By Matthew D. Kim.
This Article explores whether elected judges’ fear of electoral backlash for countermajoritarian decisions is justified. The results from survey experiments and a dataset of online and social media coverage suggest that voters value principled legal analysis and rarely punish judges for countermajoritarian decisions. Voters appear to treat the judiciary as a countermajoritarian institution distinct from other elected bodies and recognize alternative avenues for reform, obviating the need to vote out judges who issue decisions with which they disagree. These insights suggest that majoritarian pressures should not dictate the decisions of elected judges, and state courts may be capable of safeguarding minority rights alongside federal courts. Full Article.