GWIPP Research: Institutions & Public Policy
Title: Collaborative Research: Legislative Tactics and the Durability of Legislation
Funding: National Science Foundation
Researcher(s): Forrest Maltzman
Start Date: March 2010
Status: Current
Category: Institutions and Public Policy
Title: Collaborative Research: The Establishment of Stare Decisis in the American Legal System
Funding: National Science Foundation (Law & Social Science Program)
Researcher(s): Paul J. Wahlbeck, Timothy Johnson, and James F. Spriggs, II
Start Date: August 1, 2006
Status: Current
Category: Institutions and Public Policy
Summary: Scholars, judges, and lawyers commonly recognize that stare decisis, the rule that judges follow the rulings in previously decided court opinions, is the central norm underlying the American judiciary. Despite the recognized centrality of stare decisis, however, no social scientific study to date has put forward a comprehensive explanation for why and when it developed. In fact, scholars do not even agree on when the norm of judges respecting precedent became institutionalized in America. This study will provide a theoretical explanation for the origin and development of stare decisis based on the idea that informal political norms, such as stare decisis, result from the strategic choices of decision makers. The researchers will test the predictions derived from their theory using rigorous quantitative tests on data drawn from court opinions issued by colonial courts, state supreme courts, and federal courts (U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, and Federal District Courts) from the earliest reported colonial court opinions through 1890.
Product:
Fowler, James H., Timothy R. Johnson, James F. Spriggs, II, Sangick Jeon, and Paul J. Wahlbeck. 2007. "Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court," Political Analysis 15 (Summer): 324-346.
Cross, Frank B., James F. Spriggs, II, and Timothy R. Johnson, and Paul J.
Wahlbeck. 2010. "Citations in the U.S. Supreme Court: An Empirical Study of their Use and Significance." University of Illinois Law Review 2010 (March):
489-575.
Title: Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the US Supreme Court
Funding: National Science Foundation
Start Date: August 2006
Status: Completed
Link: Click here for the finished product
Summary:
Scholars, judges, and lawyers commonly recognize that stare decisis - the rule that judges follow the rulings in previously decided court opinions - is the central norm underlying the American judiciary. Despite the recognized centrality of stare decisis, however, no social scientific study to date has put forward a comprehensive explanation for why and when it developed. In fact, scholars do not even agree on when the norm of judges respecting precedent became institutionalized in America. This study will provide a theoretical explanation for the origin and development of stare decisis based on the idea that informal political norms, such as stare decisis, result from the strategic choices of decision makers. This study tests the theoretical predictions using rigorous quantitative tests on data drawn from court opinions issued by colonial courts, state supreme courts, and federal courts (U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, and Federal District Courts) from the earliest reported colonial court opinions through 1890.
| Title | Party Effects in Congress | ||
| Funding | National Science Foundation | ||
| Start Date | August 2001 | Category | Institutions |
| Status | Completed | Link | |
| Summary | Conventional wisdom holds that the party system within the House and Senate is one of Congress's most important institutional structures. Nevertheless, the nature of party influence is not understood very well. Recent efforts to characterize partisan influences in congressional policy-making posit both direct and indirect forms of influence. Such characterizations have largely been static in nature and tested exclusively in the House of Representatives. Eric Lawrence (GW), Forrest Maltzman (GW), and Steven Smith (Washington University) propose to collect data that will be used to characterize the nature of party influence in post-Reconstruction Congresses. |
||