Perceptions of administrative policymaking authority: Evidence from interviews in three state court systems

Alyx Mark

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1706

Authors

Alyx Mark Wesleyan University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4876-6980

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1706

Keywords:

judicial administration, subnational courts, administrative policy, judicial politics

Abstract

Two models, the hierarchical model and the local control model, drive the way we talk about the decisions court actors and judges make. However, neither considered in isolation is an adequate explanation of courts’ administrative policy choices during the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper explores how actors in state courts in the United States perceived and performed their policymaking capacity using elite interviews. It argues that considering features of both models provides a more nuanced explanation of the distribution of administrative authority in state courts. The interviews reveal that actors in court systems that both concentrate and distribute administrative authority behave in ways that contradict the prevailing explanatory model. The paper provides evidence of the value of recruiting and interviewing elites when researching court decision-making processes. This study contributes to our understanding of the consequences of centralized and decentralized administrative authority for court users.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Views 319
Downloads:
13(S1)_Mark_OSLS 177
XML_13(S1)_Mark_OSLS 4

Author Biography

Alyx Mark, Wesleyan University

Alyx Mark is an Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and an Affiliated Scholar of the American Bar Foundation. Her research focuses on how institutions empower and constrain legal elites, such as lawyers, judges, and lawmakers, as well as the consequences of institutional design decisions for access to justice. She is currently engaged in a project supported by the National Science Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the American Association of University Women on state court responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as studies of judicial behavior in state civil courts and of current efforts to reform the regulation of the legal profession in the United States. She received her Ph.D. and M.A. in Political Science from The George Washington University in 2015 and her B.A. from Southern Illinois University – Edwardsville. Contact details: Dept. of Government, Wesleyan University, 45 Wyllys Ave. Middletown CT 06459 (USA). Email address: amark@wesleyan.edu

References

Aberbach, J.D., and Rockman, B.A., 2002. Conducting and coding elite interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics [online], 35(4), 673–676. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001142

Beamer, G., 2002. Elite interviews and state politics research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly [online], 2(1), 86–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000200200106

Beim, D., 2017. Learning in the judicial hierarchy. The Journal of Politics [online], 79(2), 591–604. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/688442

Benesh, S.C., and Reddick, M., 2002. Overruled: An event history analysis of lower court reaction to Supreme Court alteration of precedent. Journal of Politics [online], 64(2), 534–550. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00138

Bennett, A.A., et al., 2021. Videoconference fatigue? Exploring changes in fatigue after videoconference meetings during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Psychology [online], 106(3), 330. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000906

Berg, B.L., 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bookman, P.K., and Noll, D.L., 2017. Ad Hoc Procedure. New York University Law Review, 92(4), 767–845.

Bookman, P.K., and Shanahan, C.F., 2022. A Tale of Two Civil Procedures. Columbia Law Review, 112(5), 1183–1242.

Bowie, J., and Savchak, E.C., 2019. Understanding the determinants of opinion language borrowing in state courts in the United States. In: S. Sterett and L. Walker, eds., Research Handbook on Law and Courts [online]. New York: Edward Elgar. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113205.00028

Bradburn, N.M., 1983. Response effects. In: P.H. Rossi, J.D. Wright and A.B. Anderson, eds., Handbook of Survey Research [online]. Orlando/London: Academic Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-598226-9.50014-8

Braun, V., and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology [online], 3(2), 77–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., and Clarke, V., 2013. Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. New York: Sage.

Caldeira, G.A., and Wright, J., 1988. Organized interests and agenda setting in the U.S. Supreme Court. American Political Science Review [online], 82(4), 1109–1127. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1961752

Cameron, C.M., 1993. New avenues for modeling judicial politics. Paper presented at the Conference on the Political Economy of Public Law, Rochester, NY

Carpenter, A.E., Shanahan, C.F., et al., 2022. “Judges in Lawyerless Courts.” Georgetown Law Journal, 110(3), 509–567.

Carpenter, A.E., Steinberg, J.K., et al., 2018. Studying the “New” Civil Judges. Wisconsin Law Review, 249–286.

Chapman, D.S., and Rowe, P.M., 2001. The impact of videoconference technology, interview structure, and interviewer gender on interviewer evaluations in the employment interview: A field experiment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology [online], 74(3), 279–298. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167361

Clopton, Z.D., 2018. Making State Civil Procedure. Cornell Law Review [online], 104(1), 1–100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/25bqs

Conti, J., and O’Neil, M., 2007. Studying power: Qualitative methods and the global elite. Qualitative Research [online], 7(1), 63–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107071421

Deakin, H., and Wakefield, K., 2014. Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative research [online], 14(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126

Decker, A., 2014. A Theory of Local Common Law. Cardozo Law Review [online], 35(5), 1939–1996. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2381334

Fontana, A., and Frey, J.H., 2005. “The interview”. In: N. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds., The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. New York: Sage.

Fujii, L.A., 2017. Interviewing in social science research: A relational approach. New York: Routledge.

Gerring, J., and Cojocaru, L., 2016. Selecting cases for intensive analysis: A diversity of goals and methods. Sociological Methods & Research [online], 45(3), 392–423. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116631692

Goldman, E.F., and Swayze, S., 2012. In-depth interviewing with healthcare corporate elites: Strategies for entry and engagement. International Journal of Qualitative Methods [online], 11, 230–243. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100304

Goldstein, K., 2002. Getting in the door: Sampling and completing elite interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics [online], 35(4), 669–672. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001130

Gough, B., and Madill, A., 2012. Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect. Psychological methods [online], 17(3), 374. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029313

Harvey, W.S., 2010. Methodological approaches for interviewing elites. Geography Compass [online], 4(3), 193–205. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00313.x

Harvey, W.S., 2011. Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative research [online], 11(4), 431–441. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404329

Hochschild, J.L., 2009. Conducting intensive interviews and elite interviews. In: National Science Foundation, ed., Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, pp. 124–127.

