Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2014
Abstract
The standard model of judicial behavior suggests that judges primarily care about deciding cases in ways that further their political ideologies. But judicial behavior seems much more complex. Politicians who nominate people for judgeships do not typically tout their ideology (except sometimes using vague code words), but they always claim that the nominees will be competent judges. Moreover, it stands to reason that voters would support politicians who appoint competent as well as ideologically compatible judges. We test this hypothesis using a dataset consisting of promotions to the federal circuit courts. We find, using a set of objective measures of judicial performance, that competence seems to matter in promotions in that the least competent judges do not get elevated. But the judges who score the highest on our competence measures also do not get elevated. So, while there is no loser’s reward, there may be something of a winner’s curse, where those with the highest levels of competence hurt their chances of elevation.
Citation
Stephen J. Choi et al., A Winner's Curse? : Promotions from the Lower Federal Courts (2014)
Library of Congress Subject Headings
Courts, Judges--Selection and appointment, Ideology, Judicial process, Political patronage
Included in
Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3161