The number of women in the United States Senate has risen considerably in the past 30 years, and with it, so has the number of women serving on the US Senate Judiciary Committee. In new research, Alex Badas and Katelyn Stauffer look at what this increase in women’s representation in the Senate means for who presidents nominate to US Circuit and District Courts. They find that when there are more women in the Senate, both Republican and Democratic presidents are more likely to advance women judicial nominees. They suggest that presidents might see nominating women as a way to capitalize on what they perceive to be the public’s preferences for women’s inclusion.

Over the last several decades, the number of women serving in the United States Senate has steadily increased. Not only are there more women in the Senate today than decades past, but women also now hold more seats on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary than ever before. Figures 1a and 1b show these trends since 1925. These patterns mean two things for women’s influence in the judicial confirmation process. First, there are more women participating in the initial stage of a confirmation, where the committee evaluates and debates nominees before deciding whether to report their nomination out to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. In this way, the judiciary committee is an important gatekeeper for nominees. Second, the broader presence of women in the chamber means that there are more women voting on whether nominees are ultimately confirmed or not than ever before.

In new research, we argue that the shifting gender composition of the Senate has also altered the incentive structure that presidents face when selecting who to fill judicial vacancies, as it is the Senate that ultimately has the power to approve or reject nominees. Specifically, the increase of women Senators should mean presidents view it as more strategically advantageous to select women to fill judicial vacancies. Our research explores how women’s increased access to one high profile office (the Senate) influences presidential nominations for another high-profile post (judicial vacancies) 

How women’s inclusion in the Senate might impact presidential appointments 

Why might women’s presence in the Senate influence who presidents nominate to fill judicial vacancies? Past research gives us at least two reasons to suspect this might be the case.

Credit: Scrumshus [Public domain]

First, presidents may assume that women senators are more inclined to support other women seeking positions of power. Research on public opinion finds that women are more likely to support women nominees who are ideologically distant from them compared to men – in essence shared gender mitigates the negative effects of ideological disagreement. Presidents may assume similar dynamics play out among Senators, which would mean that women nominees might have an easier time drawing support from women Senators who support a different party to the one they do. Research on confirmation hearings also shows that Somen senators are more likely to interrupt male nominees compared to women, and while male Senators are more likely to interrupt women this behavior is likely to be more costly.

These dynamics do not occur in vacuums – presidents can observe how nominees are treated by Senators and gather information about how certain types of nominees are received by the Judiciary Committee and individual Senators more broadly. So, presidents may see the dynamics of confirmation hearings and infer that women Senators are more receptive to women nominees, which would mean that as the number of women Senators increases, female nominees are more advantageous. Other research finds that presidents are more likely to nominate women to fill vacancies if one of the relevant home state Senators is a woman, suggesting that presidents are considering the gender of Senators in some way.

Second, presidents might assume that the increase of women in the Senate is indicative of an American public that is more supportive of women in positions of power. After all, women (and indeed) all Senators are sent to Washington by the public. Presidents might assume that as more women are voted into office it means that Americans want to see women in other high-profile positions too. If presidents perceive a demand for more women in high profile positions from the public, they might try to capitalize on this to boost their own popularity or to put pressure on Senators to be supportive of nominees. Existing research finds that public support significantly influences the voting behavior of senators and Americans do punish elected officials who deviate from their preferences on nominations. So, presidents might see nominating women as a way to strategically capitalize on what they believe to be public preferences for women’s inclusion.

More women Senators are associated with more women judicial nominees. 

For our research, we collected data on all presidential nominations to the judiciary from 1925 to 2020 (3587 nominations in total). We also gathered information about the number of women serving in the Senate and on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time that each nominee was considered. Using this information, we test whether any individual nominee is more likely to be a woman during times when women’s representation was greater in the Senate and the Judiciary Committee.

The results of our study are straightforward. When there are more women in the Senate, presidents are more likely to advance women nominees. This is true across the judicial hierarchy, including both Circuit and District Courts. This can be seen visually in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Relationship between women’s inclusion in the Senate and the probability that a judicial nominee will be a woman

We also considered whether these patterns were different for Democratic and Republican presidents. The orientation of the two parties towards diversity and inclusion are very different. The Democrats tend to be a more “group-based” party and has emphasized inclusion as a policy issue in its own right. We also see differences in partisan preferences for diversity in the judiciary among the public. All this might mean that Democratic presidents are more likely to think differently about nominating women judges. We do find that Republican presidents are less likely to nominate women judges overall compared to Democratic presidents, but they do still nominate more women when there are more women senators. So, while their baseline number of women nominees is lower, it does look like Republican presidents still respond to the incentive of women senators.

Our research suggests that women’s inclusion in one branch of government can have spillover effects to other branches as well. As more women enter positions of power it becomes “good strategy” for presidents and other political actors to promote inclusion elsewhere. 

• This article is based on the paper, ‘Legislative diversity and the rise of women judicial nominees in the United States’, in Politics, Groups, and Identities. 
• Please read our comments policy before commenting.
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-dQ8