IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v10y2013i1p76-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicial Impartiality, Campaign Contributions, and Recusals: Results from a National Survey

Author

Listed:
  • James L. Gibson
  • Gregory A. Caldeira

Abstract

Legal scholars have of late become quite worried about how citizens form their impressions of the fairness of courts. This concern reflects the changing environments of courts, especially elected state courts, and what might generally be termed the politicization of the judiciary. The purpose of this article is to assess the effectiveness of judicial recusals at rehabilitating a court/judge tainted by perceived conflicts of interest associated with campaign activities by litigants. Based on an experimental design embedded in a nationally representative sample, our data first confirm that direct campaign contributions undermine perceptions of fairness; but, unexpectedly, so, too, does independent support for the candidate. Most important, recusal does indeed restore some perceived fairness; unfortunately, the repair to public perceptions is not to the level enjoyed when no conflict of interest exists. In a post‐Citizens United world, these findings therefore point to significant threats to the legitimacy of elected state courts.

Suggested Citation

  • James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2013. "Judicial Impartiality, Campaign Contributions, and Recusals: Results from a National Survey," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 76-103, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:10:y:2013:i:1:p:76-103
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12003
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12003?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert M. Kritzer, 2011. "Competitiveness in State Supreme Court Elections, 1946–2009," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 237-259, June.
    2. Gibson, James L. & Gouws, Amanda, 1999. "Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Attributions of Blame and the Struggle over Apartheid," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 501-517, September.
    3. Gibson, James L., 2008. "Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts: Legitimacy Theory and “New-Style” Judicial Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 59-75, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ash, Elliott & MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2021. "Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality: Evidence from U.S. state supreme courts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. Geoff Dancy, 2011. "Choice and Consequence in Strategies of Transitional Justice," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Gates, Scott & Binningsbo, Helga Malmin & Lie, Tove Grete, 2007. "Post-conflict justice and sustainable peace," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4191, The World Bank.

    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:wly:empleg:v:10:y:2013:i:1:p:76-103. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.