Matching Items (18)
156410-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The 2016 election brought to light a political climate change in the United States and showed that questions scholars and pundits alike thought were answered perhaps had not been completely addressed. For some, the main question left unanswered was what would it take for a woman to become President of

The 2016 election brought to light a political climate change in the United States and showed that questions scholars and pundits alike thought were answered perhaps had not been completely addressed. For some, the main question left unanswered was what would it take for a woman to become President of the United States? For others, the question of fear politics and the effects of social media were raised. Perhaps, the most intriguing was exactly who has influence over US elections? While these, and other, questions were asked in the context of the presidential election, they are also applicable to all political races. This dissertation examines how voter perceptions based on stereotypes and racial threat can affect Latina candidates’ prospects for election. Using an online experiment with 660 subjects and two elite interviews to test four hypotheses in order to determine whether or not racial resentment and stereotypes play a role in voter perceptions of Latina political candidates. The results show that racial resent and gender stereotypes play a role in voter perception of Latina political candidates. The results have theoretical and practical implications.
ContributorsHernandez, Samantha L. (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Navarro, Sharon (Committee member) / Magaña, Lisa (Committee member) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
156254-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In 1985 Schotland made the observation that judicial campaigns were becoming “nosier, nastier, and costlier.” Because judicial campaigns are one of very few occasions in which individuals receive information about the bench (Schaffner and Diascro 2007), there is a possibility that such negativity in judicial elections could harm individual perceptions

In 1985 Schotland made the observation that judicial campaigns were becoming “nosier, nastier, and costlier.” Because judicial campaigns are one of very few occasions in which individuals receive information about the bench (Schaffner and Diascro 2007), there is a possibility that such negativity in judicial elections could harm individual perceptions of the legitimacy of state supreme courts (Gibson 2008). This dissertation seeks to uncover the amount of negativity present in judicial campaigns, and to understand the effects of such negativity on perceptions of state courts’ specific and diffuse legitimacy.

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.
ContributorsThompson, Joshua Robert (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Ramirez, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
131514-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Political polarization is the coalescence of political parties -- and the individuals of which parties are composed -- around opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Political parties in the United States have always been divided, however, in recent years this division has only intensified. Recently, polarization has also wound its

Political polarization is the coalescence of political parties -- and the individuals of which parties are composed -- around opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Political parties in the United States have always been divided, however, in recent years this division has only intensified. Recently, polarization has also wound its way to the Supreme Court and the nomination processes of justices to the Court. This paper examines how prevalent polarization in the Supreme Court nomination process has become by looking specifically at the failed nomination of Judge Merrick Garland and the confirmations of now-Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. This is accomplished by comparing the ideologies and qualifications of the three most recent nominees to those of previous nominees, as well as analysing the ideological composition of the Senate at the times of the individual nominations.
ContributorsJoss, Jacob (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Critchlow, Donald (Committee member) / Computer Science and Engineering Program (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
135665-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Even at the start of the twenty-first century, gender stereotypes continue to guide how people perceive men and women. Given the power of gender stereotypes, I expect that these stereotypes will constrain how women campaign for positions on state supreme courts. In particular, I expect that women candidates for state

Even at the start of the twenty-first century, gender stereotypes continue to guide how people perceive men and women. Given the power of gender stereotypes, I expect that these stereotypes will constrain how women campaign for positions on state supreme courts. In particular, I expect that women candidates for state supreme court will try to revise potentially damaging stereotypes by detailing their possession of agentic traits, while men candidates for state supreme court will have more flexibility when describing their possession of particular traits. When discussing issues in their campaigns, I expect women to highlight issues that correspond to their stereotypical strengths (i.e., communal issues) since by stressing these issues, the candidates hope to prime issues that may benefit their candidacies. In contrast, I expect male candidates for state supreme court to be less constrained by persisting stereotypes and be equally likely to emphasize communal or competitive issues in their campaigns. To test my expectations, I conduct a content analysis of judicial campaign advertisements among the states holding elections for state supreme court. The evidence I find from my analysis strongly supports my hypothesis. This suggests that women are still confined by gender stereotypes when it comes to campaigning in judicial elections.
ContributorsKahn, Jennifer Gail (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
This paper conducts an exploration of abortion legislation in Ireland through a Political Science lens. The existence of extremely harsh abortion laws in Ireland's constitution, with the procedure illegal except when the mother's life is at risk, appears to endure in juxtaposition with the country's status as progressive and highly

This paper conducts an exploration of abortion legislation in Ireland through a Political Science lens. The existence of extremely harsh abortion laws in Ireland's constitution, with the procedure illegal except when the mother's life is at risk, appears to endure in juxtaposition with the country's status as progressive and highly developed with most other issues. Most notably, Ireland made history in 2015 as the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors have caused Ireland's abortion laws to perpetuate, and what the future of this legislation may be. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: Ireland in comparative perspective; the framework of abortion legislation; significant legal cases; the roles of the Catholic Church, interest groups, and public opinion; the referendum process in Ireland; and current and recent developments. The research and evaluation in this paper reveal that Ireland stands distinctly as an outlier among similar highly-developed European countries, even those with strong religious ties. Moreover, the Catholic Church continues to hold sway with abortion issues in the country due to widespread identification of Irish citizens as "culturally Catholic," exacerbated by the Church's majority control of the education system. Nevertheless, public opinion polls show a majority of the population support repealing the Eighth Amendment, the constitutional clause that severely restricts abortion access. However, this growing support for progress has not translated into real legal change because the referendum process must be initiated and majority-approved by Irish Parliament, which has been controlled by conservative parties for the last twenty years. Therefore, as the pro-choice movement continues surging in Ireland, the greatest hope seems to lie in the 2021 general election, during which abortion will likely play a larger role as a policy issue and young citizens witnessing this call to action will be newly eligible to vote.
ContributorsBerk, Gavriella Chava (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Hinojosa, Magda (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
133430-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to

Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to a discriminatory law in question. Laws that discriminate against a suspect class become immediately subject to strict scrutiny while most discriminatory laws only need to pass a rational basis test. Craig v. Boren (1976) established a precedent for the class of sex, which thereafter became subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny as a quasi-suspect class. With a more visible distinction between sex and gender today, this study seeks to determine whether gender rather than sex may become protected through heightened scrutiny by applying factors for suspect classification. In a call for heightened scrutiny for both gender and sex, this thesis argues that the suspect classification of both classes should include combinations of subclasses between gender, sex, and any other protected class. The central thesis employs a content analysis of case law, statutory law, and administrative law as it discriminates against classes of people with varying protection under the court system in the United States. In the question of whether courts should protect gender with suspect classification, the main argument calls for such action but if and only if an intersectional approach to protecting gender along with sex at a heightened level of judicial scrutiny is applied by individual judges on higher courts of review.
ContributorsTorres, Cristian Jesus (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Durfee, Alesha (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Public Affairs (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
155719-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The American courts have become increasingly central to many important political debates. The marriage equality debate, the boundaries between religious freedom and society, the death penalty, eminent domain and many other contemporary issues that have direct effects on the lives of all Americans continue to play out in the court

The American courts have become increasingly central to many important political debates. The marriage equality debate, the boundaries between religious freedom and society, the death penalty, eminent domain and many other contemporary issues that have direct effects on the lives of all Americans continue to play out in the court systems. While Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 82 sees the federal and state courts as complementary, this research sees these courts as often-rival political venues that political interests make strategic choices about taking legal actions in.

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.
ContributorsLohse, Paul Bryan (Author) / Lewis, Paul B (Thesis advisor) / Herrera, Richard (Committee member) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
155617-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
I examine how gender stereotypes influence the campaign advertisements utilized by candidates for state supreme court and how these gender stereotypes influence how voters react to these advertisements. Gender stereotypes have been found to have a profound impact in races for other offices (e.g., legislative, executive), but there is a

I examine how gender stereotypes influence the campaign advertisements utilized by candidates for state supreme court and how these gender stereotypes influence how voters react to these advertisements. Gender stereotypes have been found to have a profound impact in races for other offices (e.g., legislative, executive), but there is a lack of research on the role of gender stereotypes in state court elections. In my present research, I first conduct a content analysis of state supreme court advertisements over the course of four election years, looking specifically at how the candidates describe themselves in their advertisements. Based on these findings, I create advertisement scripts where I vary the gender of the candidate and the type of message employed by the candidate in order to test how the gender of the candidate and the content of the messages influences voter impressions of judicial candidates. In a second experiment, I create video advertisements based on these scripts and test how the video advertisements, as well as the candidate’s gender, affect impressions of these candidates. My analyses indicate that not only gender stereotypes play a role in the way judicial candidates create their advertisements, but they also impact the way voters form opinions about candidates running in judicial races.
ContributorsKahn, Jennifer (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis advisor) / Ramirez, Mark (Thesis advisor) / Hinojosa, Magda (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
147564-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The era of mass data collection is upon us and only recently have people begun to consider the value of their data. All of our clicks and likes have helped big tech companies build predictive models to tailor their product to the buying patterns of the consumer. Big

The era of mass data collection is upon us and only recently have people begun to consider the value of their data. All of our clicks and likes have helped big tech companies build predictive models to tailor their product to the buying patterns of the consumer. Big data collection has its advantages in increasing profitability and efficiency, but many are concerned about the lack of transparency in these technologies (Dwyer). The dependency on algorithms to make and influence decisions has become a growing concern in law enforcement. The use of this technology is commonly referred to as data-driven decision making, which is also known as predictive policing. These technologies are thought to reduce the biases held in traditional policing by creating statistically sound evidence-based models. Although, many lawsuits have highlighted the fact that predictive technologies do more to reflect historical bias rather than to eradicate it. The clandestine measures behind the algorithms may be in conflict with the due process clause and the penumbra of privacy rights enumerated in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. <br/> Predictive policing technology has come under fire for over policing historically black and latinx neighborhoods. GIS (Geographical Information Systems) is supposed to help officers identify where crime will likely happen over the next twelve hours. However, the LAPD’s own internal audit of their program concluded that the technology did not help officers solve crimes or reduce crime rate any better than traditional patrol methods (Puente). Similarly, other types of tools used to calculate recidivism risk for bond sentencing are disproportionately biased to calculate black people as having a higher risk to reoffend (Angwin). Lawsuits from civil liberties groups have been filed against the police departments that utilized these technologies. This paper will examine the constitutional pitfalls of predictive technology and propose ways that the system could work to ameliorate its practices.

ContributorsKlein, Johannah Marie (Co-author) / Klein, JoHannah (Co-author) / Koretz, Lora (Thesis director) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
148354-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral

The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral appeal as well, exploring the implications of such a decision and the criteria that should be used to make the decision in the case before the court, Edwards v. Vannoy (2021). Ultimately, I find that because the criteria currently used to determine retroactivity of new criminal precedents does not provide a clear answer to the question posed in Edwards, the Court should give more weight to the defendant's freedoms pursuant to the presumption of innocence while considering the potential for any disastrous outcomes.

ContributorsCaldwell, Rachel Lillian (Author) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Thesis director) / Bender, Paul (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor, Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05