Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election
In 2010 the Iowa electorate denied retention to all three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. We hypothesize that when retention elections feature vigorous campaigns, they can be explained by many of the same factors that affect outcomes in partisan and nonpartisan elections. In particular, we exp...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Justice system journal 2013-09, Vol.34 (3), p.321-344 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 344 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 321 |
| container_title | The Justice system journal |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Clopton, Andrew J. Peters, C. Scott |
| description | In 2010 the Iowa electorate denied retention to all three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. We hypothesize that when retention elections feature vigorous campaigns, they can be explained by many of the same factors that affect outcomes in partisan and nonpartisan elections. In particular, we expect partisanship, the amount of campaigning (advertising), and political context (same-sex marriage) to explain the results in Iowa. We examine county-level election results, finding that the partisanship and concentration of evangelicals within a county, as well as the amount of advertising against the justices, explain the justices' vote share. We also find evidence that ballot roll-off decreased most in counties with high concentrations of evangelical adherents and where advertising was present. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/0098261X.2013.10768043 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_0098261X_2013_10768043</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26595496</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26595496</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f7b2eeef383f6d306fbb1e6ade0dfb526659746b1539d6d1fbdad7dcb9f69c9d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkFtLxDAQhYMouK7-BCXgc9ekadPWt2VdbywIXkB8CWkzwS7dZk1Sl_57U-r66tMMM9-ZORyELiiZUZKTK0KKPOb0fRYTysIo4zlJ2AGaxCzOoixN-SGaDFA0UMfoxLk1ISRNsmSCPh475-sKHL6BtgZ1jed4YbrW99EKvqHB81Y2vasdNhr7T8DhCcEPZifxS7e1sIEBtx4_g4fW16bFywaqoTlFR1o2Ds5-6xS93S5fF_fR6unuYTFfRRXjzEc6K2MA0CxnmitGuC5LClwqIEqXacx5WmQJL2nKCsUV1aWSKlNVWWheVIViU3Q53t1a89WB82IdHAXbTtCk4CRL8yQOFB-pyhrnLGixtfVG2l5QIoYcxT5HMeQo9jkG4fkoXDtv7J8qDrbScD7s5-O-brWxG7kztlHCy74xVlvZVrUT7J8fP_nJg9s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1496075842</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Clopton, Andrew J. ; Peters, C. Scott</creator><creatorcontrib>Clopton, Andrew J. ; Peters, C. Scott</creatorcontrib><description>In 2010 the Iowa electorate denied retention to all three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. We hypothesize that when retention elections feature vigorous campaigns, they can be explained by many of the same factors that affect outcomes in partisan and nonpartisan elections. In particular, we expect partisanship, the amount of campaigning (advertising), and political context (same-sex marriage) to explain the results in Iowa. We examine county-level election results, finding that the partisanship and concentration of evangelicals within a county, as well as the amount of advertising against the justices, explain the justices' vote share. We also find evidence that ballot roll-off decreased most in counties with high concentrations of evangelical adherents and where advertising was present.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-261X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2327-7556</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2013.10768043</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Williamsburg: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Election results ; Judges & magistrates ; Negative campaigning ; Same sex marriage ; State courts ; State elections</subject><ispartof>The Justice system journal, 2013-09, Vol.34 (3), p.321-344</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis</rights><rights>Copyright National Center for State Courts 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f7b2eeef383f6d306fbb1e6ade0dfb526659746b1539d6d1fbdad7dcb9f69c9d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f7b2eeef383f6d306fbb1e6ade0dfb526659746b1539d6d1fbdad7dcb9f69c9d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26595496$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26595496$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27923,27924,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clopton, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, C. Scott</creatorcontrib><title>Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election</title><title>The Justice system journal</title><description>In 2010 the Iowa electorate denied retention to all three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. We hypothesize that when retention elections feature vigorous campaigns, they can be explained by many of the same factors that affect outcomes in partisan and nonpartisan elections. In particular, we expect partisanship, the amount of campaigning (advertising), and political context (same-sex marriage) to explain the results in Iowa. We examine county-level election results, finding that the partisanship and concentration of evangelicals within a county, as well as the amount of advertising against the justices, explain the justices' vote share. We also find evidence that ballot roll-off decreased most in counties with high concentrations of evangelical adherents and where advertising was present.