Document Type

Article

Department/Program

Government

Journal Title

The Journal of Politics

Pub Date

10-2023

Publisher

University of Chicago Press

Volume

85

Issue

4

First Page

1167

Abstract

How does a judge’s identity affect perceptions of their ability to preside fairly? We theorize that identity categories operate as ideological cues and that the public views judges perceived as ideologically proximate to be fairer, more impartial, and more inspiring of trust in courts broadly. Using a conjoint survey experiment with a diverse national sample, we find support for this theory and show that race, gender, and especially sexuality are used as ideological cues. The effect of identities is conditioned by respondent partisanship. Democratic respondents trust judges with marginalized identities more than judges with dominant identities. Republicans are relatively indifferent to judges’ race or gender but are significantly less trusting of gay judges. We also uncover limited effects when judges preside over a case in which their identity is salient. These results suggest that the public does not seek descriptive representation as such but uses identity categories to achieve ideological congruence.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1086/723996

Publisher Statement

The University of Chicago Press supports green open access across its entire portfolio of journals. Green open access refers to the ability of authors to self-archive their own work and make it freely available through institutional or disciplinary repositories. Authors may deposit either the published PDF of their article or the final accepted version of the manuscript after peer review (but not proofs of the article) in a non-commercial repository where it can be made freely available no sooner than twelve (12) months after publication of the article in the journal.

Download

Share Feedback

Share

COinS