Home >> Perspective >> Research and Public Education



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

 

This article appeared in the Fall 2005 print edition of Maxwell Perspective; © 2005 Maxwell School of Syracuse University. To request a copy, e-mail dlcooke@maxwell.syr.edu.

      



Contacts & Copyright / Text-Only Pages