</description><subject>Election results</subject><subject>Judges & magistrates</subject><subject>Negative campaigning</subject><subject>Same sex marriage</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>State elections</subject><issn>0098-261X</issn><issn>2327-7556</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkFtLxDAQhYMouK7-BCXgc9ekadPWt2VdbywIXkB8CWkzwS7dZk1Sl_57U-r66tMMM9-ZORyELiiZUZKTK0KKPOb0fRYTysIo4zlJ2AGaxCzOoixN-SGaDFA0UMfoxLk1ISRNsmSCPh475-sKHL6BtgZ1jed4YbrW99EKvqHB81Y2vasdNhr7T8DhCcEPZifxS7e1sIEBtx4_g4fW16bFywaqoTlFR1o2Ds5-6xS93S5fF_fR6unuYTFfRRXjzEc6K2MA0CxnmitGuC5LClwqIEqXacx5WmQJL2nKCsUV1aWSKlNVWWheVIViU3Q53t1a89WB82IdHAXbTtCk4CRL8yQOFB-pyhrnLGixtfVG2l5QIoYcxT5HMeQo9jkG4fkoXDtv7J8qDrbScD7s5-O-brWxG7kztlHCy74xVlvZVrUT7J8fP_nJg9s</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Clopton, Andrew J.</creator><creator>Peters, C. Scott</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Taylor & Francis Group, LLC</general><general>National Center for State Courts</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election</title><author>Clopton, Andrew J. ; Peters, C. Scott</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-f7b2eeef383f6d306fbb1e6ade0dfb526659746b1539d6d1fbdad7dcb9f69c9d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Election results</topic><topic>Judges & magistrates</topic><topic>Negative campaigning</topic><topic>Same sex marriage</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>State elections</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clopton, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peters, C. Scott</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Justice system journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clopton, Andrew J.</au><au>Peters, C. Scott</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election</atitle><jtitle>The Justice system journal</jtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>321</spage><epage>344</epage><pages>321-344</pages><issn>0098-261X</issn><eissn>2327-7556</eissn><abstract>In 2010 the Iowa electorate denied retention to all three Supreme Court justices on the ballot. We hypothesize that when retention elections feature vigorous campaigns, they can be explained by many of the same factors that affect outcomes in partisan and nonpartisan elections. In particular, we expect partisanship, the amount of campaigning (advertising), and political context (same-sex marriage) to explain the results in Iowa. We examine county-level election results, finding that the partisanship and concentration of evangelicals within a county, as well as the amount of advertising against the justices, explain the justices' vote share. We also find evidence that ballot roll-off decreased most in counties with high concentrations of evangelical adherents and where advertising was present.</abstract><cop>Williamsburg</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/0098261X.2013.10768043</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0098-261X |
| ispartof | The Justice system journal, 2013-09, Vol.34 (3), p.321-344 |
| issn | 0098-261X 2327-7556 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_0098261X_2013_10768043 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Election results Judges & magistrates Negative campaigning Same sex marriage State courts State elections |
| title | Justices Denied: A County-Level Analysis of the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court Retention Election |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T19%3A05%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Justices%20Denied:%20A%20County-Level%20Analysis%20of%20the%202010%20Iowa%20Supreme%20Court%20Retention%20Election&rft.jtitle=The%20Justice%20system%20journal&rft.au=Clopton,%20Andrew%20J.&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=321&rft.epage=344&rft.pages=321-344&rft.issn=0098-261X&rft.eissn=2327-7556&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/0098261X.2013.10768043&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E26595496%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1496075842&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26595496&rfr_iscdi=true |