Someone like Me: Descriptive Representation and Support for Supreme Court Nominees
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Author | Alex Badas,Katelyn E. Stauffer |
| DOI | 10.1177/1065912917724006 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2018, Vol. 71(1) 127 –142
Someone like Me: Descriptive
© 2017 University of Utah
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Representation and Support for Supreme https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917724006
DOI: 10.1177/1065912917724006
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Court Nominees
Alex Badas1 and Katelyn E. Stauffer1
Abstract
Extant research on public support for judicial nominees finds that ideological congruence with the nominee is the
most important factor in an individual’s decision to support a nominee. The research presented in this article develops
the theory that for individuals from underrepresented groups, a shared descriptive identity with the nominee will
moderate the negative effect of ideological distance. We test our theory using the nominations of Clarence Thomas,
Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Furthermore, we conduct placebo tests to determine whether the effect of
ideology is moderated for underrepresented groups when a shared descriptive identity is not present. We find that
in the context of the Thomas nomination, a shared racial identity led to increased support for Thomas among liberal
African Americans. We find similar effects in the case of Kagan and conservative women. In the case of Sotomayor,
we find that a shared ethnic identity led to increased support among conservative Latinos, regardless of gender. We
conclude by discussing the implications our findings have for descriptive representation and presidential selection of
judicial nominees.
Keywords
descriptive representation, Supreme Court nominations, identity, public opinion
Among American political institutions, the Supreme
Drawing on representation and social identity litera-
Court is the most insulated from the public. Justices are
ture, we argue that in the absence of ideological congru-
nonelected, and the public has no recourse against jus-
ence, a shared descriptive identity will predict whether
tices who issue unpopular decisions. Although Americans
individuals are likely to support nominees. We argue that
lack a formal mechanism to hold justices accountable,
members of underrepresented groups are more willing to
that does not mean the public has no influence over the
support nominees with whom they disagree when the
institution’s composition. Research by Kastellec, Lax,
nominee is a member of the same underrepresented
and Phillips (2010) shows that public opinion toward
group. We test this theory using the nominations of
Supreme Court nominees influences how senators vote
Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. In
during the confirmation process. Thus, while the public
the context of Thomas and Sotomayor, we find that a
may have no direct say in who is appointed to the Court,
shared racial or ethnic identity moderates the negative
public opinion nevertheless is influential in shaping the
effects of ideological incongruence, while gender moder-
composition of the institution.
ated negative effects in the case of Kagan.
Because public opinion can influence the confirmation
Our findings demonstrate the need to more broadly
process, understanding how the public forms opinions
incorporate descriptive identities into analyses of public
about nominees has important implications for studies of
opinion toward judicial nominees and executive appoint-
judicial composition and decision making. Previous studies
ments. Increasingly, scholars are turning attention to the
have found that ideological congruence is the best predictor
study of when and how underrepresented groups achieve
of individual support for nominees. While attention to ide-
ology is critical for understanding public opinion toward
1Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
nominees, previous studies are notable for their lack of
attention to the role that descriptive characteristics may
Corresponding Author:
play in shaping public opinion. As the court diversifies,
Alex Badas, Department of Political Science, Indiana University,
210 Woodburn Hall, 1100 East Seventh Street, Bloomington,
understanding how these descriptive characteristics shape
IN 47405, USA.
public opinion is increasingly consequential.
Email: abadas@indiana.edu
128
Political Research Quarterly 71(1)
representation through executive appointments, and recent
finds that political cues such as ideology and co-parti-
research suggests these appointments can provide sym-
sanship are the best explanations of public support for
bolic benefits to citizens (Liu and Banaszak 2017). As
judicial nominees.
highly visible presidential appointments, Supreme Court
While the literature on judicial politics has explored a
nominees have the potential to confer symbolic benefits to
variety of factors related to public support for nominees,
Americans from the time of their nominations through
this literature consistently shows that ideological congru-
their tenures on the bench. Understanding public opinion
ence is by far the strongest predictor of support for nomi-
toward diverse nominees, and the groups that are likely to
nees. While ideology may be the best predictor of public
support these nominees, thus has important implications
support for nominees, presidents cannot simply rely on
for studies of judicial politics and the broader literatures
support from co-ideologues when making nominations,
on executive appointments and representation.
as it would be bad strategy. Madonna, Monogan, and
Vining (2016) find that when presidents engage in con-
Ideology and Public Support for
tentious Supreme Court confirmation battles, they are
Nominees
more likely to experience delays and failures in future
judicial vacancies and important policy proposals. Thus,
Public opinion toward Supreme Court nominees plays an
presidents should attempt to achieve some degree of
important role in determining which nominees make it
cross-ideological support for their Supreme Court nomi-
onto the Court. Kastellec, Lax, and Phillips (2010) find
nees if they want their future nominees and proposals to
that state-level opinion toward nominees influences sena-
be implemented. Furthermore, presidents whose party
tors’ decision to vote in support or against a nominee.
does not control the Senate will need to achieve some
When support is high, senators are more likely to vote to
degree of cross-ideological cooperation to ensure the
confirm the nominee than when support is low. In a fol-
opposition party will even consider the nominee. The
low-up study, Kastellec et al. (2015) find that senators
benefits of cross-ideological support in the nomination
give greater weight to the attitudes of co-partisans when
process make it particularly important to understand the
voting on Supreme Court nominees than the opinions of
conditions under which individuals who are ideologically
constituents from the opposing party. Given the impor-
distant from a nominee are nonetheless likely to support
tance of public opinion during the confirmation process,
them. We predict that shared descriptive identities—such
it is critical to understand the dynamics that affect whether
as race, ethnicity, and gender—will moderate the nega-
members of the public support nominees.
tive effect of ideological distance on an individual’s deci-
Extant research has established that a few factors are
sion to support or oppose judicial nominees.
central to an individual’s choice to support nominees.
One of the earliest studies on public support for Supreme
Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Group
Court nominees conducted by Gimpel and Wolpert (1996)
Politics
found that ideological congruence was the strongest pre-
dictor of support. Simply put, liberals support liberal
Mansbridge (1999) highlights two positive effects of
nominees and oppose conservative nominees while con-
increasing descriptive representation for women and racial
servatives support conservative nominees and oppose lib-
or ethnic minorities. The first is that institutions are most
eral nominees. Research since Gimpel and Wolpert
legitimate when they mirror the characteristics of the popu-
(1996) has confirmed the importance of ideology in sup-
lations they represent (Mansbridge 1999). Research on
porting Supreme Court nominees. Analyzing the 2006
legitimacy and the judiciary supports this argument.
nomination of Justice Alito, Gibson and Caldeira (2009)
Scherer and Curry (2010) find that when African Americans
found that the amount of perceived ideological distance
believe they are equally or overrepresented in the judiciary,
from Alito predicted support among members of the pub-
they view the judiciary as more legitimate.
lic. Individuals who perceived themselves as ideologi-
The second benefit of diverse institutions is that under-
cally aligned with Alito were more likely to support his
represented groups feel more a part of the political pro-
confirmation than individuals who perceived themselves
cess and that their voice is valued (Mansbridge 1999;
as ideologically distant from him.
Sapiro 1981). This increased presence should lead mem-
Using an experimental design, Hoekstra and bers of underrepresented groups to display higher levels
LaRowe (2013) suggest that the decision of whether to
of trust and efficacy when they see fellow group members
support judicial nominees...
To continue reading
Request your trial