The State Similarity Index attempts to quantify how similar states are to each other relative to other states. The index is a statistically-based way to measure this. 20% of the index is based on politics. 16.66% of a state’s political score (3.33% of the overall State Similarity Index score) is based on the characteristics of the state’s judicial branch. This includes the selection and partisan leanings of their judges. It also includes differences in sentencing from state to state.
State Supreme Court Political Leanings
The majority of state supreme court justices in the United States are officially non-partisan, however they still have political leanings. In states with a long history of Republican rule, like Texas, Idaho, and Alabama, most supreme court justices are known for their conservative ideologies. They tend to interpret the law more strictly, adhering to traditional values. Conversely, states with many Democrats, like New York, Oregon, and Washington, have more liberal-leaning state supreme courts. According to Ballotpedia’s analysis, Texas has the most conservative court, while Washington’s is the most liberal.
Source: Ballotpedia
Categories: Democrat, Republican, Independent
State Supreme Court Selection
The process for selecting justices for state supreme courts in the USA can vary significantly from state to state. There are generally four main methods used: Partisan Elections, Non-Partisan Elections, Gubernatorial Appointments, and Legislative Appointments.
In many cases, justices for state supreme courts are directly elected through partisan or non-partisan elections. Appointments by the governor are also common. South Carolina and Virginia are unique because their legislators select state supreme court justices.
After a judge’s first term, some states implement retention elections where voters decide whether to keep the judge for another term. Other states switch from partisan to non-partisan elections for judges. Additionally, some states transition to merit-based systems.
Source: Brennan Center
Categories:
Gubernatorial Appointment, Legislative Appointment
Partisan Election, Non-Partisan Election
Trial Court Selection
States also employ various methods for selecting trial court judges. Similar to state supreme court selection, some trial court judges may be appointed by governors or legislators. Others are elected through partisan or non-partisan elections. The diversity in selection methods reflects the complexities of the American legal system, as states strive to uphold fair adjudication and maintain a competent judiciary at all levels.
The Missouri Plan is especially popular in the middle of the country. This is where judicial vacancies are filled by the governor, who appoints a judge from a slate of candidates choosen by a nominating commission. Sitting judges at the end of their terms are retained through yes/no elections.
Source: Brennan Center
Categories:
Gubernatorial Appointment, Legislative Appointment
Partisan Election, Non-Partisan Election
Federal Circuit Court
The United States federal circuit courts, also known as the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are intermediate appellate courts within the federal judicial system. There are 11 federal circuit courts responsible for separate geographically-based groups of states. They play a crucial role in maintaining the consistency and proper interpretation of federal law by reviewing decisions from lower federal courts.
Source: uscourts.gov
Categories: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Circuit Court Political Leanings
The political leanings of federal circuit courts can vary based on factors such as regional dynamics, the appointment process, historical trends, and the composition of judges. Some circuits exhibit identifiable leanings due to the political landscape of the states within their jurisdiction. For the purposes of the study, the appointing president’s party is assumed to be same as the appointed judge. However, federal judges are expected to remain impartial and apply the law without bias.
Source: Wikipedia
Categories: Democrat, Republican
Death Sentences
The United States allows individual states to decide whether to retain or abolish the death penalty. In general, more liberal states have abolished the death penalty. However, it is still legal in California and Oregon (albeit with moratoriums), but outlawed in West Virginia and North Dakota. No states in the Northeast region still regularly practice capital punishment. In contrast, states in the Southern region perform many executions. Florida, Texas, and Alabama are some of the states that still enforce the death penalty.
Source: Wikipedia
Categories: Banned, Suspended, Rare, Allowed
Life Sentences
Alaska is unique, since it is the only state that does not allow life sentences without parole. Interestingly enough, California and Utah are the two states with the highest rate of prisoners with life sentences that do not have the possibility of parole. Both states have implemented laws that impose life sentences without parole for individuals that are habitual offenders. Furthermore, the list of crimes that count as serious or violent in the state of California is much longer than that of other states, and consists of many lesser offenses.
Source: sentencingproject.org
Life Sentences without Parole: 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%, 15-20%, 20-25%, 25-30%
