Scholarship

Google Scholar

BOOKS

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2014. An Introduction to Empirical Legal Research. Oxford University Press.  http://empiricallegalresearch.org/

Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, Tom Clark, Margaret H. Lemos, Allison Orr Larson, and Anna Harvey. Judicial Decisionmaking. Book manuscript in preparation.

ARTICLES

Thomas B. Bennett, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, and Susan Navarro Smelcer. 2018. “Divide & Concur: Separate Opinions & Legal Change.” Cornell Law Review. 103: 817-877. [PDF]

Rebecca L. Brown and Andrew D. Martin. 2015. “‘Rhetoric and Reality’: Testing the Harm of Campaign Spending.” New York University Law Review. 90: 1066-1094. [PDF]

Peter Wiedenbeck, Rachael Hinkle, and Andrew D. Martin. 2013. “Invisible Pension Investments.” Virginia Tax Review. 32: 591-702. [PDF]

Michael J. Nelson, Rachel Paine Caufield, and Andrew D. Martin. 2013. “OH, MI: On Empirical Examinations of Judicial Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 13: 495-511. [PDF]

Rachael K. Hinkle, Jonathan Shaub, Emerson Tiller, and Andrew D. Martin. 2012. “The Execution of Judicial Discourse: A Positive Political Theory and Empirical Analysis of Strategic Word Choice in District Court Opinions.” Journal of Legal Analysis. 4: 407-444. [PDF]

Xun Pang, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, and Kevin M. Quinn. 2012. “Endogenous Jurisprudential Regimes.” Political Analysis. 20: 417-436. [PDF]

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2012. “Is the Roberts Court Especially Activist? A Study of Invalidating (and Upholding) Federal, State, and Local Laws.” Emory Law Journal. 61: 737-758. [PDF]

Clifford J. Carrubba, Barry Friedman, Andrew D. Martin, and Georg Vanberg. 2012. “Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions?” American Journal of Political Science. 56: 400-412. [PDF]

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2011. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court?: Probably Yes (But We’re Not Sure Why).” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 13: 263-281. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jong Hee Park. 2011. “MCMCpack: Markov chain Monte Carlo in R.” Journal of Statistical Software. 42(9): 1-21. [PDF]

Daniel Pemstein, Kevin M. Quinn, and Andrew D. Martin. 2011. “The Scythe Statistical Library: An Open Source C++ Library for Statistical Computation.” Journal of Statistical Software. 42(12): 1-26. [PDF]

Christina L. Boyd, Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging.” American Journal of Political Science. 54: 389-411. [PDF]

Pauline Kim, Margo Schlanger, Christina L. Boyd, and Andrew D. Martin. 2009. “How Should We Study District Court Decision-Making?” Journal of Law and Policy. 29: 83-112. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2009. “Circuit Effects: How the Norm of Federal Judicial Experience Biases the Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 157: 101-146. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2008. “The Bush Imprint on the Supreme Court: Why Conservatives Should Continue to Yearn and Liberals Should Not Fear.” Tulsa Law Review. 43: 651-672. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Kevin Quinn, Andrew D. Martin, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2008. “On the Perils of Drawing Inferences about Supreme Court Justices from their First Few Years of Service.”Judicature. 91: 168-179. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2007. “Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?” Northwestern University Law Review. 101: 1483-1542. [PDF]

An abbreviated version of this paper appears in 101 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 127 (2007).

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, and Christina L. Boyd. 2007. “On the Effective Communication of the Results of Empirical Studies, Part II.” Vanderbilt University Law Review. 60: 801-846. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 2007. “Assessing Preference Change on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 23: 365-385. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal, and Chad Westerland. 2007. “The Judicial Common Space.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 23: 303-325. [PDF]

Edith Chen, Andrew D. Martin, and Karen A. Matthews. 2007. “Childhood Socioeconomic Trajectories and Children’s Health.” Pediatrics. 120: 297-303. [PDF]

Edith Chen, Andrew D. Martin, and Karen A. Matthews. 2007. “Issues in Exploring Variation in Childhood Socioeconomic Gradients By Age: A Response to Case, Paxson, and Vogl.”Social Science and Medicine. 64: 762-764. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, and Matthew M. Schneider. 2006. “On the Effective Communication of the Results of Empirical Studies, Part I.” Vanderbilt University Law Review. 59: 1811-1871. [PDF]

Lisa Baldez, Lee Epstein, and Andrew D. Martin. 2006. “Does the U.S. Constitution Need an ERA?” Journal of Legal Studies. 35: 243-283. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 2006. “Applied Bayesian Inference in R using MCMCpack.” R News. 6: 2-7. [PDF]

Edith Chen, Andrew D. Martin, and Karen A. Matthews. 2006. “Understanding Health Disparities: The Role of Race and Socioeconomic Status in Children’s Health.” American Journal of Public Health. 96: 702-708. [PDF]

Edith Chen, Andrew D. Martin, and Karen A. Matthews. 2006. “Socioeconomic Status and Health: Understanding Gradients Across Childhood and Adolescence.” Social Science and Medicine. 62: 2161-2170. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Lee Epstein. 2005. “The Median Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.” North Carolina Law Review. 83: 1275-1321. [PDF]

