Variation in judges’ role conceptions, not state law, explains divergent school finance rulings.

Evidence

In some states, the courts upheld school finance programs, but in others they invalidated them. Given the similarities among the challenged programs, why did state courts disagree about their constitutionality? Differences in state law do not account for the disparate rulings, as state courts reached opposite results despite interpreting virtually identical constitutional provisions. These conflicting outcomes may reflect differences in judges’ conceptions of the judicial role (see Chapter 9). Some state judges, stressing the importance of judicial restraint, upheld school finance programs because they believed it proper to defer to the state legislature. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3302

Categorization

• XREF: Extends ch129/ch133-recognized theme that judges split between restraint and activism; also concretizes the role-belief socialization claim from ch125. — connects to: Sixteen state courts found school finance systems unconstitutional after the federal door closed — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3275; Partisan views do not directly determine state supreme court school finance rulings. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3304; Judges’ role conceptions can override their personal moral beliefs in voting — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1325 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Judges’ politics, gender, and family shape their rulings empirically #expands (0.85)
• Judicial decisions result from attitudes, role conceptions, and institutional constraints interacting together. #corroborates (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1286
• Judges’ race, gender, and politics measurably shift their case outcomes #expands (0.80) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 750