This is the replication data set for "Breaking the Judicial Glass Ceiling." These files may be used to replicate Table 2 and the robustness checks. It includes (1) a Codebook, (2) a Stata data set, and (3) a Stata do file.

For at least three decades now, those charged with nominating and confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court seem to be following a norm of prior judicial experience—one that makes previous service on the (federal) bench a near prerequisite for office. Largely as a result of this norm, today’s Court, while growing more and more diverse on some dimensions, is becoming less and less so on the dimension of career diversity. We argue that all norms that cut against diversity are problematic because they reduce the ability of the affected group (the Supreme Court not excepted) to perform its tasks but that the norm of prior judicial experience is particularly troublesome for two reasons. First, since virtually all California Law Review show occupational path to be an important factor in explaining judicial choices—from the votes justices cast to their respect for stare decisis—the homogeneity induced by the norm suggests that the current Court is not making optimal choices. Second, since women and people of color are less likely than white men to hold positions that are now, under the norm of prior judicial experience, steppingstones to the bench, the norm is working to limit diversity on dimensions other than occupational path. To explore our argument, we draw on diverse sources—ranging from an original database that houses a wealth of information of the occupational backgrounds of the justices to the writings of leading contemporary thinkers. From this exploration, we extract a singular but certainly non-trivial policy implication: Because of problems associated with a perpetuation of the norm of prior judicial experience, we believe that the Senate, the President and other key players in the confirmat ion process would be well advised to give greater attention to the career experiences of those they would like to see serve on the Nation’s highest Court. But such attention ought not come in the form of reserving the next two, three, or four vacancies for nominees hailing directly from private practice, legislatures, the cabinet, and so on. Rather it should come about by taking into account the career experiences of justices remaining on the Court and, then, working to avoid excessive duplicati on.

Connecticut’s Superior Court was created in 1711. It was the second level of the court system, sitting above the county and probate courts, but below the final court of appeal, which up until 1785 was the General Assembly and afterward was the Supreme Court of Errors. The early Superior Court was an itinerant or circuit court, meaning that instead of having separate sitting courts for each county, the four judges, as well as the clerks and other officers, traveled from county to county holding sessions in each several times per year. Many famous names of Connecticut history were judges of the Superior Court, including Roger Sherman, Jonathan Trumbull, Eliphalet Dyer, William Pitkin, Jonathan Law, Oliver Ellsworth, and others. This index of divorces is from the early Superior Court’s 31 volumes of record books, which were the official record of the court kept by the clerk. The record books run from the establishment of the court in 1711 to 1798, the first divorce is recorded in 1716. In this time period, divorces were either granted by the General Assembly or by the Superior Court. Someone wishing to be divorced from their spouse would have to submit a petition to the court. Divorce laws were very strict, usually permitting a petitioner to divorce their spouse only in very clear-cut cases of desertion, adultery, or deformity. Staunchly Puritan courts in the early part of the eighteenth century were very hesitant to grant divorces, but as the century wore on and divorce laws loosened up somewhat, they did so with much greater frequency. This process accelerated after independence from Great Britain; the majority of the 1,080 records in this index are from 1776 and after. Divorce case records usually contain the husband and wife’s names, their marriage date, the town of the petitioner, and reasons why the petitioner is asking for the divorce. Due to the formal, legalistic way record entries were written, maiden names were usually not part of the record unless the husband was the one making the petition. This unfortunately means that maiden names were rarely recorded, as the vast majority of petitioners were female. Children were almost never mentioned. In 1801, the General Assembly added two judges to the overburdened Superior Court and split it into two circuits of four counties each. All record books from 1798 forward are arranged by their respective counties, which is why this index ends with that year. Please note that there are many direct quotes from the records books in the “notes” field and elsewhere. The index therefore includes terms that are considered archaic, offensive, and inappropriate to use in modern times. Most, though not all, of these records have corresponding case files that may have more information. To find those, either consult county-specific indexes or ask the History & Genealogy Unit staff for assistance. To request a copy of a record, please contact the staff of the History & Genealogy Unit by telephone at (860) 757-6580 or through our email form. When requesting a copy of a record, please include the names of the individuals as well as the volume and page number. You are also more than welcome to visit the Connecticut State Library to see the record books for yourself! Several volumes have extra, non-numbered pages at the end; these are denoted by a typographical mark and the word “misc.” *The February, 1769 term of the Superior Court in Fairfield is filed in a folder in the state archives RG 003, Superior Court Fairfield County Records/Dockets, Box 51. **Volume 19 contains miscellaneous papers at the end of the numbered pages. These papers are mostly in chronological order, and include court files, invoices, and the records of a few Superior Court terms. †Volume 21 contains miscellaneous papers

Can weak judicial institutions facilitate the advancement of women to the high courts? We explore the relationship between weak institutions and gender diversification by analyzing the consequences of judicial reshuffles in Latin America. Our theory predicts that institutional disruptions will facilitate the appointment of women justices, but only when left parties control the nomination process. We test this argument using difference-in-differences and dynamic panel models for 18 Latin American countries between 1961 and 2014. The analysis offers support for our hypothesis, but gains in gender diversification are modest in size and hard to sustain over time. Political reshuffles may produce short-term advances for women in the judiciary, but do not represent a path to substantive progress in gender equality.

The dataset contains the state-wise number of persons reported missing in a particular year, the total number of persons missing including those from previous years, the number of persons recovered/traced and those unrecovered/untraced. The dataset also contains the percentage recovery of missing persons which is calculated as the percentage share of total number of persons traced over the total number of persons missing. NCRB started providing detailed data on missing & traced persons including children from 2016 onwards following the Supreme Court’s direction in a Writ Petition. It should also be noted that the data published by NCRB is restricted to those cases where FIRs have been registered by the police in respective States/UTs.

Note: Figures for projected_mid_year_population are sourced from the Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections for India and States 2011-2036

Search strategy health sciences descriptors/medical subject heading.