Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:58:38.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Policy Considerations and Voting Fluidity on the Burger Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Forrest Maltzman  and
Paul J. Wahlbeck
Forrest Maltzman
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Paul J. Wahlbeck
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Justices are strategic actors. This is particularly evident when they change their votes between the original conference on the merits and the Court's announcement of the final decision. We predict that such voting fluidity may be influenced by strategic policy considerations, justices' uncertainty over issues involved in a case, the chief justice's interest in protecting his prerogatives, and other institutional pressures. To test our hypotheses, we explore the occurrence of fluidity on the Burger Court (1969–85). Using logistic regression, we show that justices' decisions to change their votes stem primarily from strategic policy considerations. In limited instances, the decision to switch can be attributed to either uncertainty or institutional pressures. Our findings suggest that the decision of a justice to join an opinion results from more than his or her initial policy preferences; final votes are influenced as well by the politics of opinion writing.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 581 - 592
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H., and Nelson, Forrest D.. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, Solomon E. 1951. “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments.” In Groups, Leadership, and Men, ed. Guetzkow, Harold Steere. Pittsburgh: Carnegie.Google Scholar
Asch, Solomon E. 1952. Social Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biskupic, Joan. 1995. “As Deadline Nears, Court Leaders Pin Hopes on ‘Holding 5.’” Washington Post. 7 June 1995.Google Scholar
Brennan, William J. 1969. Memorandum to Potter Stewart, November 4, 1969. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 205. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Brennan, William J. 1971. Memorandum to Warren Burger, March 8, 1971. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 239. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1980. “Fluidity on the United States Supreme Court: A Reexamination.” American Journal of Political Science 24 (August): 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul. 1982. “Fluidity on the Supreme Court: 1956–1967.” American Journal of Political Science 26 (05):388–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Dorff, Robert H.. 1992. “The Attitudinal Model and Fluidity Voting on the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4 (2):195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1989. “The Defection of the Marginal Justice on the Warren Court.” Western Political Quarterly 42 (09):409–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1990. “Increasing the Size of Minimum Winning Original Coalitions on the Warren Court.” Polity 23 (Winter):309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Palmer, Jan. 1988. “The Time Taken to Write Opinions as a Determinant of Opinion Assignments.” Judicature 88 (October–November): 179–84.Google Scholar
Brenner, Saul, and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1988. “Majority Opinion Assignments and the Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (02):72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, Warren E. 1972. Memorandum to William O. Douglas, July 27. Available in Justice William O. Douglas's papers. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Detroit and Toledo Shore Line v. United Transportation Union. 1969.396 U.S. 142.Google Scholar
Dorff, Robert H., and Brenner, Saul. 1992. “Conformity Voting on the United States Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 54 (08):762–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, William O. 1969. Memorandum to the Conference, December 31, 1969. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 211. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Douglas, William O. 1972a. Dissent in Roe v. Wade (Draft). Available in Justice William O. Douglas's papers. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Douglas, William O. 1972b. Memorandum to Chief Justice Burger, August 7, 1972. Available in Justice William O. Douglas's papers. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 1995. “Documenting Strategic Interaction on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Mershon, Carol. 1993. “The Formation of Opinion Coalitions on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Segal, Jeffrey A., Spaeth, Harold J., and Walker, Thomas G.. 1994. The Supreme Court Compendium: Data, Decisions and Developments. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome. [1930] 1970. Law and the Modern Mind. Reprint. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
George, Tracey E., and Epstein, Lee. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 86 (06):323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagle, Timothy M., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1991. “Voting Fluidity and the Attitudinal Model of Supreme Court Decision Making.” Western Political Quarterly 44 (03):119–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, A. Paul. 1976. Handbook of Small Group Research. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Harlan, John M. 1969. Memorandum to Hugo Black, November 28, 1969. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 205. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Harlan, John M. 1970. Memorandum to Hugo Black, February 24, 1970. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 217. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Howard, J. Woodford Jr. 1968. “On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice.” American Political Science Review 62 (03):43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charles A., and Canon, Bradley C.. 1984. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1996a. “May It Please the Chief? Opinion Assignments in the Rehnquist Court.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (05):421–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Wahlbeck, Paul J.. 1996b. “Inside the U.S. Supreme Court: The Reliability of Conference Data.” Journal of Politics 58 (05):528–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Thurgood. 1969. Memorandum to the Conference, December 10, 1969. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 206. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Marshall, Thurgood. 1973. Memorandum to the Conference, June 4, 1973. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 303. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. 1995. “Repeat Players in the Supreme Court: The Role of Experienced Lawyers in Litigation Success.” Journal of Politics 57 (February): 187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. 1980. Case Selection in the United States Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rehnquist, William. 1973. Memorandum to the Chief Justice, March 14, 1973. Available in Justice William J. Brennan's papers, Box 303. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1972. “Policy Goals, Strategic Choice and Majority Opinion Assignments in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16 (11):652–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard. 1996. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1965. The Judicial Mind. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J.. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Reginald S., Mishler, William, and Songer, Donald R.. 1992. “Ideology, Status, and the Differential Success of Direct Parties before the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 86 (06):464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sheehan, Reginald S.. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (02):235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slotnick, Elliot. 1979. “Who Speaks for the Court? Majority Opinion Assignments from Taft to Burger.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (02):60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Songer, Donald. 1979. “Concern for Policy Outputs as a Cue for Supreme Court Decisions on Certiorari.” Journal of Politics 41 (November): 1185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1994a. United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1953–1992 Terms. 5th release. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J. 1994b. “The Breakup of the Original Vote Coalition on the Vinson Court: Is the Conference Vote on the Merits Really the Final Vote?” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Spriggs, James F. II. N.d. “The Supreme Court and Federal Administrative Agencies: A Resource-Based Theory and Analysis of Judicial Impact.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Stewart, Potter. 1969. Memorandum to Hugo Black, December 2, 1969. Available in William J. Brennan's papers, Box 205. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Stewart, Potter. 1970. Memorandum to the Conference, April 23, 1970. Available in William J. Brennan's papers, Box 217. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, Schick, Marvin, Muraskin, Matthew, and Rosen, Daniel. 1963. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Jurisdiction: Cue Theory.” In Judicial Decision Making, ed. Schubert, Glendon. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1984. “The Supreme Court's Certiorari Decisions: Conflict as a Predictive Value.” American Political Science Review 78 (12):901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J. 1994. “The Life of the Law: Judicial Politics and Legal Change.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Wardius v. Oregon. 1973. 412 U.S. 470.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob, and Armstrong, Scott. 1979. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.