Position:
Department Chair and Associate Professor of Political SciencePronouns:
He/Him/TheyLocation:
Davis Hall, Rm. 203Phone:
(540) 665-4697Email: mromano@hitchedhike.com
Employed Since:
2015Educational History:
B.A. Political Science, Arizona State University 2002- 2006
Ph.D. Political Science, Western Michigan University 2007 - 2014
Fields of Expertise:
American Politics; Political Institutions; Mass Media & Political Communications; Political Representation; U.S. Congress; Judicial Politics; Democratization
Professional Highlights:
Books
Creating the Law: State Supreme Court Opinions and the Effect of Audience. with Todd A. Curry. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4324/
Journal Publications
“Examining the Interconnectedness of State High Court Twitter” with Todd A. Curry and Mike P. Fix. State Politics and Policy Quarterly. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/spq.
“‘We Are a Part of the Problem They Protest’: Judges, Representation and Racial Justice Statements” with Michael Catalano, Todd Curry, and Matt Walz. Politics, Groups, and Identities. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/
“May It Please the Senate: Gender Norms and the Double Bind of US Supreme Court Confirmations” with Nikkelette Justice. Political Research Quarterly. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/
“Ideological Congruity on State Supreme Courts” with Todd A. Curry. Justice System Journal. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/
“Legislators Off Their Leash: Cognitive Shirking and Impending Retirement in the US House” Social Science Quarterly. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.
Tuning in to Scandal: Television News Coverage of Congressional Scandals. PS: Political Science and Politics. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/
Book Chapters
“Resisting the Wave: Examining Co-Partisan Coattails Effects Between the Senate and House, 1958-2022” The Road to Congress 2022. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
“Majoritarians in Robes” with Todd Curry. Research Handbook on Law and Political Systems.: http://doi.org/10.4337/
Research:
Current Research:
“Judicial Diversification in Context: The Role of Historical Forces on State High Court Diversity”
Despite gains, the lack of diversity on many courts across the United States is well established. Studies on diversification of courts often focus attention on institutional features that make it more likely for underrepresented groups to ascend to the bench, and what factors lead to a greater number or more diverse bench overall. Most notably, much attention has been paid to how selection mechanisms may or may not favor ascension of women and people of color to state courts. These studies often result in mixed findings about the substantive power of appointment vs. electoral vs. “merit” based systems of selection to favor non-white male judges. Here, I argue that historical pressures interact with political and institutional factors to influence when states diversify their high courts. Focusing specifically on a woman’s ascension to the state’s highest court, I examine how historical moments like the passage of state-level Equal Rights laws, as well as the ERA debate in the 1970s led to increased attention to women’s place in law and led to increased numbers of women’s appointments. These findings modify and highlight some of the lesser considered features of the pipeline hypothesis, which posits that women’s scaling the judicial hierarchy is time-dependent on the flow of women into the legal profession.
“Developing an Inter-Court Measure of Judicial Ideology: Updating Judicial Ideology Using Lexical Analysis” with Jake Truscott
Explorations of ideology retain special significance in contemporary studies of judicial politics. While some existing methodologies draw on voting and coalition alignments to map a jurist’s latent features, many are otherwise reliant on supplemental proxies – often directly from adja- cent actors or via assessments from various prognosticators. We propose an alternative that not only leverages observable judicial behavior, but does so through jurists’ articulations on the law. In particular, we adapt a hierarchical factor model to demonstrate how latent ideological prefer- ences emerge among Justices of the Supreme Court through their written opinions. Irrespective of known ideological preferences as a component of the underlying data generating process, we observe discernible correlation between our approach and existing measures. We conclude by discussing the intuitive power of text as a feature of judicial ideology, as well as how this process can extend to judicial actors and institutions beyond the Supreme Court.
“Justice With No Guardrails: The Role of State Supreme Courts and the Maintenance of Democracy in America”
Since 2012, scholars and commentators have grown increasingly concerned over the maintenance and sustainability of democracy in the United States. The rise of the Trump presidency, erosion of democratic norms and principles in the legislature, and heightened concern over a more polarized Supreme Court and federal judiciary have all drawn consternation from scholars interested in maintaining democracy in America. However, the decentralized form of American institutions – namely the system of federalism that administers democracy at the state level – makes pinpointing the exact locus of concern difficult to determine. While some (namely Grumbach, 2022) have centered their analysis on the erosion of democratic norms in the making and enforcing of laws, this paper turns its attention to how state courts of last resort may act as a lynchpin for the maintenance of democracy through the protection of the “rule of law” in the state. Using new data on the level of democratization for each US state, as well as data on adherence to norms and principles specifically associated with the rule of law, this paper argues that the methods of selection and retention used to populate the courts has a substantive and significant impact over how well the state itself can protect democracy within its borders.
“More Than a Safeguard: How Judicial Independence Promotes Democratic Consolidation” with Rebecca Reid
As the waves of democratization have waned and several nations are backsliding into authoritarianism, the understanding of institutional features that protect and promote democracies have become increasingly crucial. While renewed scholarly interest has focused on the role of courts in backsliding democracies, this paper takes an alternative approach, examining the role independent judiciaries play in promoting democratic consolidation. Our question is simple: can independent courts promote democratization? The answer is far from clear, as independent courts can enhance regime entrenchment for autocracies and democracies alike and as perceptions continue of courts as a (defining) institutional feature or outcome of democracies. We suggest an even more pivotal role of courts than defensive protectors against backsliding, serving as veto players for encroaching executive power and authoritarianism. We examine courts as primary drivers of democratization—even when they are regime-aligned and serving regime interests. We rely on a mixed methods approach of case studies and cross-national quantitative analyses from 196 to 2020 to empirically investigate the role(s) of independent courts to create democratic openings (liberalization), catalyze regime transition (democratization), and consolidate democracies by focusing on their role in electoral and participatory politics.
Personal Quote:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men – not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular” – Edward R. Murrow