In:
State Politics & Policy Quarterly, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 15, No. 4 ( 2015-12), p. 476-491
Abstract:
When the U.S. Supreme Court exercises its power of judicial review over state laws, its decisions, like the legislation it considers, frequently speak to major policy debates. Despite the Court's routine involvement with state statutes, theoretical explanations of judicial review generally do not distinguish between state laws and federal laws. The characteristics of state legislatures lead legislators in different states to have distinct perspectives and incentives, and ultimately affect the types of laws enacted in different states. We suggest that because the level of professionalism of state legislatures affects the types of laws pursued by different states, it may also affect the likelihood that a state has a law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. We find support for this expectation. Specifically, legislative professionalism is associated with an increased likelihood that a state has a law invalidated by the Court. This new evidence indicates that it is important to consider the legislative context in which state laws originate when examining the Court's review of state laws.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1532-4400
,
1946-1607
DOI:
10.1177/1532440015592782
Language:
English
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Publication Date:
2015
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2095362-8
SSG:
3,6
