differences.While Republicans in general are more likely to vote counter-ideologically, the effect is more pronounced for women as opposed to men (72% v. 66% predicted probability). Even Democratic women are slighly more likely to vote counter-ideologically than Democratic men. The predicted probability for Democratic women is 29% compared to 23% for Democratic men. Moreover, this result persists broken down by the Board decision, with women, especially Republican women, more likely to vote counter-ideologically against liberal Board decisions. By contrast, partisan panel effects are diminished once one factors in gender. Having two Democratic colleagues increases the proclivity of Republican judges to vote For instance, a Republican sitting with two Democrats will vote against his partisan leanings 72% compared to just 60% when sitting with like-minded partisans. But these differences are much tighter than what we saw previously concerning deferral. Regressions 2 and 3 in Table 2 and Figure 9 illustrate the results broken down by legal issue, with women judges being substantially more likely to issue a counter-ideological vote in cases involving statutory interpretation. Women hearing statutory interpretation cases have a predicted probability of voting counter-ideologically 58% compared to 51% for men. This figure is reduced and narrowed for cases involving the more deferential standard of substantial evidence (46% v. 43%). Moreover, the effect of partisanship is especially acute in statutory interpretation cases. Republicans have a remarkable 79% predicted probability of voting counter-ideologically in statutory interpretation cases compared to just 16% of Democrats. This effect persists even considering the tone of the Board decision. No matter whether the Board decision is conservative or liberal, Republican judges vote counter-ideologically at high rates in the high 70s compared to Democrats, who vote counter-ideologically at near equal rates in conservative or liberal Board cases.
differences.While Republicans in general are more likely to vote counter-ideologically, the effect is more pronounced for women as opposed to men (72% v. 66% predicted probability). Even Democratic women are slighly more likely to vote counter-ideologically than Democratic men. The predicted probability for Democratic women is 29% compared to 23% for Democratic men. Moreover, this result persists broken down by the Board decision, with women, especially Republican women, more likely to vote counter-ideologically against liberal Board decisions. By contrast, partisan panel effects are diminished once one factors in gender. Having two Democratic colleagues increases the proclivity of Republican judges to vote For instance, a Republican sitting with two Democrats will vote against his partisan leanings 72% compared to just 60% when sitting with like-minded partisans. But these differences are much tighter than what we saw previously concerning deferral. Regressions 2 and 3 in Table 2 and Figure 9 illustrate the results broken down by legal issue, with women judges being substantially more likely to issue a counter-ideological vote in cases involving statutory interpretation. Women hearing statutory interpretation cases have a predicted probability of voting counter-ideologically 58% compared to 51% for men. This figure is reduced and narrowed for cases involving the more deferential standard of substantial evidence (46% v. 43%). Moreover, the effect of partisanship is especially acute in statutory interpretation cases. Republicans have a remarkable 79% predicted probability of voting counter-ideologically in statutory interpretation cases compared to just 16% of Democrats. This effect persists even considering the tone of the Board decision. No matter whether the Board decision is conservative or liberal, Republican judges vote counter-ideologically at high rates in the high 70s compared to Democrats, who vote counter-ideologically at near equal rates in conservative or liberal Board cases.
semet_nlrb_appellate_paper.docx