How Men and Women Campaign for State Supreme Court Elections: The Impact of Gender Stereotypes

Even at the start of the twenty-first century, gender stereotypes continue to guide how people perceive men and women. Given the power of gender stereotypes, I expect that these stereotypes will constrain how women campaign for positions on state supreme courts. In particular, I expect that women candidates for state supreme court will try to revise potentially damaging stereotypes by detailing their possession of agentic traits, while men candidates for state supreme court will have more flexibility when describing their possession of particular traits. When discussing issues in their campaigns, I expect women to highlight issues that correspond to their stereotypical strengths (i.e., communal issues) since by stressing these issues, the candidates hope to prime issues that may benefit their candidacies. In contrast, I expect male candidates for state supreme court to be less constrained by persisting stereotypes and be equally likely to emphasize communal or competitive issues in their campaigns. To test my expectations, I conduct a content analysis of judicial campaign advertisements among the states holding elections for state supreme court. The evidence I find from my analysis strongly supports my hypothesis. This suggests that women are still confined by gender stereotypes when it comes to campaigning in judicial elections.