This book compares the volume and nature of online print and broadcast television coverage from major media outlets from all U.S. Supreme Court oral argument sessions during the October 2019, 2020, and 2021 Terms. The authors demonstrate that the move to livestreaming the Court’s oral argument sessions increased the frequency and depth of online print news media’s coverage in the short term but not in the long term. For both online print and broadcast outlets, their findings suggest that the benefits of increased transparency offered by livestreaming oral argument audio did not come with significant disadvantages for the Court in terms of long-term changes in its news media coverage. The authors analysis provides timely evidence that speaks to the current, and ongoing, debate about public access to the Supreme Court. It also speaks to the likely consequences of permanently continuing the practice of livestreaming oral argument audio and sheds light on the ramifications of other potential expansions in transparency at the Supreme Court, such as livestreaming opinion announcement audio or providing live video coverage of the Court’s proceedings. This work speaks to the impact of increased access to oral arguments and the inner workings of government institutions more broadly. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court was not the only institution to grapple with the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for unprecedented, and instantaneous, access to anyone, anywhere. Better understanding the implications of the Court’s decision to livestream audio from its proceedings provides leverage on the consequences of greater government transparency for news media coverage and, by extension, individuals’ exposure to, and interaction with, government more generally.

This book compares the volume and nature of online print and broadcast television coverage from major media outlets from all U.S. Supreme Court oral argument sessions during the October 2019, 2020, and 2021 Terms. The authors demonstrate that the move to livestreaming the Court’s oral argument sessions increased the frequency and depth of online print news media’s coverage in the short term but not in the long term. For both online print and broadcast outlets, their findings suggest that the benefits of increased transparency offered by livestreaming oral argument audio did not come with significant disadvantages for the Court in terms of long-term changes in its news media coverage. The authors analysis provides timely evidence that speaks to the current, and ongoing, debate about public access to the Supreme Court. It also speaks to the likely consequences of permanently continuing the practice of livestreaming oral argument audio and sheds light on the ramifications of other potential expansions in transparency at the Supreme Court, such as livestreaming opinion announcement audio or providing live video coverage of the Court’s proceedings. This work speaks to the impact of increased access to oral arguments and the inner workings of government institutions more broadly. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court was not the only institution to grapple with the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and opportunities for unprecedented, and instantaneous, access to anyone, anywhere. Better understanding the implications of the Court’s decision to livestream audio from its proceedings provides leverage on the consequences of greater government transparency for news media coverage and, by extension, individuals’ exposure to, and interaction with, government more generally.

Gilbert et al. examine the impact of churches and church membership patterns on third parties and independent candidates in 20th-century U.S. politics. Candidates who choose not to run for office under the rubric of a major party face a well-known set of obstacles, yet the absence of discussion about the interconnections between religious institutions and minor parties is striking. The book presents a theoretical framework for understanding how religious institutions create, support, and sustain the political culture of local communities; by playing this role religious institutions support major parties and impede the electoral chances of political outsiders.

The book's central finding is that third candidates are not privy to the ties that bind Democratic and Republican voters to their parties; one of the factors that creates and strengthens such ties is religion. Therefore, third candidates do best where church and party loyalties are weakest, or where third candidates have existing bases of support. The rare third candidate or minor party that possesses a base of support centered around a denomination or religious group can overcome such barriers. These conclusions are supported by analysis of census data, election returns, and voter surveys spanning the 20th century. Special attention is given to the 1992 and 1996 presidential candidacies of H. Ross Perot. This is an important analysis for scholars and other researchers dealing with American third parties and independent candidates and the impact of religion on politics.

Timothy R. Johnson focuses on an all-too-often ignored aspect of the Supreme Court's decision-making process by providing a systematic explanation of how justices use oral arguments to make substantive legal and policy decisions. Using the arguments filed to the Court in legal briefs, oral argument transcripts, notes taken by Justice Lewis F. Powell during oral arguments, conference notes and internal memos of justices, and Court opinions, the book analyzes justices'behavior during these proceedings. The result is an impressive account demonstrating that justices use oral arguments to gather information regarding legal and policy options in a case, the preferences of competing political institutions and actors, and Institutional rules that might affect the choices they make.