以及最高法院空缺席位的重要性。从1949年的汤姆·克拉克（Tom Clark）到1988年的安东尼·肯尼迪（Anthony Kennedy）的2214张个人确认票，对这一理论进行了检验。用来检验这一理论的主要技术是概率分析，这种方法可以估计各种因素在决定参议员是否投票确认被提名人的任命时的重要性。这项研究在几个方面改进了先前的调查。它关注的是最高法院的一个重大变革时期，而不仅仅是围绕某项提名的事件。它试图解释个别参议员的投票，而不仅仅是参议院的整体投票。它的网撒得很广，不仅包括有争议的提名，也包括无争议的提名。它认真对待这样一种观念，即被提名人的意识形态和资格可能会对参议员的确认投票产生重大影响。在探索这些因素作为投票决定因素的作用时，研究开发了感知意识形态和资格的措施。该项目通过对各大报纸对每位提名人的社论进行系统的内容分析来评估这些因素。在项目中测试的模型背后的理论——“委托-代理理论”——已被证明在许多其他情况下是有用的。然而，这一理论以前并没有发展到探索制度和政治环境如何实际影响立法者的投票决定。因此，这种新颖的延伸和应用应该丰富理论本身。因此，这项研究具有广泛的理论回报，并帮助我们更好地理解确认过程中一个主要部分的动态。

Despite the importance of the Senate role in the confirmation of Supreme Court justices, knowledge of the factors affecting the votes of senators is sparse. This project attends to this deficiency by developing a theory of roll call voting that portrays senators as operating primarily in the interests of their consitutents. Senators, however, have their own personal preferences about the composition of the Supreme Court. In addition, presidents can bring rewards and punishments to bear on senators in attempting to influence their vote. Accordingly, senators must weigh the costs and benefits of 1) supporting the opposing constituent desires, 2) pursuing their own policy goals, and 3) supporting or opposing the president's nominee. To assess the weight senators put on the various actors seeking to influence their vote on confirmation, this project develops a testable model of how public opinion, the perceived ideology of the nominee, and the political circumstances surrounding the nomination came together to influence a senator's vote. Components of the model include the popularity and power of the president, the ideological preferences of both senators and their constituents, the ideology and qualifications of the nominee, and the importance of the open seat on the Court. The theory is tested on the 2,214 individual confirmation votes from Tom Clark (1949) through Anthony Kennedy (1988). The chief technique used to test the theory is probit analysis, an approach that permits the estimation of how important various factors are in determining whether or not a senator votes to confirm a nominee's appointment to the Court. The research improves on earlier investigations in several respects. It focuses on a significant period of change for the Court, not just on the events surrounding a particular nomination. It attempts to explain the votes of individual senators, not just the Senate as a whole. It casts its net widely to include not only controversial nominations but noncontroversial ones as well. It takes seriously the notion that a nominee's ideology and qualifications for the Court may prove to be major influences on a senator's confirmation vote. In exploring the role that these factors play as vote determinants, the research develops measures for perceived ideology and qualifications. The project assesses these factors through a systematic content analysis of major newspaper editorials on each nominee. The theory underlying the model tested in the project - - "principal- agency theory" - - has proved to be useful in numerous other contexts. The theory has not previously been developed, however, to explore how institutional and political circumstances actually work to affect a legislator's voting decision. Thus, the theory itself should be enriched by this novel extension and application. The research, therefore, has broad theoretical payoffs as well as helping us understand better the dynamics of a major part of the confirmation process.