Evidence that selection mode shapes judicial decisions is mixed and inconclusive

Evidence

Underlying the debate between proponents of merit systems and advocates of judicial elections is the assumption that the mode of selection affects the decisions judges render; however, this assumption is questionable. Political scientists have conducted several studies comparing the voting patterns and decisions of judges selected by various methods. Taking similar cases in various states, some studies found no significant relationship between the mode of selection and judicial voting behavior. Studies focusing on how various classes of litigants (e.g., corporations, criminal defendants, and state agencies) fared before judges selected by various methods likewise concluded that the mode of selection did not affect outcomes. Other studies, however, did find differences. A study by Daniel Pinello concluded that appointed judges were more likely to vindicate the rights of defendants in criminal procedure cases, while another found that appointed judges were more likely to uphold sex discrimination claims. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 446

Categorization

• XREF: Contradicts the common-sense premise behind the merit-vs-election debate; relevant to course theme of how institutional structures influence judging. — connects to: No judicial selection system can eliminate ideological influence. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 369; Region, not selection method, explains state judge background differences — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 454; Judicial decisions and public policy relate in complex ways — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 202
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 446