Amicus briefs often impact court decisions, yet how state judges respond to them is debated. This study explores the role of judicial retention—election vs appointment—and examines whether ideological bias or external pressures mediate this influence.

Data & Methods:

Original dataset analyzing over 14,000 votes from three distinct legal domains by individual state supreme court judges using advanced social-psychological models and regression analysis.

Key Findings:

Generally supports the informational theory that amicus briefs provide useful data for complex cases. However, reveals a conditioning effect: competitive elections significantly shift judicial responsiveness in politically contentious areas.

Why It Matters:

This nuanced understanding demonstrates how electoral cycles can alter judges' receptiveness to third-party legal input—especially relevant amid ongoing debates about judicial independence and political accountability.