Howlett, M., 2022. Looking at the “field” through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research [online], 22(3), 387–402. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691

Kim, P.T., et al., 2009. How should we study district judge decision-making. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 29(1), 83–112.

Kornhauser, L.A., 1995. Adjudication by a resource-constrained team: Hierarchy and precedent in a judicial system. Southern California Law Review, 68, 1605–1630.

Kvale, S., 1996. The 1,000-page question. Qualitative inquiry [online], 2(3), 275–284. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200302

Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S., 2009. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. New York: Sage.

Leech, B.L., 2002. Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. PS: Political Science & Politics [online], 35(4), 665–668. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096502001129

Leib, E.J., 2015. Local Judges and Local Government. NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, vol. 18, 707–739.

Leuffen, D., 2006. Bienvenue or access denied? Recruiting French political elites for in-depth interviews. French Politics, 4, 342–347. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fp.8200108

Lindquist, S.A., and Klein, D., 2006. The influence of jurisprudential considerations on Supreme Court decisionmaking: A study of conflict cases. Law and Society Review [online], 40(1), 135–162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00262.x

Linos, K., and Carlson, M., 2017. Qualitative Methods for Law Review Writing. University of Chicago Law Review, 84(1), 213–238.

Lobe, B., Morgan, D., and Hoffman, K.A., 2020. Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International journal of qualitative methods [online], 19, 1–8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875

Mark, A., and Zilis, M.A., 2018. Blurring Institutional Boundaries: Judges’ Perceptions of Threats to Judicial Independence. Journal of Law and Courts [online], 6(2), 333–353. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/695743

Massey, D., 2003. Imagining the field. In: M. Pryke, S. Whatmore and G. Rose, eds., Using Social Theory: Thinking through Research. London: Sage.

McCubbins, M., Noll, R., and Weingast, B., 1995. “Politics and the courts: A positive theory of judicial doctrine and the rule of law.” Southern California Law Review, 68, 1631–1689.

Mosley, L., ed., 2013. Interview research in political science [online]. New York: Cornell University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801467974

Nehls, K., Smith, B.D., and Schneider, H.A., 2015. Video-conferencing interviews in qualitative research. In: S. Hai-Jew, ed., Enhancing qualitative and mixed methods research with technology [online]. IGI Global, 140–157. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6493-7.ch006

Nir, E., 2018. Approaching the bench: Accessing elites on the judiciary for qualitative interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology [online], 21(1), 77–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1324669

Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. New York: Sage.

Pollack, M.C., 2020. Courts Beyond Judging. Brigham Young University Law Review [online], 46(3), 719–794. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3553466

Quinn, R.W., Spreitzer, G.M., and Lam, C.F., 2012. Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. Academy of Management Annals [online], 6(1), 337–396. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.676762

Rachlinski, J.J., 2006. Bottom-up versus Top-down Lawmaking. The University of Chicago Law Review [online], 73(3), 933–964. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3488.003.0011

Raftery, W.E., 2015. Efficiency of unified vs. non-unified state judiciaries: An examination of court organizational performance. PhD dissertation. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Resnik, J., 1982. Managerial judges. Harvard Law Review [online], 96(2), 1–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1340797

Roach Anleu, S., Bergman Blix, S., and Mack, K., 2015. Researching emotion in courts and the judiciary: A tale of two projects. Emotion Review [online], 7(2), 145–150. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914554776

Savchak, E.C., and Bowie, J.B., 2016. A bottom-up account of state supreme court opinion writing. Justice System Journal [online], 37(2), 94–114. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1012571

Seawright, J., and Gerring, J., 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political research quarterly [online], 61(2), 294–308. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077

Sedgwick, M., and Spiers, J., 2009. The use of videoconferencing as a medium for the qualitative interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods [online], 8(1), 1–11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800101

Shanahan, C.F., et al., 2020. COVID, Crisis, and Courts. Texas Law Review Online [online], 99. Available at: https://texaslawreview.org/COVID-crisis-and-courts/

Shanahan, C., et al., 2022. The institutional mismatch of state civil courts. Columbia Law Review [online], 122, 1471–1537. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4143712

Shavell, S., 1995. The appeals process as a means of error correction. The Journal of Legal Studies [online], 24(2), 379–426. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/467963

Shore, J.H., et al., 2007. An economic evaluation of telehealth data collection with rural populations. Psychiatric Services [online], 58(6), 830–835. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2007.58.6.830

Smith, C.E., and Feldman, H., 2000. Burdens of the bench: state supreme courts’ non-judicial tasks. Judicature, 84(6), 304–309.

Songer, D., and Sheehan, R., 1990. Supreme Court impact on compliance and outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals. Western Political Quarterly [online], 43(2), 297–316. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299004300206

Songer, D., Segal, J., and Cameron, C., 1994. The hierarchy of justice: Testing a principal-agent model of Supreme Court–Circuit Court interactions. American Journal of Political Science [online], 38(3), 673–696. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2111602

Sudeall, L., and Pasciuti, D., 2021. Praxis and paradox: Inside the Black Box of eviction court. Vanderbilt Law Review, 74(5), 1365–1434.

Tansey, O., 2007. Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-probability Sampling. PS: Political Science and Politics [online], 40(4), 765–72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507071211

Tausanovitch, C., and Warshaw, C., 2013. Measuring constituent policy preferences in congress, state legislatures, and cities. The Journal of Politics [online], 75(2), 330–342. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000042

Weinstein-Tull, J., 2020. The Structures of Local Courts. Virginia Law Review, 106(5), 1031–1106.