IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-661512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua B. Fischman

Abstract

This paper develops a consensus voting model for estimating preferences of federal circuit court judges. Unlike standard ideal point models, which assume that judges vote sincerely for their preferred outcomes, the consensus model accounts for the norm of consensus in the courts of appeals by including a cost of dissent in the judicial utility function. A test of the consensus voting model on a data set of asylum appeals demonstrates that it provides a substantially better fit than a comparable sincere voting model and also generates more accurate predictions of voting probabilities. The model generates credible estimates of the impact of panel composition on case outcomes, which is surprisingly large in the asylum cases. Even though 95 percent of these decisions were unanimous, roughly half of the cases could have been decided differently if assigned to different panels.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua B. Fischman, 2011. "Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 781-809.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/661512
    DOI: 10.1086/661512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661512
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661512
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/661512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    2. Waldfogel, Joel, 1995. "The Selection Hypothesis and the Relationship between Trial and Plaintiff Victory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 229-260, April.
    3. Peress, Michael, 2009. "Small Chamber Ideal Point Estimation," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 276-290, July.
    4. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    5. Michael A. Bailey, 2007. "Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 433-448, July.
    6. John M. de Figueiredo, 2005. "Strategic Plaintiffs and Ideological Judges in Telecommunications Litigation," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 501-523, October.
    7. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    8. Londregan, John, 1999. "Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 35-56, January.
    9. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
    10. Spirling, Arthur & McLean, Iain, 2007. "UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 85-96, January.
    11. Butler, J S & Moffitt, Robert, 1982. "A Computationally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One-Factor Multinomial Probit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 761-764, May.
    12. Voeten, Erik, 2007. "The Politics of International Judicial Appointments: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 669-701, October.
    13. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla & Garoupa, Nuno & Gómez-Pomar, Fernando, 2017. "Estimating judicial ideal points in the Spanish Supreme Court: The case of administrative review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 16-28.
    2. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    3. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    4. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Politics in the Courtroom: Political Ideology and Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 834-875.
    5. Hoffmann, Jakob & Glückler, Johannes & Khuchua, Tamar & Lachapelle, Francois & Lazega, Emmanuel & Zipf, Marius, 2024. "Legalist and realist decision-making in patent law: Validity cases in Germany," SocArXiv p354r, Center for Open Science.
    6. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2023. "Non-confrontational extremists," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Amaral-Garcia Sofia & dalla Pellegrina Lucia & Garoupa Nuno, 2023. "Consensus and Ideology in Courts: An Application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 151-184, July.
    8. Muro, Sergio & Amaral-Garcia, Sofia & Chehtman, Alejandro & Garoupa, Nuno, 2020. "Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    9. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    11. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "A Theory of Judicial Retirement," Documentos de Trabajo 451, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    12. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    13. Frankenreiter Jens, 2018. "Are Advocates General Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Voting Behavior of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-43, March.
    14. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    15. Nuno Garoupa & Laura Salamero-Teixidó & Adrián Segura, 2022. "Disagreeing in private or dissenting in public: an empirical exploration of possible motivations," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 147-173, April.
    16. Martén, Linna, 2015. "Political Bias in Court? Lay Judges and Asylum Appeals," Working Paper Series 2015:2, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    17. David S. Abrams & Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2012. "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 347-383.
    18. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    19. Garoupa, Nuno & Grajzl, Peter, 2020. "Spurred by legal tradition or contextual politics? Lessons about judicial dissent from Slovenia and Croatia," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    21. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla & Garoupa, Nuno & Gómez-Pomar, Fernando, 2017. "Estimating judicial ideal points in the Spanish Supreme Court: The case of administrative review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 16-28.
    2. Richard Holden & Michael Keane & Matthew Lilley, 2021. "Peer effects on the United States Supreme Court," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 981-1019, July.
    3. Iaryczower, Matias & Lewis, Garrett & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "To elect or to appoint? Bias, information, and responsiveness of bureaucrats and politicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 230-244.
    4. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Claudine Desrieux & Romain Espinosa, 2019. "Case selection and judicial decision-making: evidence from French labor courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 57-88, February.
    6. Daniel Lee, 2014. "Third-party threat and the dimensionality of major-party roll call voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 515-531, June.
    7. Richard F. Potthoff, 2018. "Estimating Ideal Points from Roll-Call Data: Explore Principal Components Analysis, Especially for More Than One Dimension?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, January.
    8. Wessel Wijtvliet & Arthur Dyevre, 2021. "Judicial ideology in economic cases: Evidence from the General Court of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 25-45, March.
    9. Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili, 2020. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Bi‐Dimensional Courts: Evidence from Catalonia," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 383-415, June.
    10. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    12. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    13. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    14. Santiago Pereda-Fernández, 2021. "Copula-Based Random Effects Models for Clustered Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 575-588, March.
    15. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    16. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Roll Call Data and Ideal Points," Wallis Working Papers WP42, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
    17. Cindy Cheng & Joan Barceló & Allison Spencer Hartnett & Robert Kubinec & Luca Messerschmidt, 2020. "COVID-19 Government Response Event Dataset (CoronaNet v.1.0)," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 756-768, July.
    18. Crane, Harry, 2017. "A hidden Markov model for latent temporal clustering with application to ideological alignment in the U.S. Supreme Court," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 19-36.
    19. Paola Annoni & Nicholas Charron, 2019. "Measurement Assessment in Cross-Country Comparative Analysis: Rasch Modelling on a Measure of Institutional Quality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 31-60, January.
    20. Bertomeu Juan González & Pellegrina Lucia Dalla & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Latin America: The Case of Argentina," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-35, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/661512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.