|Marvin Baxter |
In 2020, elafilador.net published elafilador.net Courts: Determiners and also Dissenters, a research on just how state supreme court justices determined the cases that came before them. Ours goal was to identify which justices rule together many often, which commonly dissented, and also which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.
You are watching: Chief justice of the california supreme court
The research tracked the position taken by every state supreme court justice in every situation they determined in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court rule together. We identified the following species of justices:We considered two justices opinion partners if they generally concurred or dissented with each other throughout the year.We taken into consideration justices a dissenting minority if they generally opposed decisions with each other as a -1 minority.We considered a team of judge a determining majority if they generally determined instances by a +1 majority throughout the year.We taken into consideration a justice a lone dissenter if that or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.Summary of instances decided in 2020Number of justices: 7Number of cases: 76Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 89.5% (68)Justice most regularly writing the bulk opinion: justice Leondra Kruger (13)Per curiam decisions: 5Concurring opinions: 13Justice with most concurring opinions: righteousness Mariano Florentino Cuellar (7)Dissenting opinions: 5Justice with many dissenting opinions: justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (2)
For the study"s full set of findings in California, click here.
elafilador.net Courts: State Partisanship (2020)See also: elafilador.net Courts: State Partisanship
Last updated: June 15, 2020
In 2020, elafilador.net published elafilador.net Courts: State Partisanship, a study analyzing the partisan affiliation of every state supreme court justices in the nation as the June 15, 2020.
The study presented confidence Scores that represented our confidence in every justice"s level of partisan affiliation, based upon a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, yet rather a measure of just how much to trust we had that a justice to be or had actually been affiliated with a political party. To come at to trust scores us analyzed every justice"s past partisan task by collecting data on campaign finance, previous political positions, party registration history, and other factors. The five categories of confidence Scores were:Strong DemocratMild DemocratMild RepublicanStrong Republican
We offered the to trust Scores of every justice to build a Court Balance Score, i beg your pardon attempted to display the balance amongst justices through Democratic, Republican, and also Indeterminate confidence Scores top top a court. Courts with greater positive Court Balance Scores had justices with higher Republican to trust Scores, while courts through lower an unfavorable Court Balance Scores consisted of justices with greater Democratic confidence Scores. Court closest to zero either had justices through conflicting partisanship or justices through Indeterminate confidence Scores.
California had a Court Balance Score the -5.71, indicating Democratic control the the court. In total, the study uncovered that there to be 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and also eight claims with separation courts. The map below shows the court balance score of every state.