Research

Dissertation
Neither Force Nor Will: A Theory of Judicial Power

Traditional wisdom dictates that the judiciary is a “hollow hope” because it has neither force nor will and therefore cannot compel other policy actors to comply with its decisions. I use evidence from media coverage and interest group activity to argue that this view underplays the tremendous agenda setting power that the judiciary derives from its most fundamental function: the ability to make judgments. Specifically, by deciding to decide cases that engage the attention of media and interest groups, the courts affect the way these non-institutional actors allocate resources such as news space and lobbying attention. These shifts in resources affect not only the business of the judiciary, but also the information received by the public and policy makers in the executive and legislative branches.

Full Court Press: An Examination of Media Coverage of State Supreme Courts
This analysis explores how case facts and the characteristics of media and the judiciary affect news coverage of the courts. It examines newspaper coverage of the decisions of twenty state supreme courts during calendar year 1998 and matches relevant stories to the cases contained in the Brace and Hall State Supreme Court Data Project (2002). The results are consistent with the hypotheses that case facts, media characteristics, and judicial characteristics all affect the probability that a case will receive news coverage.

The Chilly Climate Continues: Defrosting the Gender Divide in Political Science and Politics
This paper examines whether there is a gender gap in the political interest and engagement of first-year college students enrolled in introductory American politics classes. Using data from a survey completed by over 2,000 students at 20 colleges and universities across the United States, we look for variations in students’ plans to vote, parental interest in politics, plans to influence public policy, and plans to run for office. We present evidence that women continue to lag behind men on many key variables, and we offer several suggestions for instructors to adopt both in and outside the classroom in an effort to warm this chilly climate.

Where Have all the Pro-Choice Groups Gone?: An Analysis of Organized Interests in Supreme Court Reproductive Rights Litigation

A body of scholarship attests to the importance of experienced litigators before the United States Supreme Court. In this paper, we specifically consider the role of experienced litigators in the thirty years of reproductive rights litigation that followed Roe v. Wade. To that end, we divide the lawyers by their pro-choice or pro-life affiliations and ask (1) how often do individual lawyers appear before the Court in reproductive rights cases; (2) who are the lawyers arguing these case before the Supreme Court; and, (3) how has their participation changed over time. We find changes in the pro-choice and pro-life bars that mirror the reproductive rights movement at large. Pro-choice groups, which once employed a stable of elite lawyers with significant expertise, have been decimated by the retirements of pro-choice counsel with no lawyers emerging to replace them. At the same time, the pro-life bar and pro-life groups appear to be developing a strong litigation campaign complete with experienced litigators.