Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: The Determinants of Countermajoritarian Behavior: State Supreme Courts and The Power of Judicial Review

本博士论文研究项目评估最高法院何时以及在何种条件下审查法规。司法审查的可能性是否因问题的显著性、制度规则（例如，选举或任命的法院）、法官（例如，党派关系）和战略形势（例如，政府的分裂或统一控制）而异？尽管这些问题处于中心地位，但司法学者直到最近才开始系统地研究影响法定审查的力量。因此，本博士论文系统地分析和评价：1)司法审查在不同法律领域的不同程度的显著性；2)是否较旧的法规可能是由休眠联盟通过的，比新的法规更有可能被宣布违宪；以及，3)司法审查是否因制度或政治环境的不同而有所不同，这些制度或政治环境可能会影响州最高法院的战略环境。研究设计采用了来自五十个州的数据收集和分析。这些数据包括五个法律领域的州最高法院司法审查案件的人口。该分析涉及对1970年至1996年期间州最高法院审理的五类法律案件的模型进行统计估计和评估。本博士论文承诺提供州最高法院司法审查的整体图景。

This doctoral dissertation research project assesses when supreme courts review statutes and under what conditions. Does the likelihood of judicial review vary across issue saliency, institutional rules (e.g., elected or appointed courts), justices (e.g., party affiliation), and strategic situations (e.g., divided or unified control of government)? Despite the centrality of these questions, judicial scholars have only recently begun to systematically examine the forces influencing statutory review. Thus, this doctoral dissertation systematically analyzes and evaluates: 1) the extent to which judicial review varies across areas of law with varying degrees of saliency; 2) whether older statutes presumably passed by dormant coalitions, are more likely to be declared unconstitutional than newer statutes; and, 3) whether judicial review varies across institutional or political circumstances that can be reasoned to influence the strategic environment of state supreme courts. The research design employs the collection and analysis of data from the fifty states. These data consist of the population of state supreme court judicial review cases in five areas of law. The analysis involves statistical estimation and evaluation of models of five types of legal cases that came before state supreme courts in the 1970-1996 period. This doctoral dissertation promises to provide a holistic picture of judicial review by state supreme courts.