Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T12:36:45.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Women's Presence on High Courts: Bias and the Conditional Nature of Cultivating Legitimacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2021

Christopher Shortell Open the ORCID record for Christopher Shortell [Opens in a new window]  and
Melody E. Valdini Open the ORCID record for Melody E. Valdini [Opens in a new window]
Christopher Shortell
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Melody E. Valdini
Affiliation:
Portland State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While we know that women's presence in the legislature positively impacts how citizens view the institution, little is known about the impact of women's presence on the legitimacy of high courts. We argue that despite differences in public expectations for courts, women's presence on the high court does impact citizen perceptions of legitimacy. However, this effect is dependent on both the level and the type of bias held by citizens. That is, when a person feels hostile bias toward women, the bias disrupts the potential legitimacy that the court could gain. On the other hand, we argue that benevolent sexism does not trigger any change in how citizens view the high court in a democracy. Using evidence from an experiment, we find that the presence of women on the high court has a strong positive impact on citizen perceptions of court legitimacy, though not among those with hostile gender bias.

Keywords

High courtjudiciaryU.S. Supreme Courtgenderwomenrepresentation
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 858 - 877
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Women, Gender, and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

The authors are grateful to Jessica Trounstine for her help in the research design of this project, and to Kelsey Henderson for her patient guidance on navigating MTurk. In addition, we are thankful for the funding of research assistants and conference travel contributed by Dean Stephen Percy in the College of Urban and Public Affairs at Portland State University, as well as funding for Christopher Shortell from a Faculty Enhancement Grant from Portland State University.

