Anchoring or Expanding? Gender and Judicial Nominations

Since both parties committed to adding women to the federal bench in the 1970s, Democratic and Republican presidents have sought out qualified women for judgeships. Diversifying the bench offers symbolic and substantive benefits to both parties, but those benefits come at the cost of finding non-traditional nominees. Presidents can take one of two different approaches to diversification: maintain existing diversity by anchoring women to a seat, or increase diversity by considering women for every opening. Given presidents consider many factors, including electoral benefits, when selecting potential judges, we expect partisan politics influence approach. Examining all lower court nominations made between 1981 and 2022, we find that Republican presidents tend to anchor while Democratic presidents expand diversity. Additionally, Senate diversity influences diversification, as women are more likely to get nominated when the relevant state Senate delegation includes a woman. Overall, we offer new perspectives on the mechanisms of judicial diversification.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Research Quarterly
Published
2024-10-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241290211
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
32.59

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Anchoring or Expanding? Gender and Judicial Nominations

Ian Ostrander, Jonathan M. King, Jessica A. Schoenherr
8 citations
Political Research Quarterly
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
32.59
article

Anchoring or Expanding? Gender and Judicial Nominations

Ian Ostrander, Jonathan M. King, Jessica A. Schoenherr
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Since both parties committed to adding women to the federal bench in the 1970s, Democratic and Republican presidents have sought out qualified women for judgeships. Diversifying the bench offers symbolic and substantive benefits to both parties, but those benefits come at the cost of finding non-traditional nominees. Presidents can take one of two different approaches to diversification: maintain existing diversity by anchoring women to a seat, or increase diversity by considering women for every opening. Given presidents consider many factors, including electoral benefits, when selecting potential judges, we expect partisan politics influence approach. Examining all lower court nominations made between 1981 and 2022, we find that Republican presidents tend to anchor while Democratic presidents expand diversity. Additionally, Senate diversity influences diversification, as women are more likely to get nominated when the relevant state Senate delegation includes a woman. Overall, we offer new perspectives on the mechanisms of judicial diversification.

Political Research QuarterlyVol. 78(1)
West Virginia University (US), University of South Carolina (US), Michigan State University (US)
Dirksen Congressional Center
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
32.59
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Anchoring or Expanding? Gender and Judicial Nominations — Ian Ostrander, Jonathan M. King, et al. · Political Research Quarterly (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS