AUTHORS' NOTE: This article represents the views of the authors, not necessarily those of the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the federal judiciary or any other institution with which the authors are affiliated. We thank Christine Nemacheck, Denis Steven Rutkus, Susan Navarro Smelcer, Richard Vining, and Margaret Williams for their helpful comments.
Assessing Changes in State Representation on the U.S. Courts of Appeals
Article first published online: 25 SEP 2011
© 2011 Center for the Study of the Presidency
Presidential Studies Quarterly
Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 777–792, December 2011
How to Cite
SCOTT, K. M. and GARRETT, R. S. (2011), Assessing Changes in State Representation on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 41: 777–792. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2011.03917.x
- Issue published online: 25 SEP 2011
- Article first published online: 25 SEP 2011
When a seat becomes vacant on a federal court of appeals, the president has the opportunity to nominate a new judge for the Senate's consideration. Geography is often a factor in the decision, particularly in determining whether the new judge will be nominated from the same state as the predecessor. Goldman refers to state affiliations on appeals courts (e.g., a “Missouri seat” or an “Ohio seat”) as “state representation.” Building on Goldman's work, we seek to accomplish two objectives. First, we demonstrate that although changes in state representation have declined over time, there are still occasions when presidents change the state representation of seats. Second, we investigate and analyze changes in state representation of circuit court judges confirmed since 1891 to test hypotheses about factors that influence changes in state representation.