Democratizing U.S. Courts: Perceived Representation and Support for Judicial Elections

The American mass public abstractly supports the federal judiciary, but supports concrete alterations to the institution (e.g., term limits). We argue that some efforts to alter the institution are not exclusively punitive, but relate to broader, non-judicial orientations toward government. Using nationally representative data from the 2020 Cooperative Election Study (CES), we find that attitudes toward representation and which types of people ought to hold power underlie support for judicial elections. Specifically, perceived representation, believing men to be better suited to politics than women, and holding racist attitudes are related to support for appointments over elections, even when controlling for diffuse support, perceived judicial politicization, and other relevant measures regarding the judiciary. We argue such individuals wish to maintain the appointment system which has yielded perceived benefits. Additionally, political sophistication exacerbates these effects. Rather than just a way to alter courts for delivering displeasing policy, support for some judicial changes may relate to efforts to democratize, and thereby diversify, courts.