The Effect of Judicial Institutions on Uncertainty and the Rate of Litigation: The Election versus Appointment of State Judges
This article compares litigation in appointed and elected state courts. Scholars have concluded that appointed judges are more independent than elected judges. Models of the litigation process suggest that litigation rates will be higher where uncertainty over court decisions is greater. If the institutions that promote judicial independence increase uncertainty, one should therefore find more litigation where judges are appointed and, if instead they decrease uncertainty, more litigation where judges are elected. Examining three samples of state court litigation, this analysis finds, on balance, more litigation where judges are appointed, consistent with the hypothesis that judicial independence has a net positive effect on decision . Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:28:y:1999:i:1:p:205-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.