Record Details

Replication Data for: Empirically Evaluating the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty: Public Opinion, State Policy, and Judicial Review Before Roe v. Wade. Journal of Law and Courts

Harvard Dataverse (Africa Rice Center, Bioversity International, CCAFS, CIAT, IFPRI, IRRI and WorldFish)

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Replication Data for: Empirically Evaluating the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty: Public Opinion, State Policy, and Judicial Review Before Roe v. Wade. Journal of Law and Courts
 
Identifier https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EN0Z6B
 
Creator Kastellec, Jonathan
 
Publisher Harvard Dataverse
 
Description I conduct a quantitative evaluation of the ``counter-majoritarian difficulty" by examining the relationship between public opinion, state policy, and judicial review in constitutional challenges to state abortion statutes in the period before Roe v. Wade. I find that state and lower federal court judges tended to invalidate statutes in states with high levels of public support for moving policy away from the status quo, and judges did not strike down statutes in states where majorities firmly supported the status quo. These results suggest the importance of creating a role for state and lower federal courts in evaluating the counter-majoritarian difficulty.
 
Subject Law
Social Sciences
 
Contributor Kastellec, Jonathan