Partisan identity increasingly structures how Americans interpret the operation of democratic institutions, including the routine procedures meant to function impartially. This study examines how partisan identity shapes public evaluations of one such procedure, gubernatorial appointments to state supreme courts during competitive election years. Using a survey experiment in which respondents evaluated a hypothetical appointment under varied partisan conditions, we find that co-partisans express substantially greater support for the appointment procedure, while out-party respondents are more likely to oppose it. These effects appear regardless of respondents’ affect toward either party, suggesting that partisan identity, rather than sentiment, drives evaluations of this democratic process. Our findings indicate that support for these procedures is often conditional on partisan alignment, raising concerns about the durability of shared democratic norms.
Parker et al. (Thu,) studied this question.