Understanding the Link Between Representation and Legitimacy in the Judiciary

• In Event: Public Opinion, Court Legitimacy, and Support for the Rule of Law

Abstract

Judicial scholars have long noted differences in support for judicial outcomes and courts based on the extent to which racial and ethnic minorities are on the bench---descriptive representation, and the extent to which citizens feel represented by the decisions---substantive representation. However, there is still a surprising shortage of research on how a more racially inclusive bench mediates minorities’ support to the court based on the alignment of decisions with individual preferences. Does racial diversity on the bench signal that the decision itself was correct or fair? Or, does judicial diversification also affect citizens’ perceptions of the fairness of decision-making procedures? Does it change across races? Using a survey experiment centered on racialized issues, we examine citizens’ attribution of support when the deciding judges are white versus when they are African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans. We expect that decisions by minority judges garner more legitimacy among racial minorities even when they are at odds with their ideological preferences. Meanwhile, decisions by only white judges garner less legitimacy among non-white respondents even when they aligned with their ideological preferences. This experiment would provide among the first tests of how substantive and descriptive representation shape judicial legitimacy among the three largest non-white racial groups in the United States.

Authors

• Scott J Hofer, St. Francis College

• Susan Vivian Achury, Lycoming College

• Jason P. Casellas, University of Houston

• Matthew Ward, University of Louisiana at Lafayette