
In mid-October, as the nomination of Harriet Miers to the
Supreme Court entered its darkest days, the Maxwell School released a national
poll showing that Americans are sensitive to the effects of partisan politics on
the jobs judges at all levels perform. The Maxwell Poll found that an
overwhelming majority of Americans-85 percent-think that partisan backgrounds
influence judges' court decisions. More than half believe that, in many cases,
judges base their decisions on their own personal beliefs rather than legal
precedent or the Constitution. Nearly three-quarters of poll respondents believe
judges should be shielded from outside pressures and allowed to make decisions
based upon their reading of the law."According to
the poll results, most Americans clearly see the role that partisanship plays in
the judicial process," says Keith Bybee, the Michael O. Sawyer Chair of
Constitutional Law at Maxwell." At the same time, Americans by no means see
judges as just another kind of politician. The complexity of public opinion
needs to be taken into account when we consider how candidates should-or should
not-be selected for the bench."
The
poll results were released on October 17 at the start of a symposium in
Washington, D.C., co-sponsored by the Maxwell School and Syracuse University's
College of Law and Newhouse School of Public Communications. The
symposium-titled "Bench Press: The Collision of Media, Politics, Public Pressure
and an Independent Judiciary" - brought together more than two dozen leading
figures in law, academia, and journalism for a series of robust discussions on
the role of the courts in public life.
Among participants were Robert J. Grey, Jr., immediate
past president of the American Bar Association; Nina Totenberg, legal affairs
reporter for National Public Radio; New Yorker writer and legal analyst Jeffrey
Toobin; and John M. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd
Circuit.
According to Bybee, who helped organize the symposium,
these poll results provided a common frame of reference for each discussion.
"These kinds of conversations can retreat into well-worn conventional wisdom and
generalities," he says. "The poll data provided something concrete to ground the
discussion and debate."
The Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality,
launched and first conducted in 2004, aims to stimulate research and discussion
on democracy and civic engagement. The poll program is co-directed by Alasdair
Roberts, associate professor of public administration, and polling expert
Jeffrey Stonecash, professor of political science, under the auspices of the
Campbell Public Affairs Institute, which Roberts directs. The institute's
central mission-to promote understanding of challenges that face democratic
governance-is well-served by the Maxwell Poll, says Roberts. With its
opinion-poll approach, it nicely complements existing scholarship.
"There are studies which correlate economic
circumstances and political participation," he says, "but the poll provides data
on how the public feels about economic inequality, creating a more-detailed
understanding of the link with political action."
Conducted
by Stonecash in early October, the nation-wide survey tested respondents'
engagement in political affairs and other aspects of civic life and sought out
views on social and economic inequality in the United States. It then delved
specifically into questions of judicial election, selection, and
decision-making.
Linking the Maxwell Poll to a topic of the moment has
proved to be a powerful option. Last year's poll linked questions about
inequality with the upcoming presidential election. This year, given the changes
at the Supreme Court, linking the poll to political influence and judicial
impartiality served the moment and served the symposium.
"Having this poll on civic engagement, inequality, and
the judiciary, gives a lot of people leverage on questions they're already
researching," says Bybee. "To have this kind of data made available is a
treasure trove."
Bench Press may portend bigger things. Syracuse
University is investigating the potential for an interdisciplinary center
studying the relationship between the judiciary, politics, and the media
-something SU is uniquely suited to host, with its prominent schools of public
communications, law, and, of course, citizenship and public affairs.
Dean Mitchel Wallerstein is enthusiastic about Maxwell's
role. "In this polarized political environment, the independence of our judicial
branch may be at risk; its corruption could shake the very foundations of our
democracy," he says. "Given Maxwell's strength in the study of politics and
government and promotion of citizenship, it's obvious that we would play a key
role in such a center."
—Renée Gearhart Levy