Cases but no Controversies: Public Response to Judges Unrobed

• In Event: Gender and Decision-Making

Abstract

Controversies, ethical violations, and scandals are commonplace in modern American politics, and the reaction to them -- by politicians and the public alike -- dictate a civil servant's fate. In some situations, members of the government will continue to serve, but in extreme circumstances, their political career can come to an early conclusion. The severity of the controversy certainly affects the outcome, but does the profile of the official matter too? In this paper, we examine if the mass public holds different types of civil servants to different standards when deciding how to respond to political controversy. More specifically, we use a survey experiment to examine if the gender of the individual and the government branch in which they serve influences attitudes. We hypothesize that women officials are less likely to escape political controversy unscathed than are their male counterparts. Furthermore, we contend that members of the judiciary are held to higher ethical standards and therefore are more severely punished following a controversy than members of the legislative or executive branches. Moreover, we take into account how partisanship might act as a filter for how political controversy is perceived in one’s own party versus the other.

Authors

• Elizabeth Lane, Louisiana State University

• Jessica Schoenherr, University of South Carolina

• Jamil Shatema Scott, Georgetown University