The state solicitor general is quickly becoming a major player in appellate litigation, as state after state introduces an appellate specialist. Nonetheless, the office’s precipitous rise has received little attention from academia, especially when compared to the attention received by the state solicitor’s federal counterpart, the U.S. Solicitor General. After describing the role of the state solicitor and its importance in the American federal system, this paper will show how the state solicitor grew through diffusion among the states, and how internal determinants led to states creating two main types of state solicitors. I begin with describing what and who the state solicitor is.

Political debates are essential. They are critical components of the democratic process. Debates in the United States of America encourage constructive discussion about the role of government, the actions of individuals in positions of authority, and the future of the nation. During the presidential debate, voters are given the opportunity to understand in detail candidates' platforms and where politicians stand on the hot-button issues of the time. Of course, what politicians say during debates is important. How important, then, is what the politicians do not say? Uncovering Covert Aspects of the Presidential Debate focuses on presidential candidates’ nonverbal communication tendencies, not actual words spoken, through an examination of a sample of presidential debates. Research contains the implementation of a focused analytical method with the objective of formulating a better understanding of how the general population forms perceptions about presidential candidates. Findings include interesting information about psychology, communication, and politics as well as a number of answers to the question of how nonverbal communication affects presidential debates. Politicians involved in the research are Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney. This research describes how these candidates behave and draws conclusions about trends in the body language of American politicians. No longer will the covert aspects of the presidential debate, which is viewed not only by millions of Americans but also by many individuals in other countries, remain a mystery. The truth behind what matters and what does not matter in the political debate has been established.

The 2016 election brought to light a political climate change in the United States and showed that questions scholars and pundits alike thought were answered perhaps had not been completely addressed. For some, the main question left unanswered was what would it take for a woman to become President of the United States? For others, the question of fear politics and the effects of social media were raised. Perhaps, the most intriguing was exactly who has influence over US elections? While these, and other, questions were asked in the context of the presidential election, they are also applicable to all political races. This dissertation examines how voter perceptions based on stereotypes and racial threat can affect Latina candidates’ prospects for election. Using an online experiment with 660 subjects and two elite interviews to test four hypotheses in order to determine whether or not racial resentment and stereotypes play a role in voter perceptions of Latina political candidates. The results show that racial resent and gender stereotypes play a role in voter perception of Latina political candidates. The results have theoretical and practical implications.

In 1985 Schotland made the observation that judicial campaigns were becoming “nosier, nastier, and costlier.” Because judicial campaigns are one of very few occasions in which individuals receive information about the bench (Schaffner and Diascro 2007), there is a possibility that such negativity in judicial elections could harm individual perceptions of the legitimacy of state supreme courts (Gibson 2008). This dissertation seeks to uncover the amount of negativity present in judicial campaigns, and to understand the effects of such negativity on perceptions of state courts’ specific and diffuse legitimacy.

To accomplish this goal I first conduct a content analysis of all televised judicial advertisements aired from 2005-2016. While other scholars have examined the use of attack advertisements in judicial elections (Hall 2014), my study is the first to consider ads airing before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that removed spending limits for political groups. I find that neither the use of attack nor contrast advertisements appears to be increasing, though the sponsors of such ads have changed such that candidates and political parties air far fewer negative advertisements, but political groups air more negative ads than they did before Citizens United.

I then conduct a unique experiment to examine the effects of negativity on perceptions of specific and diffuse legitimacy. Unlike previous studies, I include a treatment group for contrast advertisements, which are advertisements containing elements of negativity about a target, as well as positive information about the target’s opponent. I find that, perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy are only moderately influenced by exposure to negative ads. I do however find that contrast advertisements appear to depress perceptions of the court’s diffuse legitimacy by a significant amount for individuals with high knowledge of the courts.

Suspect classification is a judicial process by which classes of people are determined as either suspect, quasi-suspect, or not suspect at all due to a combination of five factors: 1) minority status, 2) discrimination history, 3) political powerlessness, 4) an immutable trait, and 5) trait relevance as it relates to a discriminatory law in question. Laws that discriminate against a suspect class become immediately subject to strict scrutiny while most discriminatory laws only need to pass a rational basis test. Craig v. Boren (1976) established a precedent for the class of sex, which thereafter became subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny as a quasi-suspect class. With a more visible distinction between sex and gender today, this study seeks to determine whether gender rather than sex may become protected through heightened scrutiny by applying factors for suspect classification. In a call for heightened scrutiny for both gender and sex, this thesis argues that the suspect classification of both classes should include combinations of subclasses between gender, sex, and any other protected class. The central thesis employs a content analysis of case law, statutory law, and administrative law as it discriminates against classes of people with varying protection under the court system in the United States. In the question of whether courts should protect gender with suspect classification, the main argument calls for such action but if and only if an intersectional approach to protecting gender along with sex at a heightened level of judicial scrutiny is applied by individual judges on higher courts of review.

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.

This paper conducts an exploration of abortion legislation in Ireland through a Political Science lens. The existence of extremely harsh abortion laws in Ireland's constitution, with the procedure illegal except when the mother's life is at risk, appears to endure in juxtaposition with the country's status as progressive and highly developed with most other issues. Most notably, Ireland made history in 2015 as the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote. This paper therefore aims to understand what factors have caused Ireland's abortion laws to perpetuate, and what the future of this legislation may be. This analysis is conducted by considering the following: Ireland in comparative perspective; the framework of abortion legislation; significant legal cases; the roles of the Catholic Church, interest groups, and public opinion; the referendum process in Ireland; and current and recent developments. The research and evaluation in this paper reveal that Ireland stands distinctly as an outlier among similar highly-developed European countries, even those with strong religious ties. Moreover, the Catholic Church continues to hold sway with abortion issues in the country due to widespread identification of Irish citizens as "culturally Catholic," exacerbated by the Church's majority control of the education system. Nevertheless, public opinion polls show a majority of the population support repealing the Eighth Amendment, the constitutional clause that severely restricts abortion access. However, this growing support for progress has not translated into real legal change because the referendum process must be initiated and majority-approved by Irish Parliament, which has been controlled by conservative parties for the last twenty years. Therefore, as the pro-choice movement continues surging in Ireland, the greatest hope seems to lie in the 2021 general election, during which abortion will likely play a larger role as a policy issue and young citizens witnessing this call to action will be newly eligible to vote.

The American courts have become increasingly central to many important political debates. The marriage equality debate, the boundaries between religious freedom and society, the death penalty, eminent domain and many other contemporary issues that have direct effects on the lives of all Americans continue to play out in the court systems. While Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 82 sees the federal and state courts as complementary, this research sees these courts as often-rival political venues that political interests make strategic choices about taking legal actions in.

Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation.

To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests.

I examine how gender stereotypes influence the campaign advertisements utilized by candidates for state supreme court and how these gender stereotypes influence how voters react to these advertisements. Gender stereotypes have been found to have a profound impact in races for other offices (e.g., legislative, executive), but there is a lack of research on the role of gender stereotypes in state court elections. In my present research, I first conduct a content analysis of state supreme court advertisements over the course of four election years, looking specifically at how the candidates describe themselves in their advertisements. Based on these findings, I create advertisement scripts where I vary the gender of the candidate and the type of message employed by the candidate in order to test how the gender of the candidate and the content of the messages influences voter impressions of judicial candidates. In a second experiment, I create video advertisements based on these scripts and test how the video advertisements, as well as the candidate’s gender, affect impressions of these candidates. My analyses indicate that not only gender stereotypes play a role in the way judicial candidates create their advertisements, but they also impact the way voters form opinions about candidates running in judicial races.