Showing papers by "Donald R. Songer published in 2016"

Party Capability and the US Courts of Appeals: Understanding Why the “Haves” Win

Abstract: While many studies have examined party capability theory, few have empirically examined the potential causal mechanisms underlying the theory. We do this by combining quantitative analyses with qualitative data drawn from interviews with over 60 US courts of appeals judges. We find that the “haves,” or repeat players, hire better lawyers and that these lawyers independently contribute to the success of the repeat players. We also find that the advantages of the haves extend to all parties, though to a lesser extent than the advantages enjoyed by the US government. These results remain robust after controlling for ideology.

Gender Diversity in the Intermediate Appellate Courts of Canada

Abstract: A large sample of cases from the courts of appeal in five large Canadian provinces are examined to assess the impact of gender diversification on appellate courts. The findings are that there are significant gender differences on the courts of appeal that parallel those on the Supreme Court of Canada. Women are significantly more likely than men are to support the government in criminal cases and to support the individual in civil liberties cases. Moreover, strong panel effects are discovered. As the number of female judges increases, the more male judges tend to adopt the typical female approach to judicial outcomes; no evidence is found that supports critical mass theory.

Assessing the Impact of

Abstract: a new measure of the voting behavior of Judges on the United States Courts of Appeals, we provide an assessment of the impact of the policy preferences of Presidents, compared to those of home state senators of each party, as well as other home state forces. We find that there is a strong association between the preferences of appointing Presidents and their judges' voting behavior, regardless of the party composition of the Senate delegation from the judge's home state. The preferences of home state senators of the President's party are also significantly related to judges' votes, while opposition party senators have no impact on the behavior of judges. The preferences of other elites from the home state are related to judicial votes only when there is no home state senator from the President's party Furthermore, there are no contextual influ

The Success of Amici in State

Abstract: During the past decade, interest group participation in state supreme courts has continued to increase, reflecting the increasing importance of these courts as policymakers in the federal system. Groups participate both as sponsors of litigation and as amici curiae, but little is known about either role. The present analysis explores the success of amici curiae in state supreme court decisions on the merits. Three methods of assessing the relationship between amici support and litigant success are employed: their simple won/loss ratios, their success in "matched pairs7' and the relationship between amicus support and the success of litigants in state courts in a multivariate logit model. All three methods suggest that support from amici is significantly related to the likelihood of success of the supported litigants, regardless of whether amici support the appellant or the respondent. Interest groups participate in the courts in numerous roles, but the most frequent form of participation is as amicus curiae. The growing realization of the magnitude and scope of interest group participation in cases argued before the Supreme Court has generated a corresponding increase in the number of scholarly studies of such activity' But surprisingly, after three decades of social science analysis of amicus participation, very little is known about amicus participation in any court other than the U.S. Supreme Court. The dearth of analysis of the participation of amici in state supreme courts2 is unfortunate because there is reason to believe that lower forums are becoming increasingly attractive to groups (Epstein 1992: 4). Epstein argues that the growing importance of state supreme courts as policymakers combined with the increasing conservatism of the federal courts, has led more groups to turn to the state courts to pursue their policy interests. But it is unclear whether the involvement of both increasing numbers and a wider array of amici has reflected continuing or increasing success by amici