Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: With elections providing less of a mandate for public policy, focal points for institutional conflict can be found in such realms as confirmation battles over federal nominations in the Senate. Confirmation battles, increasingly a tool of opposition over the last thirty years, provide an important window into conflict between the two national elective branches. To illustrate this conflict, two collections of cases from modern presidents in their first year of their second term are closely examined: the 1997 set of Clinton executive and judicial nominations and the 2005 set of Bush nominations. These two cases provide interesting perspectives on issues pertaining to path dependence, changes in Senate norms, and divided government.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Since the McGovern-Fraser reforms, rallying support among the partisan electorate has become crucial to winning presidential nominations. A strong relationship also exists between mass partisan support during the pre-primary period for presidential nomination aspirants and success in fundraising, attracting media attention, and gathering endorsements. Previous research also shows a strong correlation between popular support and candidate attrition, as well as the final nomination outcome. However, we have almost no insight into what factors influence mass public opinion in the “invisible primary.”

To address this gap in the literature, this paper examines pre-primary, Gallup poll results for open presidential nomination contests from 1976-2004. We utilize a series of simple and pooled regression models that allow us to control for previous levels of public support for candidate so we can account for any changes during the pre-primary period. We find that a strong relationship exists between pre-primary poll results and endorsements, news coverage and some campaign finance variables. While campaign-related factors such as endorsements, media, and cash reserves are significant for Republicans, a mixture of campaign-related variables and candidate-related measures such as whether a candidate has officially entered the race or has been vice-president affects Democratic Gallup poll results. These findings build on the work of Cohen et al, (2002; 2003) in strengthening our understanding of influences on popular support and the relationships among the various nomination elites.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: A recent spate of scholarship has shown that it is taking longer for judicial nominees to be confirmed, at all levels of the federal judicial system. A number of these studies have also asked why some nominations move faster than others, finding that there are a number of personal and political factors that have an effect on how long it takes for a nominee to be confirmed. These studies obfuscate the question, however, of how these nominations are being delayed (or stopped completely) and for what reasons. In order to address these questions, we must turn our attention to the Senate and the actions of key senators.
This paper therefore focuses its attention on two parliamentary maneuvers, senatorial courtesy and “holds,” that individual senators may use to delay or kill particular judicial nominations. Examining all Court of Appeals nominations between 1987-2002 (the 100th-107th Congresses), this paper will begin by assessing the use of senatorial courtesy during this time period. It then concentrates the majority of its attention on analyzing the use of “holds” as applied to Circuit Court nominations. It first discusses the history and application of holds and then address competing hypotheses for why holds might be used. This paper then examines the application of holds to Court of Appeals nominations between 1987-2002. Overall, this paper argues that the majority of nominees blocked by these procedural tactics are not stopped due to ideological objections but rather because of issues and disputes unrelated to their nominations.

Publication Type: Proceeding