Workshop on Empirical Research in the Law. 2005. “On Tournaments for Appointing Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Southern California Law Review. 78: 157-178. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, Pauline T. Kim, and Theodore W. Ruger. 2004. “Competing Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decisionmaking.” Perspectives on Politics. 2: 761-767. [PDF]

Theodore W. Ruger, Pauline T. Kim, Andrew D. Martin, and Kevin M. Quinn. 2004. “The Supreme Court Forecasting Project: Legal and Political Science Approaches to Predicting Supreme Court Decision-Making.” Columbia Law Review. 104: 1150-1209. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Lisa Baldez, and Tasina Nitzschke. 2004. “Constitutional Sex Discrimination.” Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy. 1: 11-68. [PDF]

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2003. “Does Age (Really) Matter?: A Response to Manning, Carroll, and Carp.” Social Science Quarterly. 85: 19-30. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin. 2003. “The Norm of Prior Judicial Experience and Its Consequences for the U.S. Supreme Court.” California Law Review. 91: 903-966. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin. 2003. “Bayesian Inference for Heterogeneous Event Counts.” Sociological Methods and Research. 32: 30-63. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin, Gary Miller, and Norman J. Schofield. 2003. “Critical Elections and Political Realignments in the United States: 1860-2000.” Political Studies. 51: 217-240. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin. 2003. “The Childress Lecture Symposium: The Political (Science) Context of Judging.” St. Louis University Law Journal. 47: 783-817. [PDF]

Kevin M. Quinn and Andrew D. Martin. 2002. “An Integrated Computational Model of Multiparty Electoral Competition.” Statistical Science. 17: 405-419. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953-1999.” Political Analysis. 10:134-153. [PDF] [Web]

Andrew D. Martin. 2001. “Congressional Decision Making and the Separation of Powers.” American Political Science Review. 95: 361-378. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin. 2001. “Dahl Symposium: The Supreme Court as a Strategic National Policymaker.” Emory Law Journal. 50: 583-611. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Christina Wolbrecht. 2000. “Partisanship and Pre-Floor Behavior: The Equal Rights and School Prayer Amendments.” Political Research Quarterly. 53: 711-730. [PDF]

Robert H. Durr, Andrew D. Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2000. “Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science. 44: 768-776. [PDF]

Kevin M. Quinn, Andrew D. Martin, and Andrew B. Whitford. 1999. “Voter Choice in Multi-Party Democracies: A Test of Competing Theories and Models.” American Journal of Political Science. 43: 1231-1247. [PDF]

Timothy R. Johnson and Andrew D. Martin. 1998. “The Public’s Conditional Response to Supreme Court Decisions.” American Political Science Review. 92: 299-310. [PDF]

Norman J. Schofield, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Andrew B. Whitford. 1998. “Multiparty Electoral Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit.” Public Choice. 97: 257-293. [PDF]

Reprinted in Melvin Hinich and Michael Munger (eds.). 1999. Empirical Studies in Comparative Politics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Andrew D. Martin, Te-min Chang, Rex K. Kincaid, and Yeuhwern Yih. 1998. “Using Tabu Search to Determine the Number of Kanbans and Lotsizes in a Generic Kanban System.”Annals of Operations Research. 78: 201-217. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 1996. “Using Computational Methods to Perform Counterfactual Analyses of Formal Theories.” Rationality and Society. 8: 295-323. [PDF]

Rex K. Kincaid, Jeffrey A. Hinkley, and Andrew D. Martin. 1995. “Heuristic Search for the Polymer Straightening Problem.” Computational Polymer Science. 5: 1-5. [PDF]

BOOK CHAPTERS, NOTES, AND MISCELLANY

Lee Epstein, James L. Gibson, and Andrew D. Martin. n.d. “Using Databases to Study Constitutional Law.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Constitutional Law (David Law, ed.). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., forthcoming.

Andrew D. Martin and Anne Curzan. 2018. “What Happened When the Dean’s Office Stopped Sending Emails After-Hours.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Published online on April 12, 2018.

Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin. 2015. “Some Ideas on How Political Scientists Can Develop Real World Implications From Their Research (Without Becoming Policy Wonks or Law Professors).” In Making Law and Courts Research Relevant: The Normative Implications of Empirical Research (Brandon L. Bartels and Chris W. Bonneau, eds.). New York: Routledge.

