Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study examines a) smokers’ selective exposure to and selective perception of anti-tobacco campaigns and b) the moderating role of level of campaign exposure on subsequent selective perception processes. Using nationally representative survey data related to youth’s exposure and reception of several anti-tobacco campaigns in the U.S., this study found people’s tendency of selective perception but not selective exposure. Specifically, smoking status affected people’s degrees of campaign message disparagement but not their degree of campaign exposure. In addition, degree of campaign exposure affected the extent to which people engage in selective perception. The difference in message disparagement between non-smokers and smokers was larger among people who reported higher campaign exposure. Implications of selective processes for campaign effects are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: When a selection of judges turns out to be a political issue? Is there a connection between court decisions and the nomination process?
With the absence of written constitution and emergence of parliamentary system without checks and balances, the judicial branch in was initially regarded as the weakest arm of government in Israel. Selection of judges was considered then to be a-political process, based mainly on professional considerations.
The "weakness" of not having formally defined review powers, made it possible for the Court to incrementally increase its influence without being perceived as threatening the other branches of government. The High Court role during the 1980s and early 1990s was crucial in a situation of political stalemate. It helped strengthen democratic tendencies and probably prevented over politicization of various spheres of life. However, when the legislature decided to adapt to the new situation and granted the courts powers of limited judicial review, the courts were pushed into the center of political debate. The Israeli judiciary, which enjoyed professional autonomy and was relatively shielded from political interference, is no longer regarded as a neutral arbiter, but rather, as an active actor in the political arena. As such, professional practices such as nomination of justices and division of cases between justices have become the focus of political scrutiny, thereby posing a threat to future impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper, I examine the motivations behind states' decision to change how judges are selected and retained. I focus on change from appointive systems to elective systems.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I examine the ways to empirically evaluate a theoretical argument about compliance with international agreements. I discuss the conditions under which matching would perform better than Heckman selection models.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: A key research theme for judicial scholars has been that
the process by which judicial candidates are selected shapes who serves
on the bench. Of the various methods of judicial selection, merit
selection has generally been thought to minimize the role that
politics and partisanship plays in the selection of state court judges,
and emphasizes instead the experience and quality of the potential
appointee to the bench while preserving public accountability through
retention elections. But what happens when merit selection is modified
to the extent that the process is simply a surrogate for an executive
appointment?
Florida imbedded merit selection in its constitution for mid-election
vacancies at the trial court level and for all appellate court
appointments. The constitutional language did not, however, outline the
details of the nominating process or the membership of the judicial
nominating commissions. Recently, the Florida state legislature
significantly modified the merit selection process and effectively
enhanced the power of the governor while minimizing the influence of the bar association. The record indicates that the
legislature clearly wanted to grant the executive branch more control
over judicial selection. That this change occurred midway through Jeb
Bush's tenure as governor provides us with an excellent opportunity to
determine the impact of this legislative change in the judicial
selection process while controlling for governor and party.
This study asks whether the changes in the selection of the judicial
nominating commission (JNC) impacted who was ultimately selected to
serve on the bench. We contend that changes in the way the JNC is
appointed should result in differences in the type of nominations sent
to the governor and the appointments he ultimately makes. We examine
both trial and appellate court nominations in the major urban areas of
Florida to test the effects of the change in JNC appointments between
1998 and 2003. If the data is available, we will also examine the
nature of the JNC appointments themselves. This research contributes to
our knowledge of judicial selection processes and can provide insight
on the impact of legislative policy-making directed at consolidating
partisan power in the courts.