An information-based theory of judicial accountability and social welfare

While public law considers the utility of judicial elections, theoretical scholarship has lacked a rigorous positive theoretical assessment of judicial elections on voter welfare. I specify a game-theoretic model of social welfare amidst judicial review and assess voters well-being with and without judicial elections. I propose that reduced transparency in the political environment might alleviate many problems associated with judicial elections, particularly pandering behavior, while affording citizens the opportunity of civic engagement. The theoretical results suggest voters can be made best off under non-transparent elected institutions for large classes of political environments. Analyzing voters and judges decision-making in all 50 states from 20012010, I find that the real world players in my game behave as anticipated in response to a fluid environment of information