@article{8783245bf86b45a9bba76820239b5c56,
title = "Judge gender, critical mass, and decision making in the appellate courts of Canada",
abstract = "In this study, we explore gendered patterns of voting, and whether such patterns appear only after a critical mass of female justices is reached by analyzing the votes of justices in the Supreme Court of Canada. We employ a logistic regression model of the differences in the voting behavior of male versus female justices, using the universe of Supreme Court votes from 1982 through 2007. Our analysis supports the conclusion that women vote more liberally on civil rights, equality, and private economic cases, and more conservatively on criminal cases. However, we find no evidence that indicates a need for a critical mass of women justices for them to vote their sincere preferences.",
keywords = "Appellate courts, Canadian courts, Critical mass, Gendered voting, Judge gender, Judicial decision-making",
author = "Johnson, {Susan W.} and Songer, {Donald R.} and Jilani, {Nadia A.}",
note = "Funding Information: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the US National Science Foundation and the Canadian Embassy to the United States for their support, which made this research possible. The interpretations of the data and the conclusions are the authors{\textquoteright} and are not endorsed by either the National Science Foundation or the Canadian Embassy. Two grants contributed to this project: (1) “An Empirical Analysis of Decision-Making in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals; of Canada and the United States,” Donald R. Songer, principal investigator; and (2) “Reconceptualizing the Role of Precedent in the Supreme Court of Canada,” Donald R. Songer, principal investigator. Much of the statistical analysis was based on the High Courts Judicial Database (HCJD). The HCJD is a public access database created by Stacia L. Haynie, Reginald S. Sheehan, Donald R. Songer, and C. Neal Tate with the support of grants provided by the Law and Social Science Program of the National Science Foundation. These data were collected under two grants funded by the National Science Foundation, “Collaborative Research: Fitting More Pieces into the Puzzle of Judicial Behavior: A Multi-Country Database and Program of Research” (SES-9975323), and “Collaborative Research: Extending a Multi-Country Database and Program of Research” (SES-0137349), C. Neal Tate, Donald R. Songer, Stacia Haynie, and Reginald S. Sheehan, principal investigators. It is available for public use and download at http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/d5YnT2/data_sets. Funding Information: 2. The data through 2003 are part of a larger project, the High Courts Judicial Database (HCJD), funded by the National Science Foundation, “Collaborative Research: Fitting More Pieces into the Puzzle of Judicial Behavior: a Multi-Country Database and Program of Research,” SES-9975323; and “Collaborative Research: Extending a Multi-Country Database and Program of Research,” SES-0137349, C. Neal Tate, Donald R. Songer, Stacia Haynie, and Reginald S. Sheehan, Principal Investigators. The data can be downloaded from the JURI project at the University of South Carolina at http://cas.sc.edu/poli/juri. The authors coded all of the decisions from 2004 through 2007 following the same coding scheme.",
year = "2011",
month = jul,
doi = "10.1080/1554477X.2011.589293",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "237--260",
journal = "Journal of Women, Politics and Policy",
issn = "1554-477X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",
}
