TY - JOUR
T1 - Empirically evaluating the countermajoritarian difficulty
T2 - Public opinion, state policy, and judicial review before Roe V. Wade
AU - Kastellec, Jonathan P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/3/1
Y1 - 2016/3/1
N2 - I conduct a quantitative evaluation of the “countermajoritarian difficulty” by examining the relationship between public opinion, state policy, and judicial review in constitutional challenges to state abortion statutes in the period before Roe v. Wade. I find that state and lower federal court judges tended to invalidate statutes in states with high levels of public support for moving policy away from the status quo, and judges did not strike down statutes in states where majorities firmly supported the status quo. These results suggest the importance of creating a role for state and lower federal courts in evaluating the countermajoritarian difficulty.
AB - I conduct a quantitative evaluation of the “countermajoritarian difficulty” by examining the relationship between public opinion, state policy, and judicial review in constitutional challenges to state abortion statutes in the period before Roe v. Wade. I find that state and lower federal court judges tended to invalidate statutes in states with high levels of public support for moving policy away from the status quo, and judges did not strike down statutes in states where majorities firmly supported the status quo. These results suggest the importance of creating a role for state and lower federal courts in evaluating the countermajoritarian difficulty.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975055197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975055197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1086/683466
DO - 10.1086/683466
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84975055197
SN - 2164-6570
VL - 4
SP - 1
EP - 42
JO - Journal of Law and Courts
JF - Journal of Law and Courts
IS - 1
ER -