To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.
I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.
Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation.
To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests.
The contemporary world is motivated by data-driven decision-making. Small 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations are often limited in their reach due to their size, lack of funding, and a lack of data analysis expertise. In an effort to increase accessibility to data analysis for such organizations, a Founders Lab team designed a product to help them understand and utilize geographic information systems (GIS) software. This product – You Got GIS – strikes the balance between highly technical documentation and general overviews, benefiting 501(c)3 nonprofits in their pursuit of data-driven decision-making. Through the product’s use of case studies and methodologies, You Got GIS serves as a thought experiment platform to start answering questions regarding GIS. The product aims to continuously build partnerships in an effort to improve curriculum and user engagement.
Cancer is a disease acquired through mutations which leads to uncontrolled cell division and destruction of normal tissue within the body. Recent increases in available cross-species data of cancer in mammals, reptiles, birds, and other vertebrates has revealed that the prevalence of cancers varies widely across species. Life-history theory suggests that there could be traits that potentially explain some of that variation. We are particularly interested in species that get very little cancer. How are they preventing cancer and can we learn from them how to prevent cancer in humans? Comparative oncology focuses on the analysis of cancer prevalence and traits in different non-human species and allows researchers to apply their findings to humans with the goal of improving and advancing cancer treatment. We incorporate the predictions that animals with larger bodies have evolved better cancer suppression mechanisms than animals with small bodies. Ruminants in the past were larger in size than modern day ruminants and they may have retained cancer defenses from their large ancestors. The strong cancer defenses and small body size combined may explain the low prevalence of cancer in Ruminants. This paper aims to evaluate the presence of benign and malignant neoplasia prevalence across multiple ruminant species following a time of dramatic decrease in body size across the clade. Our aim is to illuminate the potential impact that these shifts in body size had on their cancer prevalence as well as test the statistical power of other key life history variables to predict cancer prevalence.