Collaborative Research: Comprehensive Analysis of Judicial Decision-Making

金钱能买到的最好的法官？竞选捐款和德克萨斯州最高法院竞选活动的费用急剧增加，尤其是那些竞选州高等法院职位的候选人。随着这一趋势，许多人很快注意到，律师和公司利益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坚持认为，法官在作出决定时应仅以法律为指导；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捐款的律师的过度影响（司法危在在押运动2002年；2004年；德州人争取公共司法1998年；2001年）。其他人则认为，贡献者参与了既定的选择过程，很难证明贡献对司法判决有影响（Schotland, Cheek, and Champagne, 2001）。这场关于竞选捐款对司法裁决影响的辩论为本研究提供了起点。我们建议分析1990年至2000年间德克萨斯州最高法院判决的案件。德克萨斯州是进行这项研究的理想地点，因为它是一些最昂贵、最激烈的司法运动的发生地；其他州现在也在经历类似的经历（奇克和香槟，2005年；正义危在其中运动，2004年）。我们将研究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；法院对案情的裁决；以及大法官个人的投票。大多数研究对州最高法院的决策提供了一个不完整的图景，因为他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份申请审查；1100件案件判决；以及超过9000张个人投票。建立司法决策三个阶段的综合解释模型；包括衡量司法意识形态、政治环境、案件问题、诉讼身份、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、律师事务所以及上诉人和被告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同时对摘要访问和案例结果进行建模。此外，我们还将通过使用竞选财务措施的工具来控制潜在的内生性问题。智力价值：提出的研究的智力价值是实质性的，原因有四个。首先，它是少数几项研究之一，将审查司法决策的三个方面，包括案件选择、法院判决和法官个人投票。其次，研究地点德克萨斯州是一个风向标州；这一发现将适用于其他许多州。第三，拟议的研究将涉及许多法官，并包括一个以大量党派和意识形态变化为特征的较长时间框架。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，比以往任何研究竞选捐款对司法裁决影响的研究都要多。最后，拟议的研究将开发更全面的模型，努力为竞选捐款在司法决策中的作用提供比先前研究中发现的更完整的解释。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UT-Permian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。这对UTPB的影响尤其显著，这是一所西班牙裔服务机构，受到国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation）支持的研究的影响有限。最后，我们的研究将提供更多关于当前关于使用党派选举作为选择法官手段的辩论的信息（Cheek and Champagne 2000; 2005）。在先前研究结果的基础上，我们的研究提供了一种新的、更严格的实证检验，证明与司法竞选捐款相关的利益与接受这些竞选捐款的法官的后续行为之间存在直接联系。

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.