One of the most contentious issues in politics today is the
propriety of electing judges. Ought judges be independent of
democratic processes in obtaining and retaining their seats, or
should they be subject to the approval of the electorate and the
processes that accompany popular control? While this debate is
interesting and often quite heated, it usually occurs without
reference to empirical facts--or at least accurate ones. Also,
empirical scholars to date have refused to take a position on the
normative issues surrounding the practice.
Bonneau and Hall offer a fresh new approach. Using almost two
decades of data on state supreme court elections, Bonneau and Hall
argue that opponents of judicial elections have made and continue
to make erroneous empirical claims. They show that judicial
elections are efficacious mechanisms that enhance the quality of
democracy and create an inextricable link between citizens and the
judiciary. In so doing, they pioneer the use of empirical data to
shed light on these normative questions and offer a coherent
defense of judicial elections. This provocative book is essential
reading for anyone interested in the politics of judicial
selection, law and politics, or the electoral process.
Part of the Controversies in Electoral Democracy and
Representation series edited by Matthew J. Streb.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!