The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy: Chicago Studies in Judicial Politics

Judicial elections are a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. In the early days of the republic, judges were appointed by the president or by state legislatures. However, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a wave of progressive reforms led to the adoption of judicial elections in many states.

Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

by John Drennan

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	3481 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	242 pages
Lending	:	Enabled
Paperback	:	60 pages
Item Weight	:	3.68 ounces
Dimensions	:	6 x 0.15 x 9 inches

FREE

Supporters of judicial elections argued that they would make the judiciary more accountable to the people. They believed that by electing judges, voters would have a direct say in who decides their cases.

However, critics of judicial elections argued that they would politicize the judiciary and undermine its independence. They feared that judges would be beholden to special interests and would make decisions based on their own political beliefs, rather than on the law.

The debate over judicial elections has continued for decades. Some studies have found that judicial elections do indeed lead to more partisan and ideological judges. Other studies have found that judicial elections have little or no effect on judicial decision-making.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago provides new evidence on the effects of judicial elections. The study looked at judicial elections in Chicago from 1992 to 2016. The researchers found that campaigning actually increased public trust in the courts.

The researchers surveyed voters before and after the 2016 judicial elections. They found that voters who were aware of the campaign were more likely to trust the courts. They also found that voters who were exposed to positive campaign messages about the candidates were more likely to trust the courts.

The researchers argue that campaigning can increase public trust in the courts by providing voters with information about the candidates and their qualifications. They also argue that campaigning can help to legitimize the judiciary by showing that judges are accountable to the people.

The findings of the study are surprising, given the concerns that have been raised about the politicization of the judiciary. However, the study suggests that campaigning may actually be beneficial for the courts.

The study has several implications for the debate over judicial elections. First, it suggests that judicial elections do not necessarily lead to a less legitimate judiciary. Second, it suggests that campaigning can actually increase public trust in the courts.

The study also has implications for judicial campaigns. The study suggests that candidates who run positive campaigns are more likely to win voters' trust. Candidates should therefore focus on providing voters with information about their qualifications and their commitment to the rule of law.

The study by researchers at the University of Chicago provides new evidence on the effects of judicial elections. The study found that campaigning actually increased public trust in the courts. The study has implications for the debate over judicial elections and for judicial campaigns.

Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

by John Drennan

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	3481 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	242 pages
Lending	:	Enabled
Paperback	:	60 pages
Item Weight	:	3.68 ounces
Dimensions	:	6 x 0.15 x 9 inches

FREE