Statement

Articles

Vita

Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Statement

Refereed Articles

Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. 2010. “The Effect of National and Local Funding on Judicial Performance,” Law and Society Review, 44 (2): 331-64.

 

Baird, Vanessa A. and Tonja Jacobi. 2009. How the Dissent Becomes the Majority: Using Federalism to Transform Coalitions in the U.S. Supreme Court, Duke Law Review 59 (November; 2): 183-238.


Baird, Vanessa A. and Tonja Jacobi. 2009. Judicial Agenda Setting through Signaling and Strategic Litigant Responses.” Washington University Journal of Law& Policy 29: 215-239.


Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. 2007. “The Persuasive Power of Russian Courts,” Political Research Quarterly, 60 (3): 429-42.

 

Javeline, Debra and Vanessa A. Baird. 2007. “Who Sues Government? Evidence from the Moscow Theater Hostage Case,” Comparative Political Studies 40 (July): 858-85.

 

McLaren, Lauren and Vanessa A. Baird.  2006.  “Of Time and Causality: A Simple Test of the Requirement of Social Capital in Making Democracy Work in Italy,” forthcoming, Political Studies (October).

 

Baird, Vanessa A. and Amy Gangl. 2006. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness,” Political Psychology 27 (August): 597-614.  Questionnaire and Vignettes, html

 

Baird, Vanessa A. 2004. “The Effect of Politically Salient Decisions on the US Supreme Court’s Agenda.”  Journal of Politics 66 (August): 755-72.

 

Baird, Vanessa.  2001.  “Building Institutional Legitimacy: The Role of Procedural Justice.”  Political Research Quarterly, 54 (June): 333-354. 

 

Gibson, James L., Gregory A. Caldeira and Vanessa A. Baird.  1998.  “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts,” American Political Science Review, 92 (June): 343-358. 

 

Baird, Vanessa, and Alan Stone.  1998.  “Why Privatization: The Case of German Telecommunications,” Social Science Quarterly, 79 (March): 193 – 211.
 

 

Works in Progress

 

Submitted
Javeline, Debra and Vanessa A. Baird. Democracy through Deference? Institutional Persuasion to Support Rights in Russia, submitted to Political Psychology


Baird, Vanessa A. What is Wrong with Being Right, submitted to Social Justice Research


Baird, Vanessa A. and Mark Hurwitz. The Supreme Court’s Influence in the System of Separated Powers, revise and resubmit to Journal of Politics

 

Liu, Amy and Vanessa Baird. Linguistic Recognition as a Source of Public Confidence in the Judicial System, submitted to Comparative Political Studies


Works in Progress
Javeline, Debra and Vanessa A. Baird. Political Responses to Violence: Citizen Participation after Beslan.


Baird, Vanessa A. and Debra Javeline. When Russian Go to Court. Book Manuscript.

 


Baird, Vanessa A. Why the Supreme Court Cannot Make Liberal Economic Policy: The Effect of Profit Minded Litigants’ Strategies on the Supreme Court’s Agenda.


Baird, Vanessa A. Madness: The Political Psychology of Justice. Book manuscript.

 

Service Publications

Baird, Vanessa Anne. 2009. Advice to New Faculty and Young Faculty for Prospering in the Field of Judicial Politics. Law and Courts: Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association, 19 (2: Spring): 7-8.


Baird, Vanessa A. 2008. Research Spotlight: Merging Phase I and Phase II of the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database. Law and Courts: Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association, 19 (1: Winter): 17-18.

Data
Merged Phase I and Phase II of the United States Judicial Database Zip file.
Includes merged Spaeth and Gibson United States Supreme Court Judicial Databases Phase I and II and the SPSS syntax in MS Word used to merge, create new variables and aggregate. This file, unzipped, is very large.
The zip file also includes aggregated data used in the analysis (in Stata, Excel, Text Delimited and SPSS formats), with policy area and year as units of analysis (includes variables from Baumgartner and Jones Policy Agendas Database, Songer's Courts of Appeals Databases, various measures of landmark and salient decisions, and Martin and Quinn scores.

Users of the data should cite the source as follows: "The data used were compiled from a variety of sources funded by the National Science Foundation by Vanessa A. Baird at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and were distributed through the Department of Political Science at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Neither NSF nor the original collectors of the data bear any responsibility for the analysis reported here."

Sources
The version of the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database used in this complilation can be downloaded
at the University of Kentucky's website for the S. Sidney Ulmer Project hereCodebook

United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, Phase II: 1953-1993 can be downloaded at ICPSR. Study 6987Codebook

Gibson, James L. 1997. United States Supreme Court Judicial Data Base, Phase ll: User's Guide. New York: Peter Lang, Publishers.

Songer, Donald R. United States Courts Of Appeals Database Phase 1, 1925-1988 [Computer file]. ICPSR number 2086. Columbia, SC: Donald R. Songer [producer], 1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998. A random sample of cases from each circuit for each year between 1925 and 1988 was coded for the nature of the issues presented, the statutory, constitutional, and procedural bases of the decision, the votes of the judges, and the nature of the litigants. The variables are divided into four sections: basic case characteristics, participation, issues, and judges and votes. The cases of the Appeals Courts do not actually represent all cases handed down by Appeals Courts (as they do in Phase I and Phase II of the Supreme Court), but rather represent a random sample of each circuit and year.

The Policy Agendas Datbase is distributed through the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of Washington and the Department of Political Science at Penn State University, with the support of National Science Foundation grant number SBR 9320922.

Martin and Quinn's Supreme Court justice ideal point measures are similar in spirit to Poole and Rosenthal’s D-NOMINATE scores (1997).  These scores are different from Poole and Rosenthal’s D-NOMINATE scores in that they use Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to fit a Bayesian measurement model to designate ideal points of each Supreme Court justice that are allowed to vary in any pattern imaginable over time without restricting the movements to be linear. 

For more information about Martin and Quinn's Supreme Court's Ideal Points, visit their website: Ideal Points for the U.S. Supreme Court, or their article:  Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 19531999." Political Analysis 10 (Spring): 134-53.