Yesterday, we began our review of the Court’s voting dynamics, analyzing the Justices’ agreement rates in non-unanimous civil cases between 2000 and 2004. Today, we turn to the Court’s agreement rates in non-unanimous criminal cases.

We showed yesterday that Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman in civil cases. That was true on the criminal side as well (90.32% in 2000, 87.5% in 2001, 90.63% in 2002, 100% in 2003 and 76.92% in 2004). She also voted quite similarly to Justice Rarick in criminal cases (100% in 2002, 84.62% in 2003, 90.91% in 2004). For 2000, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justices Freeman and Bilandic (70.49%), and least often with Justice Heiple (59.68%) and Chief Justice Harrison (40.32%). For 2001, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman and Justice Fitzgerald (79.17%), and least often with Justices Miller and Kilbride (50% each) and Chief Justice Harrison (41.67%). For 2002, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman, Justice Fitzgerald (75%) and Justice Garman (70.97%), and least often with Justice Kilbride (50%) and Chief Justice Harrison (14.29%). For 2003, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justices Freeman and Rarick (84.62%), and least often with Justices Garman, Thomas and Kilbride (26.67%, 26.67% and 23.33%, respectively). For 2004, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Rarick (90.91%) and least often with Justice Thomas (38.46%).

Click here to view the table. 

In Table 401, we report data for Justices Miller and Freeman. In 2000, Justice Miller voted 80% of the time in non-unanimous criminal cases with Justice Bilandic, 75.41% of the time with Justice Rathje, but only 27.42% of the time with Chief Justice Harrison. Justice Freeman voted roughly half the time with Justice Heiple (58.73% in 2000) and Justice Kilbride (58.33% in 2001, 53.13% in 2002, 23.33% in 2003, 76.92% in 2004), more often with Justice Rathje (70.49% in 2000), and less often with Chief Justice Harrison (38.1% in 2000, 45.83% in 2001, 19.05% in 2002). Justice Freeman voted with Justice Thomas about two-thirds of the time in 2001 and 2002 (66.67% in 2001, 65.63% in 2002), but that figure fell off sharply in the two years that followed (26.67% in 2003, 30.77% in 2004).

Click here to view the table. 

On the other hand, Justice Freeman voted quite similarly to the remaining three Justices reported on Table 402. He voted with Justice Rarick in 100% of criminal cases in 2002, 84.62% in 2003 and 90.91% in 2004. He voted with Justice Bilandic in 77.05% of non-unanimous criminal cases in 2000. He voted with Justice Fitzgerald 87.5% of the time in 2001, 78.13% in 2002 and 80% in 2003. Justice Heiple voted 78.69% of the time with Justice Rathje, with Justice Bilandic 73.77% of the time, but with Chief Justice Harrison only 30.16% of the time. Justice Rathje voted with Justice Bilandic 83.05% of the time, but with Chief Justice Harrison in only 36.07% of non-unanimous criminal cases in 2000. Chief Justice Harrison voted with Justice Bilandic in 34.43% of non-unanimous criminal cases in 2000, and with Justice Fitzgerald 45.83% of the time in 2001, and 28.57% in 2002. Justice Garman voted with Justice Freeman about two-thirds of the time in 2001 and 2002 (75% in 2001, 67.74% in 2002), but much less often after (26.67% in 2003, 54.55% in 2004). Justice Garman seldom voted with Chief Justice Harrison in criminal cases (18.75% in 2001, 25% in 2002).

Click here to view the table. 

Just as we saw in the civil cases, Justice Garman voted quite similarly to Justice Thomas in these years (93.75% in 2001, 96.77% in 2002, 90% in 2003, 81.82% in 2004). Justice Garman voted almost as often with Justice Fitzgerald in 2001 and 2002 (87.5% in 2001, 90.32% in 2002), but far less often in the following two years (50% in 2003, 54.55$ in 2004). Justice Garman voted less than half the time with Justice Kilbride (37.5% in 2001, 22.58% in 2002, 50% in 2003, 63.64% in 2004) and Justice Rarick (50% in 2002, 26.92% in 2003 and 70% in 2004). Justice Kilbride voted relatively closely with Chief Justice Harrison (70.83% in 2001, 71.43% in 2002), and for the most part with Justice Rarick (100% in 2002, 26.92% in 2003, 81.82% in 2004). But he voted less than half the time in criminal cases with Justice Thomas (37.5% in 2001, 18.75% in 2002, 56.67% in 2003, 38.46% in 2004) and Justice Fitzgerald (58.33% in 2001, 31.25% in 2002, 20% in 2003, 60% in 2004). Justice Thomas voted with Justice Fitzgerald in half to three quarters of all criminal cases during these years (79.17% in 2001, 87.5% in 2002, 50% in 2003 and 2004), but seldom voted with Chief Justice Harrison (25% in 2001, 23.81% in 2002) or Justice Rarick (20% in 2002, 32% in 2003, 45.45% in 2004). Justice Rarick’s agreement rate with Justice Fitzgerald was quite high for his first two complete years on the Court (84.62% in 2003, 87.5% in 2004).

Click here to view the table. 

Join us back here next Tuesday as we begin our analysis of the Court’s voting dynamics during the years 2005-2009.