Why Women Win: Gender and Success in State Supreme Court Elections

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X18788043
• Published date: 01 May 2019
• Date: 01 May 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18788043

American Politics Research

2019, Vol. 47(3) 582 –600

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X18788043

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Why Women Win:

Gender and Success in

State Supreme Court

Elections

Tony Nguyen1

Abstract

Although women remain underrepresented in U.S. elective office, female

candidates have experienced similar or greater electoral success compared

to their male counterparts. Research suggests both selection effects (the

uniquely strong characteristics and qualifications of women who run for

office) and selective candidacy (the decisions to run or not run for office

based on the electoral context) contribute to this phenomenon. I leverage

a large data set of candidate characteristics and electoral outcomes in

state supreme court elections spanning 1990-2012 to clarify the causal

mechanisms behind the electoral success of female candidates. I find that

the success of female candidates in state supreme court elections is driven

by the most capable women selectively running for open seats. I conclude

that this phenomenon may be reflective of a broader gender gap in political

ambition, with implications for tactics to improve gender representation in

politics.

Keywords

gender, judicial elections, state courts, political ambition

1Yale University, Rose Alumni Hall, New Haven, CT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Tony Nguyen, New York, NY, USA.

Email: tony.nguyen@aya.yale.edu

788043APRXXX10.1177/1532673X18788043American Politics ResearchNguyen

research-article2018

Nguyen 583

Introduction

Gender diversity in the judiciary has increased over the past decades, particu-

larly in state courts. Women increased their share of state court seats from 16%

in the 1970s to 29% in the 2000s (Reddick, Nelson, & Caufield, 2009). For

state supreme courts, while only six women held seats between 1922 and 1974,

55 women served between 1976 and 1992 (Bratton & Spill, 2002). Women

nevertheless remain underrepresented, holding only 32% of all state court seats

and 35% of state supreme court seats (American Bar Association, 2016).

The state of gender diversity in the judiciary has important normative

implications. First, diversity in appellate courts drives case outcomes and

legal precedent. For instance, female judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals are

more likely than male judges to vote in favor of plaintiffs alleging sex dis-

crimination (Boyd, Epstein, & Martin, 2010; Farhang & Wawro, 2004;

Peresie, 2005). Panel effects also exist—the presence of female judges in

panel deliberations increases the likelihood that male judges also vote in favor

of plaintiffs (Boyd et al., 2010; Farhang & Wawro, 2004; Peresie, 2005).

Second, increased representation of women may contribute to the legitimacy

of judicial institutions by strengthening perceptions that courts uphold ideals

of fairness and equality (Hunter, 2015; Malleson, 2003). Finally, increased

representation of women may help normalize gender equity by breaking down

the association between masculinity and political power, in particular, the per-

ception that politics is a male domain (Thomas & Wilcox, 2014).

State supreme court seats are filled through a hodgepodge of selection pro-

cesses, including several types of elections. In 13 states, judicial candidates

compete in nonpartisan elections without party affiliations. Two states—

Michigan and Ohio—have “semipartisan” elections, in which candidates are

fielded through party primaries but appear on the general election ballot with-

out a party affiliation. In seven states, candidates compete in partisan elec-

tions, appearing on the ballot with a party affiliation. Finally, 19 states have

retention elections, in which sitting justices defend their seat after a fixed

period of time following their initial appointment or election. Voters are pre-

sented with a choice to either allow a justice to retain their seat or remove

them from office. If voters choose not to retain a justice, the vacancy is filled

through another appointment or election (American Judicature Society, 2013).

This article assesses the relationship between gender and electoral success

in state supreme court elections. I use a multiyear, multistate data set—the

largest to date on gender in state supreme court elections—to identify if, when,

and why women win at similar or greater rates than men. First, I confirm the

existing theory that female candidates experience high electoral success

because they are especially capable (the “Jackie Robinson effect”). Second, I