State-dominant judicial selection caused Southern judges to resist federal desegregation orders

Evidence

Because state party contacts are particularly important in securing support, this political activity has typically involved state or local, rather than national, politics. The judges therefore tend to share the political perspectives dominant in the state. This has at times posed a problem: in the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, many Southern district court judges were reluctant to enforce the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decisions. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 468

Categorization

• XREF: Concrete instance of judicial resistance connecting to Brown v. Board enforcement literature. — connects to: Delegating implementation to local judges enabled Southern delay of desegregation — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2978; Judge-imposed racial desegregation can take root where most whites accept it — Matthew D. Lassiter, The Suburban Origins of “Color-Blind”…, 106; Region, not selection method, explains state judge background differences — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 454 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Delegating implementation to local judges enabled Southern delay of desegregation #expands (0.88) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2978
• Lower court judges shaped by local politics can blunt a Supreme Court mandate. #expands (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1545
• Political selection fills the courts with judges holding established partisan views #expands (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2571
• Region, not selection method, explains state judge background differences #complicates (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 454
• Judge-imposed racial desegregation can take root where most whites accept it #qualifies (0.72) — Matthew D. Lassiter, The Suburban Origins of “Color-Blind”…, 106