C. Scott Peters--Research

C. Scott Peters

Current Research
(updated 1/22/08)

Works in Progress

"Canons of Ethics and Accountability in State Supreme Court Elections." Under review at State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

This paper examines the influence of several canons within state codes of judicial ethics that are aimed at constraining the campaigning of candidates running for judicial office. These canons have been much debated since 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that one of them, the announce clause, unconstitutionally restricted the free speech rights of candidates. They are important electoral rules unique to judicial elections, but their impact on accountability in these elections has gone unstudied to this point. Based on their likely influence on the availability of information in races, I hypothesize that the primary effect of these canons is to make incumbents less accountable to the public. Looking at state supreme court races from 1998-2006, I find strong evidence that four of the five canons make it less likely for challengers to arise, and also find evidence that restrictions on candidate solicitation of funds favor incumbents in the general election. I also check to see whether interpretation of White by lower courts has had a broader effect on elections than merely changing the canons themselves, finding some evidence that it has.

"Campaigning in a post-White Era: Candidates’ views of Canons of Ethics and Campaign Finance in State Supreme Court Elections.” Revising for resubmission to Judicature.

With its decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a regulation on judicial candidates that sought to protect judicial impartiality from the political pressures of electoral politics. Since then, lower courts have interpreted the Court’s decision to strike down still more ethical restrictions on speech and behavior during campaigns. Coming in the midst of other major changes in state supreme court elections, especially their rising cost and competitiveness, White’s impact is still being examined and debated. This paper reports the results of a survey of 2006 state supreme court candidates which asked about their views on ethical restrictions and White. It finds that fairly large majorities of candidates express displeasure of current campaign finance system and think that White is contributing to higher spending levels. It also finds that a majority of candidates believe that White is having negative effects on judicial elections. Assessment of White’s likely impact is influenced not only by the value the candidate puts on free speech in judicial elections, but on the candidate’s position in the race, especially incumbent status and financial advantage. Since candidates are the main consumers of the White decision, if their skepticism remains high, the decision may not have a large impact on judicial elections.

“The Effects of Canons of Ethics on the Tone and Content of Television Ads in State Supreme Court Elections, 2000-2006.” Preparing for submission to American Politics Research, spring 2008.

As races for state supreme courts have gotten more competitive, television advertising has become the norm. In many of these races, candidates have supplemented traditional messages of judicial campaigns--experience and qualifications--with issue-based ads, including issue-based attack ads. States' canons of judicial ethics, however, include specific limitations on candidates' messages during campaigns. Using data from the Justice at Stake Campaign, I examine the effects of these canons on the tone and content of campaigns since 2000. I also examine the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and its implementation.

Recent Publications

“Campaigning for State Supreme Court 2006”. 2008. Justice System Journal (forthcoming).

This article reports the results of a survey of candidates who ran in partisan and nonpartisan state supreme court elections in 2006. While much recent scholarship aimed at explaining election outcomes has demonstrated that candidates and voters act strategically in state supreme court elections, we know little about how supreme court candidates organize their campaigns to achieve their goals, how tightly their campaigns are integrated with parties or interest groups, or how they communicate with voters. This study provides such insights into high-court campaigns. Candidates’ campaign organizations rely largely on volunteer labor rather than on paid staff or consultants, although candidates in closer races have more professionalized organizations than do others. Parties and interest groups tend to play a limited role in helping candidates organize their campaigns, although candidates recognize their influence with their high levels of participation, despite qualms, in the candidate questionnaires. State supreme court campaigns are becoming more sophisticated in their modes of communication, even if they are not yet on par with congressional campaigns. (Copy of survey is available here).

“Getting Attention: The Effect of Legal Mobilization on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Attention to Issues.” 2007. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3): 561.

This article asks two questions stemming from a conflict in the literature on the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention to issues: 1) Are levels of legal mobilization explained by salient Court decisions? 2) Is the Court’s level of attention explained by levels of legal mobilization? To answer them, I test hypotheses from the public policy and public law literature on data from seven specific issue areas. I find that levels of legal mobilization cannot be explained by past salient decisions of the Court, but find some evidence that changes in the Court’s levels of attention are explained by levels of mobilization.

“Canons, Cost and Competition in State Supreme Court Elections.” 2007. Judicature, 91(1):27-35.

There has been much speculation about the effects of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) on judicial elections in the states. That decision struck down a provision in Minnesota’s canons of judicial ethics that restricted judicial candidates’ ability to speak out on issues during campaigns. Since then, some courts have extend the principle announced in the case to also strike down other canons, prompting many to wonder whether, absent such restrictions, judicial elections will become more like elections for legislative or executive offices. Because the decision is so recent and there have been few full election cycles since, directly testing the effect of White remains difficult. It is possible, however, to account for the effects that the canons of ethics have had on elections throughout the states, and this paper does so by investigating their effects on the cost and competitiveness of state supreme court elections. After consulting the literature on the importance of information and campaign communications on voter participation, it finds that restrictions on partisan political activities have significant negative effects on spending, and also finds some evidence that canons forbidding “pledges and promises” have similar effects. On the other hand, I find that other canons are linked to higher spending levels, suggesting that some canons might be more effective than others at discouraging vigorous electoral campaigns.

Supporting Materials:
Appendix A
Appendix B