Re: [EL] Only 22% of Americans think most judges should be appointed

Jim is quick to label my objections as "doubters" who are playing a game of "shooting the messenger".  Is it really necessary to label people and theorize about their motives when having a discussion? My simple point is that if you care about the opinion of the general public, poll the general public. If you care about the opinion of likely voters, poll likely voters. I'm asking that you don't try to pass off likely voters as the general public. The two groups are well-known to be different from one another on multiple dimensions. In this instance in particular, there is reason to believe the two groups have different preferences.

Now to delve into a discussion...

The other confirming polls are interesting, but not definitive since we do not know the sample frame of these other polls and there are further temporal effects and likely other survey methodology issues. I find Jeff's data from the CCES a little more compelling since it is a recent poll conducted well after Bush v. Gore, though the CCES's (complicated) sample frame is registered voters and the question posed appears to have built in response acquiescence (people tend to go with "approve" when confronted with "approve/disapprove" questions). A tip-off here that many people have not thought deeply about this question is that 34% of the CCES respondents had no opinion. When there are non-attitudes present, response acquiescence is even more likely to occur and further framing and priming around the question can be especially important (e.g., do you proceed this question with a question about the importance of government being held accountable through elections?). The CCES high no opinion percentage in my mind throws a lot of cold water on the other survey data. I'd like to know, for example, if only those who had an opinion were reported or if respondents were forced to provide a response, as survey firms sometimes do by not offering a no opinion option. And to return to my point, I now strongly suspect there is an even higher degrees of "no opinion" among unlikely (or non-registered) voters than likely voters. Jeff might easily confirm this by cross-tabulating the CCES question on self-reported vote. If I am right, self-reported voters should be more likely to support judicial elections and be more likely to offer an opinion (when controlling for the usual demographic suspects like education, too). You might even be able to tease out that people who voted for the winner are more likely to support judicial elections. Viola! A publishable paper. And if you take a minute to contemplate, what I am saying pretty much gibes with what we know about judicial elections. Normally, they tend to be low turnout affairs that only a highly active and politically aware set of individuals participate in.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

From: JBoppjr@aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:43 AM
To: mmcdon@gmu.edu; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Only 22% of Americans think most judges should be appointed

    This sounds so much like the game "shoot the messenger."

    I assume that the doubters would credit a poll done by the American Bar Association.  They did a poll in 2002 and one of the questions was which judges would be "more fair and impartial," those elected or appointed.  75% of the general public said that those judges who were elected verses those that were appointed are more fair and impartial.  So having judges appointed is guaranteed to reduce the public's confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary.  Below is an excerpt of my law review article that cites this poll (it is not available on the ABA website, but it is archived).  Jim Bopp
"The assumption that public concerns about campaign contributions translates into a lack of confidence in the judiciary is also not supported by the evidence. A 2002 poll by the American Bar Association, for example, found that 72% of respondents were at least “somewhat concerned” about whether “the impartiality of judges is compromised by the need to raise campaign money to successfully run for office.”[1] Yet, the same poll found that 75% of respondents thought elected judges were more fair and impartial than appointed judges.[2] According to a recent poll, only five percent of respondents believed campaign contributions made to judges had no influence at all on decisions judges made in Minnesota state courts.[3] Nonetheless, the same poll found widespread public confidence in the courts, with 74% of respondents saying that they had “a great deal” or “some” confidence in the courts, and 76% saying that they had “a great deal” or “some” confidence in judges (higher rates than for any other category except the medical profession).[4] The courts are consistently among the highest ranked institutions in terms of public confidence.[5] And while the majority of Americans will express some level of concern about the potentially corrupting effect of money in elections, this does not appear to be their most pressing concern.[6]

[1]. HARRIS INTERACTIVE, INC., HARRIS INTERACTIVE TELEPHONE OMNIBUS SURVEY: A STUDY ABOUT JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY, PREPARED FOR THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 6 (August 2002) (on file with author).
2. Id. at 4.
3. DECISION RESOURCES LTD., JUSTICE AT STAKE STUDY, MINNESOTA STATEWIDE 5 (2008), http://www.justiceatstake.org/files/MinnesotaJusticeatStakesurvey.pdf (last visited Oct. 22, 2008). This despite the fact that Minnesota prohibited judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.
4. Id. at 1-2.
5. According to a 2001-2002 survey, 96% of respondents rated the job being done by courts and judges of their state as being either “excellent” or “good.” JUSTICE AT STAKE CAMPAIGN, STATE JUDGES FREQUENCY QUESTIONNAIRE (Nov. 5, 2001–Jan. 2, 2002) (on file with author). A 1999 survey found that 77% of respondents had either “a great deal” or “some” confidence in the United States Supreme Court, and 75% had similar confidence in local courts. And, 79% agreed with the statement that “[j]udges are generally honest and fair in deciding cases.” NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, HOW THE PUBLIC VIEWS THE STATE COURTS: A 1999 NATIONAL SURVEY (1999) available at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_AmtPTC_PublicView
CrtsPub.pdf.
6. Scott Rasmussen, 55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem Than Campaign Cash, Aug. 11, 2008, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_
election/55_say_media_bias_bigger_problem_than_campaign_cash (last visited Oct. 22, 2008) (reporting poll finding 55% of respondents thought media bias posed a bigger problem in politics than large campaign contributions).

In a message dated 4/13/2011 10:01:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mmcdon@gmu.edu writes:
There is a difference between representativeness and margin of error in
polling.

I'll grant that Rassmussen's polls may be representative of what he calls
likely voters -- however that is defined when there is no pending election.
You may think the general public has similar views to the likely voters, but
that is your belief. It cannot be determined without polling the general
public. That is, you need a representative poll of the universe you are
interested in. Further consider -- you are asking likely voters if they
should be allowed to vote on an office. In that light, it is remarkable to
me that as many as 22% say they would not want to elect judges. There is
thus a strong reason to suspect likely voters hold different preferences
than unlikely voters over an action that defines the two groups: voting.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:01 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Only 22% of Americans think most judges should be
appointed

I'm aware that Rasmussen is a Republican-leaning polling outfit and
has their own model of "likely voters" as most pollsters do, and that
it's controversial in some quarters.  That being said, this will only
increase the margin of error and not fundamentally change the result.
It shouldn't be surprising that voters favor having judges accountable
to them via elections instead of unaccountable (or unaccountable, if
life tenured) to those who appoint and/or confirm.

On a few issues, this one included, I think there are distinct
differences between the political class, however defined, and the
general public.  For example, on the subject of international aid,
such aid is very popular with the political class who see its utility
in influencing foreign affairs, and much less popular with the general
public.

Without defending Rasmussen, yet conceding some additional margin for
error, I think Rasmussen's poll numbers are 'in the ballpark' and make
quite a bit of sense on this particular issue.  I take Rasmussen's
results poll by poll, and when I do cite them it is with the
consciousness of those shortcomings others point to in this thread.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 4/13/11, Smith, Brad <BSmith@law.capital.edu> wrote: