The Causes and Consequences of Gubernatorial Endorsements

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X11409666
• Author: Teena Wilhelm,Richard L. Vining
• Published date: 01 November 2011
• Date: 01 November 2011
• Subject Matter: Articles

409666APR
American Politics Research
39(6) 1072 –1096
The Causes and
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Consequences
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X11409666
http://apr.sagepub.com
of Gubernatorial
Endorsements: Evidence
From State Supreme
Court Elections
Richard L. Vining, Jr.1 and Teena Wilhelm1
Abstract
Governors are generally the best-known figures in state politics. They have
many roles, including service as political leaders in their states. One aspect of
this role is the promotion of their favored policies and electoral candidates.
We examine why governors endorse candidates for state-level office using
data from partisan and nonpartisan state supreme court elections from 1999
to 2008. We examine both decisions to endorse and whether endorsements
influence electoral results. Our findings indicate that a governor’s decision
to endorse a candidate is the product of pragmatic considerations and
executive resources. We also conclude that governors’ endorsements have a
significant effect on electoral outcomes.
Keywords
state supreme courts, judicial elections, governors, political endorsements,
judicial selection
1University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Teena Wilhelm, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Georgia,
104 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA
Email: twilhelm@uga.edu

---

Vining and Wilhelm
1073
Governors have incentives to speak out in support of candidates for public
office. If a state’s government is comprised individuals who share the gover-
nor’s political predisposition, its chief executive’s policy goals are more
likely to become law and be sustained in the long term. Despite their potential
importance, no systematic analysis explains gubernatorial endorsements of
electoral candidates. Given the limited public awareness of the judiciary and
the juxtaposition between the traditional perception of the Third Branch and
the politicization of judicial elections in many states (Caufield, 2007), we
posit that gubernatorial endorsements of judicial candidates are particularly
interesting. Elections for state supreme court seats have high stakes. Justices
are few in number and serve longer terms than other elected officials, and
courts of last resort have a vital role in state politics. We expect that the par-
ticipation of governors in judicial elections is conditioned by their relation-
ships to candidates, the political stakes of the elections, and the resources of
states’ chief executives.
Political scientists have examined “going public” by presidents and gov-
ernors to promote their agendas (Fleer, 2007; Kernell, 1997). Scholars have
also examined presidential speech supporting nominees to the federal bench
(Holmes, 2007, 2008; Johnson & Roberts, 2004).1 Social scientists have not
considered whether and why governors endorse supreme court candidates in
the 38 states that select or retain judges in electoral contests. These states use
either partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or merit selection systems
with retention elections.2 It is unknown whether gubernatorial endorsements
in these races are consequential.
We assess why states’ chief executives participate in electoral campaigns
and the effect of this involvement. We focus on state supreme court elections
from 1999 to 2008 in all 22 states with partisan or nonpartisan supreme court
elections.3 Candidates who received governors’ endorsements were identi-
fied using newspaper searches for mentions of activities supporting judicial
candidates. These included, for example, public speeches, participation in
fundraisers, appearing in television commercials, and recording telephone
calls on behalf of judicial nominees. We use regression analysis to explain
gubernatorial involvement in judicial campaigns and its effect. Our findings
indicate that governors’ endorsements are influenced by the fundraising abil-
ity of the office-seeker, the governor’s political capital, and the ideological
composition of the state high court. We find that gubernatorial endorsements
increase the vote share of supreme court candidates, especially when they
receive multiple public endorsements from the governor.

---

1074
American Politics Research 39(6)
Governors and Judicial Selection
Governors often have a role in the selection of judges, particularly in the
event of interim vacancies. It is likely that modern, “new style” judicial elec-
tions (Hojnacki & Baum, 1992) are amenable to other forms of gubernatorial
participation. Judicial races tend to be more expensive than they were in the
past (Bonneau, 2007) and often involve substantial political activism and
interest group participation (Goldberg, 2007).4 Whatever the cause of this
politicization, we argue that one result is an environment in which governors
attempt to influence supreme court elections under certain conditions.5
The composition of a state’s high court is consequential. Devolution and
deregulation in recent decades enhanced the role of the states relative to the
federal government.6 States frequently take the lead on issues when the fed-
eral government is unable or unwilling to act. For example, states have
developed policies to provide health services, clean up the environment, pro-
vide education services, equalize school aid, fund stem cell research, and
define marriage within their borders (Nathan, 2008, pp. 169-171). State high
courts decide cases with consequences related to these policies and others.
Recent state supreme court rulings decided important legal questions about
abortion rights,7 capital punishment,8 legislative redistricting and reappor-
tionment,9 and same-sex marriage10 (see Vining, Wilhelm, Hiers, & Marcin,
2010). Because state high courts decide the outcome of salient cases and
controversies, governors are interested in their membership.
Given the increasingly political nature of judicial elections in many states,
we expect that gubernatorial decisions to endorse candidates are important.
We now present theoretical explanations for why governors get involved in
judicial campaigns and examine the consequences of their endorsements.
Executive Endorsements and Their Influence
Governors are heads of state, chief executives, political leaders, legislative
leaders, public leaders, and commanders-in-chief. The recruitment and
endorsement of candidates for public office are aspects of their political
leadership (Fleer, 2007). Governors are normally the most visible and best-
known actors in state government. “Going public” allows chief executives to
promote themselves and their agendas and to deliver messages directly to the
public to foster citizen support. Governors recognize their roles as public
leaders. For example, Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina identified

---

Vining and Wilhelm
1075
“public leadership, public education, the bully pulpit” as the most important
powers of the governor, though not all chief executives embrace them (Fleer,
2007, pp. 170-172).
When individuals have little information, as is often the case in judicial
elections, they rely on cues and information shortcuts to construct their pref-
erences (Lupia & McCubbins, 1998; McDermott, 1997). Judicial elections
are usually less visible than contests for executive and legislative seats, so
citizens often lack strong feelings about judicial candidates. A governor
who endorses a current or prospective justice provides the public a signal
regarding that individual’s fitness for service on the state’s high court.
Explaining Endorsements
The governor is the leader of both state government and her political party
in the state (Morehouse, 1998). As a result, she “can influence the fortunes
of other persons who seek and hold public office” (Fleer, 2007). Howell
(1980) explained that endorsements from political officials in high office
“add legitimacy to a campaign” and might provide access to resources and
personnel beneficial to a candidate. However, we do not know why gover-
nors choose to speak out for electoral candidates.
Although public appeals by presidents are similar to gubernatorial endorse-
ments of state-level judicial candidates, they are not equivalent. Presidential
support for federal judicial nominees is implicit because presidents select
them; the question is the extent to which the president will demonstrate this
support. In judicial elections, candidates decide to run for office independent
of the governor’s preferences. No presumption of executive support exists for
these individuals. The choice by a governor to endorse a candidate is likely
prompted by different concerns than those motivating presidents.
It is important to recognize that governors have incentives to endorse
judicial candidates. In other words, there are potential pay-offs that might
explain gubernatorial willingness to spend time, energy, and political capital
supporting judicial candidates. To identify these pay-offs it is helpful to
consider an analogous political scenario: presidential campaign efforts in
legislative elections. Herrnson and Morris (2007) argued that political condi-
tions prompt presidents to influence congressional elections. More specifi-
cally, the policy-related consequences of changing the partisan dynamic in
Congress is a strong motivation (Jacobson, 2003). If the president can influ-
ence the election of likeminded individuals, he and his party are likely to
have more success enacting their preferred policies.
...