Footnote:
Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments 2009 erstellt
Description:
Many have worried about recent changes in judicial campaigns in terms of increased costs and acrimonious rhetoric. Some scholars have concerns that the Supreme Court’s Republican Party of Minnesota v. White further changed the nature of judicial campaigns, allowing candidates to take positions on controversial legal issues and engage in negative campaigning. In this paper, we investigate the effects of White by utilizing the varying state interpretations of White in conjunction with a mail survey of lower court judicial candidates across six states. We find that only a small minority of judges take positions on politically-charged issues or engage in negative campaigning. Most lower court judicial candidates campaign on traditional themes and issues, like experience or qualifications or court administration issues. Moreover, we find no evidence to suggest White has had any effect on the tone or content of judicial rhetoric for lower court races