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, Deborah, and Andersen, Kristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 527–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araya, Ignacio Arana, Hughes, Melanie M., and Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal. 2021. “Judicial Reshuffles and Women Justices in Latin America.” American Journal of Political Science 65 (2): 373–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrington, Nancy, Bass, Leeann, Glynn, Adam, Staton, Jeffrey K., Delgado, Brian, and Lindberg, Staffan. 2021. “Constitutional Reform and the Gender Diversification of Peak Courts.” American Political Science Review 115 (3): 851–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2004. “Elected Bodies: The Gender Quota Law for Legislative Candidates in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (2): 231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D., and Beaulieu, Emily. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes and Corruption: How Candidates Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud.” Politics & Gender 10 (3): 365–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D., Beaulieu, Emily, and Saxton, Gregory W.. 2018. “Restoring Trust in the Police: Why Female Officers Reduce Suspicions of Corruption.” Governance 31 (1): 143–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D., Beaulieu, Emily, and Saxton, Gregory W.. 2020. “Sex and Corruption: How Sexism Shapes Voters’ Responses to Scandal.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (1): 103–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L., and Johnston, Christopher D.. 2013. “On the Ideological Foundations of Supreme Court Legitimacy in the American Public.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L. 2013. “She'll Settle It?” Journal of Law and Courts 1 (2): 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D.. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, Sarah Sunn. 2011. “International Politics and the Spread of Quotas for Women in Legislatures.” International Organization 65 (1): 103–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A., and Gibson, James L.. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 635–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, Erin C., and Barnes, Tiffany D.. 2019. “Reconciling Sexism and Women's Support for Republican Candidates: A Look at Gender, Class, and Whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Races.” Political Behavior 41 (3): 677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, Erin C., and Holman, Mirya R.. 2019. “Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race.” Political Psychology 40 (1): 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditonto, Tessa. 2019. “Direct and Indirect Effects of Prejudice: Sexism, Information, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (3): 590–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne, and Luna, Francy. 2020. “Women ‘Doing’ the Judiciary: Rethinking the Justice Argument for Descriptive Representation.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (4): 790–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Karau, Steven J.. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Easton, David. 1975. “A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support.” British Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 435–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A.. 2018. “Women's Representation, Accountability and Corruption in Democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 48 (3): 659–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Erika, and Kenski, Kate. 2006. “Issue Saliency and Gender Stereotypes: Support for Women as Presidents in Times of War and Terrorism.” Social Science Quarterly 87 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, Sarah A. 2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2): 303–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, Sarah A., and Dhima, Kostanca. 2020. “The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections.” Political Behavior. Published online March 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09604-7.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2009. Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Baird, Vanessa A.. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. 2003. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 354–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Nelson, Michael J.. 2014. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 162–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Nelson, Michael J.. 2017. “Reconsidering Positivity Theory: What Roles Do Politicization, Ideological Disagreement, and Legal Realism Play in Shaping U.S. Supreme Court Legitimacy?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14 (3): 592–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Glick, Peter, et al. 2000. “Beyond Prejudice as Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism across Cultures.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (5): 763–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, Peter, and Fiske, Susan T.. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3): 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Nienke. 2012. “Sex on the Bench: Do Women Judges Matter to the Legitimacy of International Courts?” Chicago Journal of International Law 12 (2): 647–84.Google Scholar
Harris, Allison P., and Sen, Maya. 2019. “Bias and Judging.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 241–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J. 2000. “The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review 94 (1): 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Mirya R., Merolla, Jennifer L., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2016. “Terrorist Threat, Male Stereotypes, and Candidate Evaluations.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (1): 134–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, John J., Rand, David G., and Zeckhauser, Richard J.. 2011. “The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market.” Experimental Economics 14 (3): 399–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebert, Erin T., and Liu, Amy H.. 2017. “Ethnic Identity and Attitudes toward State Institutions: Evidence of Judicial Legitimacy among the Indigenous in Latin America.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5 (4): 561–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, Connor, and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “‘Who Are These People?’ Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 2 (3): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Christopher D., Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Bartels, Brandon L.. 2014. “Ideology, the Affordable Care Act Ruling, and Supreme Court Legitimacy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (4): 963–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Alice J., Escobar-Lemmon, Maria, Hoekstra, Valerie, and Kittilson, Miki. 2021. “Breaking the Judicial Glass Ceiling: The Appointment of Women to High Courts Worldwide.” Journal of Politics 83 (2): 662–74.Google Scholar
Kang, Alice J., Kittilson, Miki Caul, Hoekstra, Valerie, and Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C.. 2020. “Diverse and Inclusive High Courts: A Global and Intersectional Perspective.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (4): 812–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally J. 2013. Gender and Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Jennet, Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Hoekstra, Valerie. 2020. “Diversity in the Judiciary: How Diversity Matters for Democratic Inclusion, Representation, and Inequalities.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (4): 786–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 479–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Amy H., and Baird, Vanessa A.. 2012. “Linguistic Recognition as a Source of Confidence in the Justice System.” Comparative Political Studies 45 (10): 1203–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Susan L., and Maier, Shana L.. 2008. “Moving beyond Numbers: What Female Judges Say about Different Judicial Voices.” Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy 29 (4): 527–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 109–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Walter F., and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1968. “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes.” Law & Society Review 2 (3): 357–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Kjersten. 2015. “Double-Bind on the Bench: Citizen Perceptions of Judge Gender and the Court.” Politics & Gender 11 (2): 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Diana Z., and Rickne, Johanna. 2016. “Gender Quotas and Women's Political Leadership.” American Political Science Review 110 (1): 112–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, Guillermo A. 1998. “Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies.” Journal of Democracy 9 (3): 112–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Nancy, and Curry, Brett. 2010. “Does Descriptive Race Representation Enhance Institutional Legitimacy? The Case of the U.S. Courts.” Journal of Politics 72 (1): 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Monica C., and Bos, Angela L.. 2014. “Measuring Stereotypes of Female Politicians.” Political Psychology 35 (2): 245–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2010. Political Power and Women's Representation in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., and Alles, Santiago Manuel. 2018. “Women in Legislatures: Gender, Institutions, and Democracy.” In Gender and Representation in Latin America, ed. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A.. New York: Oxford University Press, 56–73.Google Scholar
Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah, and Wood, Reed M.. 2017. “Governing Well after War: How Improving Female Representation Prolongs Post-Conflict Peace.” Journal of Politics 79 (3): 995–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 2013. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spence, Janet T., and Buckner, Camille E.. 2000. “Instrumental and Expressive Traits, Trait Stereotypes, and Sexist Attitudes: What Do They Signify?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 24 (1): 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2003. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and the Effective Rule of Law.” Crime and Justice 30: 283–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology 57: 375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, Tom R., and Huo, Yuen. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., and Rasinski, Kenneth. 1991. “Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson.” Law & Society Review 25 (3): 621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdini, Melody Ellis. 2013. “Electoral Institutions and the Manifestation of Bias: The Effect of the Personal Vote on the Representation of Women.” Politics & Gender 9 (1): 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdini, Melody Ellis. 2019. The Inclusion Calculation: Why Men Appropriate Women's Representation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdini, Melody E., and Shortell, Christopher. 2016. “Women's Representation in the Highest Court: A Comparative Analysis of the Appointment of Female Justices.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (4): 865–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, John. 2018. “The Contemporary Latin American Economies: Neoliberal Reconstruction.” In Capital, Power, and Inequality in Latin America, ed. Halebsky, Sandor. New York: Routledge, 109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2007. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Shortell and Valdini supplementary material

Shortell and Valdini supplementary material

Download Shortell and Valdini supplementary material(File)
File 24.9 KB