Replication Data for: The Politics of Accountability in Supreme Court Nominations: Voter Recall and Assessment of Senator Votes on Nominees

While longstanding theories of political behavior argue that voters do not possess sufficient political knowledge to hold their elected representatives accountable, recent revisionist studies challenge this view, arguing that voters can both follow how their representatives vote and use that information intelligently. We apply the revisionist account to the study of Supreme Court nominations in the modern era. Using survey data on the nominations of Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, we ask whether voters can and do hold senators accountable for their votes on Supreme Court nominees. While our results for Thomas are ambiguous, we find strong evidence for accountability in the case of Sotomayor and Kagan. In particular, we show that voters on average can correctly recall the votes of their senators on these nominees, and that correct recall is correlated with higher levels of education and political knowledge. We then show that voters are more likely to both approve of and vote to re-elect their senator if he or she casts a vote on Sotomayor and Kagan that is in line with voters' preferences. Finally, we show this effect is quite sizable, as it rivals the effect of agree- ment on other high-profile roll call votes. These results have important implications for both the broader study of representation and for understanding the current politics of Supreme Court nominations. \end{abstract}

长期以来的政治行为理论主张，选民缺乏足够的政治知识，难以对当选代表实施问责；而新近的修正主义研究对此观点发起挑战，认为选民既能够追踪代表的投票动向，也能理性运用相关信息进行判断。我们将这一修正主义分析框架应用于现代时期美国最高法院（Supreme Court）大法官提名的研究之中。借助克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）、索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonia Sotomayor）与埃琳娜·卡根（Elena Kagan）提名相关的调查数据，我们探究选民是否能够且确实会就参议员对最高法院提名人选的投票行为，对其进行问责。尽管针对托马斯的研究结果尚存歧义，但我们在索托马约尔与卡根的案例中，找到了支持问责机制存在的有力证据。具体而言，我们发现选民平均能够正确回忆起代表自身的参议员针对上述提名人选的投票情况，且正确回忆这一行为与更高的受教育水平及政治知识储备呈显著正相关。随后我们证实，若参议员针对索托马约尔与卡根的投票符合选民的偏好，选民会更倾向于认可该参议员，并投票支持其连任。最后我们发现，这一影响幅度相当可观，其强度可与选民就其他备受瞩目的记名投票（roll call votes）达成共识所产生的影响相媲美。上述研究结果不仅对代议制度的广义研究具有重要启示，也有助于我们理解当下美国最高法院大法官提名的政治生态。