Andrew D. Martin and Morgan L.W. Hazelton. 2012. “What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law.” Review of Law & Economics. 8: 511-529. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Jeffrey A Segal. 2012. “Ideology and the Study of Judicial Behavior.” In Ideology, Psychology, and Law (John Hanson, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Andrew D. Martin. 2012. Expert Report for South Carolina v. Holder. United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Donald P. Green, Andrew D. Martin, Michael Munger, Kyle L. Saunders, and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2012. Amicus brief for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Many Cultures, One Message, et al., v. Jim Clements, et al. (No. 11-36008). [PDF]

Barry Friedman and Andrew D. Martin. 2011. “Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places: Some Suggestions for Modeling Legal Decisionmaking.” In What’s Law Got to Do With It? What Judges Do, Why They Do It, & What’s at Stake (Charles Geyh, ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Morgan L. W. Hazelton, Rachael K. Hinkle, and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “On Replication and the Study of the Louisiana Supreme Court.” Global Jurist. 10: 85-91. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Kyle L. Saunders. 2010. Expert Report for Idaho Republican Party, et al., v. Ben Ysursa. United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “Doing ELS Research: Quantitative Approaches to ELS Research.” In Oxford Handbook on Empirical Legal Research (Peter Cane and Herbert Kritzer, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barry Friedman and Andrew D. Martin. 2010. “A One-Track Senate.” New York Times. March 10, 2010, A27.

Andrew D. Martin. 2009. “Is Judicial Politics Suffering from an Identity Crisis?” Law & Courts. 19: 5-6.

Andrew D. Martin. 2009. “Decision-Making in the Federal Courts: Introduction.” Journal of Law and Policy. 29: 1-3.

Epstein, Lee, Christina L. Boyd, and Andrew D. Martin. 2008. “The Court(s) and the Election.” Miller-McCune. Volume 1, October.

Andrew D. Martin. 2008. “Bayesian Analysis.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

R. Michael Alvarez, Lonna Rae Atkeson, Delia Bailey, Thad E. Hall, and Andrew D. Martin. 2007. Amicus brief for the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County (No. 07-21). [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin. 2006. “Statutory Battles and Constitutional Wars: Congress and the Supreme Court.” In Institutional Games and the U.S. Supreme Court (Jon R. Bond, Roy B. Flemming, and James R. Rogers, eds.). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Jong Hee Park, Andrew D. Martin, and Kevin M. Quinn. 2005. “CRAN Task View: Bayesian Inference.” The Comprehensive R Archive Network. http://cran.r-project.org.

Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn, and Lee Epstein. 2005. “The `Rehnquist’ Court (?).” Law and Courts. 15: 18-23. [PDF]

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2005. “Statistical Inference.” In Encyclopedia of Law and Society (David C. Clark, ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [PDF]

Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin. 2004. “Coding Variables.” In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, ed.). New York: Academic Press. [PDF]

Lee Epstein, Jack Knight, and Andrew D. Martin. 2004. “Constitutional Interpretation from a Strategic Perspective.” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Inter-Branch Perspective (Mark C. Miller and Jeb Barnes, eds.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Andrew D. Martin and Kevin A. Croker. 2004. “Clustered Computing for Political Science.” The Political Methodologist. 12: 2-5. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin. 2002. “LATEX For the Rest of Us.” The Political Methodologist. 10: 16-18. [PDF]

Andrew D. Martin and Brian E. Spang. 2001. “A Case Study of Third Party Presidential Campaign Organizations: Virginians for Perot.” In Ross for Boss: The Perot Phenomena and Beyond (Ted G. Jelen, ed.). Albany: State University Press of New York.

Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn. 1996. “A Review of Discrete Optimization Heuristics.” The Political Methodologist. 7: 6-10. [PDF]

Project Sites

A number of ongoing or past projects have project-specific websites. Four of current interest include:

The Supreme Court Database. This website contains a modernized version of the Spaeth Supreme Court Database. The site allows users to access the underlying data without the use of statistical software. The site also distributes binary versions of the data, and supports a significant project to backdate the entire collection from the Founding forward.

The EEOC Litigation Project. This project collects and analyzes data on federal court litigation brought between 1997 and 2006 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The data capture various aspects of the agency’s litigation activities, including detailed information regarding the participants, motions, events, and outcomes.

Martin-Quinn Scores. Measuring the relative location of U.S. Supreme Court justices on an ideological continuum allows us to better understand the politics of the high court. In addition, such measures are an important building blocking of statistical models of the Supreme Court, the separation of powers system, and the judicial hierarchy. This website contains the so-called “Martin-Quinn” measures of judicial ideology developed by Kevin M. Quinn and me. The “Martin-Quinn” scores are estimated for every justice serving from the October 1937 term to the present.

The Supreme Court Forecasting Project. This project involved a friendly interdisciplinary competition to compare the accuracy of the different ways in which legal experts and political scientists assess and predict Supreme Court decision making. Legal scholars and political scientists have engaged in much debate about why the Supreme Court decides cases as it does, but this ongoing discussion is almost always retrospective in nature — that is, scholars apply competing explanatory frameworks to existing Supreme Court decisions from the recent or not-so-recent past. To invert the temporal link, during the Court’s 2002 term, we conducted a study where we predicted the outcome of each argued case. Two methods of prediction were used, and we compared their relative accuracy. The results of the study have been published in the Columbia Law Review and Perspectives on Politics. We contrasted a statistical forecasting model (based on information derived from past Supreme Court decisions and certain characteristics of each pending case) with forecasts provides by legal experts (each of whom is an expert in some area of the Supreme Court’s docket and many of whom clerked at the Court). The project website contains a description of the project, replication materials, and all of the forecasts from the 2002 term.