Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship/Methodology and Definitions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ballotpedia Courts State Partisanship Page Banner.png



State Partisanship

Ballotpedia Courts State Partisanship VNT.png

Main page

PDF Version

Overview
Methodology and defintionsOverview of Confidence Scoring ResultsState Supreme Court Control Compared to State Government Trifectas Breakdown of Justices by Confidence Categories

The Most and Least Divided State Supreme Courts
The Least Homogeneous State Supreme CourtsThe Most Homogeneous State Supreme CourtsThe Percentage of the Population that Lives in States with Democratic- or Republican-Controlled Courts

Judicial Selection Methods and Partisanship
Partisanship of Justices Across Judicial Selection MethodsComparison of Appointment Methods by Court Balance Score and Median Court ScoreDifficulties with Our Analysis of Pure Partisanship Scores by Selection Method

Partisan Balance Rules

Retention Elections and Vacancy Appointments
Retention ElectionsVacancy Appointments

Confidence Scores
Highest Confidence ScoresIndeterminate Justice Confidence ScoresPure Partisan Scores


June 2020


Click to see:

Methodology

While other studies have attempted to use partisan indicators to discern the ideological leanings of each state supreme court justice, throughout our study we realized that partisan activity within each state is not a completely accurate indicator of ideological leanings. Therefore, the first phase of our project traces the partisan activity of each state supreme court justice within each state. We refer to our scores as Confidence Scores because we believe they provide insight into the degree of confidence we have in each justice’s political leanings because of his or her previous partisan activity. We do not believe that there is a perfect correlation between partisan activity and ideological leanings. Phase two of our study attempts to test this hypothesis by looking at governing majorities on a few of the nation’s divided courts. We will attempt to discern the connection between partisanship and ideology by looking at the governing majorities on a number of courts, and tracing the degree to which justices deviate from the justices who share similar partisan ties as themselves on the court of last resort.

The term Confidence Score describes our confidence in the determination of a state supreme court justice's partisan affiliations. A Confidence Score is not a measure of where a justice falls on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we have that a justice is or has been affiliated with a political party.

A Strong score, therefore, does not mean that we have evaluated the justice to be a staunch member of a political party; rather, a Strong score means that we have been able to trace past involvement with the political party in question.

The range of Confidence Scores that we have found from the data in our study ranges from -17 to 15 on a scale from -18 to 18. We present Confidence Scores in one of five categories, as opposed to a numerical score, in order to stress that our Confidence Scores are not intended to emphasize comparisons between individual justices. Instead, our study compiles information from readily available sources to allow readers to better understand the partisan leanings of supreme court justices in their home states. The categories for justices are:

  • Strong Democrat
  • Mild Democrat
  • Indeterminate[1]
  • Mild Republican
  • Strong Republican

We measure our confidence in political affiliation of state supreme court justices by considering a variety of factors, such as:

  • party registration (current and former)
  • donations made by the justice to partisan candidates
  • donations made by the justice to political parties themselves
  • donations to the justice’s own campaign by political parties or bodies with clear political affiliation
  • the partisanship of the body responsible for appointing the justice to the state supreme court
  • political campaigns that the justice has participated in
  • state trifecta status[2]

Scoring methodology

Data gathered on each justice is placed into one of two tiers, based on how representative we believe that data may be about partisanship.

  • Factors in Tier 1 are most representative of partisanship. We assign them a three-point value. These are categorized as “strong indicators.”
  • Factors in Tier 2 are less representative of partisanship. We assign them a two-point value. These are categorized as “mild indicators.”

In the end, each justice receives a total score between -18 and 18. We sought an alternative to numerical scores, and we devised categories for each justice based on the score we gave them.

We chose to divide the scores into quintiles, following this division with these labels:

  • Strong Republican Affiliation: 10 to 18
  • Mild Republican Affiliation: 4 to 9
  • Indeterminate Affiliation: -3 to 3
  • Mild Democrat Affiliation:-4 to -9
  • Strong Democrat Affiliation: -10 to -18


Simplified Scoring Index

Click to expand the table below to see a simplified version of the scoring system for our state supreme courts project:

Definitions

We use several different terms to describe the relationship between individual justices’ Confidence Scores and the makeup of state supreme courts. Below are brief definitions of the terms we use throughout the study.

  • Court Balance Score attempts to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores are made up of justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores. Courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores are made of justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either have justices with conflicting partisanship or have justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores. The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican.
  • Pure Partisanship Score attempts to show our total confidence in partisan affiliations on a court. Courts with a higher Pure Partisanship Score are made up of justices with stronger Confidence Scores overall, regardless of party. Pure Partisanship Score is calculated by finding the average of the absolute values of the Confidence Score assigned to each justice. For example, if a state supreme court has seven justices with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, -14, -2, 3, and 4, the Pure Partisanship Score is the average of the absolute values of those scores: 4.4.
  • Aggregate Score is the total partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court or selection method. For example, if a state has seven state supreme court justices with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Aggregate Score is the sum of those scores: 23.

About the authors

Samuel Postell is a staff writer on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team and a lecturer at the University of Dallas.

Luke Seeley is a staff writer on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team.

Heidi Jung developed the graphics.

Ballotpedia CEO Leslie Graves, Ballotpedia COO Gwen Beattie, Editor-in-Chief Geoff Pallay, and Ballotpedia Vice President of external relations Alison Prange reviewed the report and provided feedback as did editor Cory Eucalitto. Outside reviewers included Dr. G. Alan Tarr from Rutgers University, and Dr. Aman McLeod from the University of Idaho College of Law.

Footnotes

  1. An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
  2. Ballotpedia, "State government trifectas," accessed October 5, 2020 from: https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas