SGER: Money, Politics, and the Legitimacy of State Supreme Courts: The Impact of Recusals and Disqualifications

由于法官的选举政治化，州高等法院的合法性变得越来越脆弱。在最近的许多事态发展中，最具威胁性的是利益冲突（真实的和明显的），当那些在法院提起诉讼的人正是在法官竞选期间向其提供资金的个人和机构时，就会出现利益冲突。许多人认为，这些捐款从根本上破坏了民选法院的合法性。这种冲突在卡珀顿诉梅西案中最为严重，这是西弗吉尼亚州最高上诉法院的一项裁决，美国最高法院已经批准了调卷令。本案涉及一项关键性的投票，推翻了一名法官在之前的司法选举中从梅西方面获得了大笔竞选捐款的5000万美元的下级法院判决。在此背景下，我们在本项目中的目标包括：(1)确定西弗吉尼亚州最高上诉法院享有多少合法性；(2)评估这种合法性是否受到竞选献金争议的影响；(3)调查捐款问题是否只影响了相关的司法公正，还是会产生更普遍的制度后果；（四）决定回避是否使犯罪的法官平反；(5)测试关于竞选捐款的具体属性的假设，这些属性会影响人们对司法公正的看法，从而影响法院的合法性；(6)在法院期望理论的背景下进行所有这些分析，该理论认识到一些公民已经开始期望司法机构应该以合理的意识形态方式行事；(7)调查美国最高法院的干预是否通过“合法性授予”程序影响了人们对西弗吉尼亚州最高上诉法院的看法。该项目基于对西弗吉尼亚州居民的两波面板调查。

The legitimacy of state high courts has become increasingly fragile as a result of politicized elections for the judges sitting on these courts. One of the most threatening of the many recent developments is conflicts of interest (real and apparent) that arise when those litigating before a court are the very same individuals and institutions contributing money to the judges during their election campaigns. Many believe that such contributions fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of elected courts. In no instance is this conflict more severe than in the case of Caperton v Massey, a decision from the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal, to which the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari. This case involves a crucial vote to overturn a $50,000,000 lower court judgment against Massey by a justice who received large campaign contributions from the Massey side during the preceding judicial election. Using this context, our goals in this project include: (1) determining how much legitimacy the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal enjoys; (2) assessing whether that legitimacy is affected by the campaign contribution controversy; (3) investigating whether the contribution issue taints only the implicated justice or whether more general institutional consequences arise; (4) determining whether recusals rehabilitate an offending justice; (5) testing hypotheses about the specific attributes of campaign contributions that influence perceptions of judicial impartiality, and hence of the legitimacy of courts; (6) conducting all of this analysis within the context of an expectancy theory of courts that recognizes that some citizens have come to expect that the judiciary should act in a reasonably ideological fashion; and (7) investigating whether the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court affects perceptions of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeal via "legitimacy conferring" processes. This project is based upon a two-wave panel survey of the residents of West Virginia.