000			02075naa a2200181uu 4500
001			8091216503910
003			OSt
005			20190211164233.0
008			080912s2008 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aGIBSON, James L _914720
245	1	0	_aChallenges to the impartiality of State Supreme Courts : _blegitimacy theory and "new style' judicial campaigns
260			_aNew York, NY : _bCambridge University Press, _cFebruary 2008
520	3		_aInstitutional legitimacy is perhaps the most important political capital courts possess. Many believe, however, that the legitimacy of elected state courts is being threatened by the rise of politicized judicial election campaigns and the breakdown of judicial impartiality. Three features of such campaigns, the argument goes, are dangerous to the perceived impartiality of courts: campaign contributions, attack ads, and policy pronouncements by candidates for judicial office. By means of an experimental vignette embedded in a representative survey, I investigate whether these factors in fact compromise the legitimacy of courts. The survey data indicate that campaign contributions and attack ads do indeed lead to a diminution of legitimacy, in courts just as in legislatures. However, policy pronouncements, even those promising to make decisions in certain ways, have no impact whatsoever on the legitimacy of courts and judges. These results are strongly reinforced by the experiment's ability to compare the effects of these campaign factors across institutions (a state Supreme Court and a state legislature). Thus, this analysis demonstrates that legitimacy is not obdurate and that campaign activity can indeed deplete the reservoir of goodwill courts typically enjoy, even if the culprit is not the free-speech rights the U.S. Supreme Court announced in 2002
773	0	8	_tAmerican Political Science Review _g102, 1, p. 59-76 _dNew York, NY : Cambridge University Press, February 2008 _xISSN 00030554 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20080912 _b1650^b _cTiago
998			_a20081113 _b1025^b _cZailton
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c27478 _d27478
041			_aeng