CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES

The hypotheses developed above are tested on a unique survey experiment developed for this study. It was distributed online to a nationwide sample of 1,044 adults in March of 2015, via Qualtrics. Every condition consisted of presenting respondents with pictures and descriptions of two candidates running for a seat on the Minnesota State Supreme Court. These candidates were fictitious, but respondents were not told this. In each treatment, one candidate (always surnamed Gordon) was highly qualified while the other (always surnamed Anderson) was less well qualified. Both Gordon and Anderson are older white men. Neither candidate was an incumbent; Gordon and Anderson differ in quality due to their varying professional experiences. Regardless of

23

treatment, Gordon is always described as having served as a judge for twenty-one years, including twelve years on the state’s second highest court. Respondents were also told that Gordon “Has received a rating of ‘Excellent’ from the Minnesota State Bar Association every year he has served as a judge.” Conversely, Anderson is described as having much less experience. For the sake of realism Anderson is described as a successful attorney, but the prompt always notes that Anderson “has never served as a Judge at any level.”

Respondents were asked to give their party identification in the pre-test. Respondents were given the option of identifying themselves as Republicans, Democrats, independents, or “other” using the same wording as in the American National Election Survey. Respondents identifying themselves as Republicans or Democrats were then asked if they viewed themselves as strong or not so strong partisans. Respondents calling themselves independents were asked if they were closer to one party or the other. For purposes of treatment assignment and analysis, these leaners were treated as Republicans or Democrats. The partisanship of the respondent determined which treatment they were assigned to. Independent respondents could be assigned to any treatment, but were analyzed separately from the partisan respondents. The results for independents are not theoretically interesting, and are included in the appendix.

The survey had three treatment conditions relevant to this paper.4 Respondents were only exposed to a single treatment condition. There is a non-partisan treatment, wherein neither Gordon nor Anderson is given a party label. Both Republicans and Democrats could be assigned to this condition. There were two variants of a partisan treatment. In one variant, Gordon is labeled as the Democratic candidate, while Anderson is labeled as a Republican. Republicans could be assigned

4_{There were four additional treatments given to respondents that are not relevant to this study. These four treatments}

manipulated the race and gender of Gordon and Anderson; one would always be a white male, and the other either a black male or a white female.

24

to this treatment, but not Democrats. In another variant of the partisan treatment, Gordon is identified as a Republican and Anderson as a Democrat. Democrats could be assigned to this treatment, but not Republicans. Therefore the partisan cue, where present, is always in conflict with the candidate quality cue.

In addition to candidate experience and the candidates’ pictures, respondents were also given background on the personal life and education of the candidates, and told about their judicial philosophies. The personal life and educations of the candidates are designed to be very similar, but with enough differences to appear genuine. Each candidate is always born and raised in Minnesota (but different parts of the state), is married, and has multiple children. Gordon is described as having one son and one daughter, while Anderson is described as having one son and two daughters. Both candidates are described as having earned his Bachelors’ degrees from private colleges in Minnesota that the vast majority of respondents have likely never heard of,5 and each candidate received his law degree from the University of Minnesota. The philosophical statements of the candidates are designed to be similar without making respondents question their genuineness. In other words, respondents were not supposed to be able to infer anything about the candidates’ partisanship from their philosophical statements.

Philosophy#1:

“[JUDGE GORDON/TOM] believes that judges must perform their duties in a fair and

impartial fashion, and must uphold the rule of law, recognizing the limited but important

role the people have assigned to our court system. [JUDGE GORDON/TOM], after visiting

with Minnesotans of all walks of life, believes that these principles, which are the

5_{There is at least one exception: one respondent who supported Anderson said that his or her support was based on}

25

foundational blocks for our democracy, are widely shared.” -from

[ELECTEDJUDGEGORDON.COM/ANDERSONFORJUSTICE.COM]

Philosophy#2:

“[JUDGE GORDON/TOM] believes that judges should faithfully interpret and apply the

laws of our state, not follow their own political leanings or personal preferences. [JUDGE

GORDON/TOM] also believes that judges should treat each other, and all participants in

our legal system with dignity and respect. [JUDGE GORDON’S/TOM’S] philosophy will

result in unbiased, even-handed justice for all.” -from

[ELECTJUDGEGORDON.COM/ANDERSONFORJUSTCE.COM]

Each treatment in the survey had two variants. In one variant, Gordon would use philosophy #1 while Anderson’s would use philosophy #2. In the other variant of the condition, Gordon would use philosophy #2 while Anderson used philosophy #1. This helps to control for the potential independent effects of these philosophies on individual responses, in case these philosophies were more meaningful to respondents than intended.

2.3.2 Statistical Model

Since the outcome variables in all three models (see next section) are dichotomous, a logistic regression was appropriate. The results of logistic regressions are not easily interpretable, so only predicted probabilities are reported below. Full results are available in the Appendix. Note that the predicted probabilities reported below are based upon bivariate regressions or regressions with two independent variables. Other variables such as race, political knowledge, gender, and education seem to have little if any effect on the dependent variable. Models including these controls are included in the appendix. Note that many of the 1,044 respondents surveyed were

26

assigned to treatments that are not theoretically relevant to this study. Four-hundred and three partisan respondents were assigned to treatments whose results are reported in-text.