Voters, Ballot Measures, and Reforming State Courts of Last Resort, 1792 <i>–</i> 2024

Abstract Americans have never had any direct say over the way their federal courts are structured or operate. As a result, we know little about their preferences on such matters. In contrast, through ballot measures, they have had many opportunities to weigh in on the way state courts function. I analyze 364 measures targeting state courts of last resort that appeared on ballots between 1792 and 2024. These propositions asked voters to make concrete choices about court structures and operations. By examining the debates that preceded votes on these measures, election results reveal the public’s preferences by showing which arguments voters found persuasive, which they rejected, and how their views evolved over time. I find that until the mid-twentieth century, voters grappled with questions about how many justices should sit on their courts of last resort and how much those justices should be paid. Voters slowly and grudgingly agreed to increase court sizes and to raise judicial pay. From the mid-twentieth century on, voter attention was redirected primarily toward judicial ethics rules and regulations and the methods used to put people on the bench. Ethics measures proved popular, but no consensus emerged on selection schemes.