Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Huebert, E. T., & Brown, D. S. (2018). Due process and homicide: A cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly. doi:10.1177/1065912918785059

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/c7iEk96aqgATxP8iaAXW/full

Abstract: As democracy advances in many regions throughout the world, it is often accompanied by increasing violence. Most cross-national analyses find that an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between homicide and democracy: homicide rates are highest in hybrid regimes and lowest in authoritarian and democratic regimes. While a fairly robust empirical result, little is known about why it exists. We identify a specific institution—due process—that cuts across regime types and effectively explains homicide. Due process generates a legitimacy that encourages individuals to use the justice system to settle disputes. A more effective criminal justice system also deters crime in the first place. Using a cross-national sample of eighty-nine countries between 2009 and 2014, we find a strong negative relationship between due process and homicide. Put simply, how states fight crime explains their success.

Journal Article 2: Lindquist, S. A., & Solberg, R. S. (2007). Judicial review by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts: Explaining justices' responses to constitutional challenges. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 71–90.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/BuJDhqhAayy6i3qmX7xr/full

Abstract: In this article, the authors assess various influences on U.S. Supreme Court justices’ behavior in cases involving judicial review of federal, state, and local statutes. Focusing on challenges to the constitutionality of statutes considered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts during the 1969 to 2000 terms, the authors evaluate the impact of attitudinal, institutional, and contextual variables on individual justices’ votes to strike or uphold statutes challenged before the Court. The authors find that the justices’ ideological responses to the challenged statutes, the extent of amicus support for the statute, the support of the solicitor general, congressional preferences, and the existence of a civil liberties challenge to the statute are all significantly related to the justices’ votes to invalidate or uphold statutes. They also find that in the Rehnquist Court, conservative justices are less likely to strike state statutes but more likely to strike federal laws than their liberal counterparts, while no similar “federalism” dimension emerges in the Burger Court. Indeed, in the Burger Court, a distinct pattern emerges with conservative justices more restraintist than liberal justices in both state and federal cases.