Doctoral Dissertation Research: The Inter-Branch Struggle over Tort Reform: Testing a Separation of Powers Model in the State Context

Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN

Investigators

Abstract

The inter-branch struggle for control over the tort system has been one of the most contentious separation of powers battles encountered in the state governments and provides an ideal natural experimental setting in which to examine how separation of powers affects public policy in state governments. This project serves as both a comprehensive model of how policy is formulated in a separation of powers system, and a concrete explanation of how the tort reform movement has developed in the fifty states. Specifically, this research addresses the following questions: What factors influence a legislator's decision to enact tort reform statutes? What factors influence a justice's decision to engage in judicial review of these statutes? These questions are answered using a multi-method research design. First, the strategic interactions between state actors are analyzed through a formal model that accounts for the preferences of the actors involved and the institutional structures that channel those preferences to produce certain policy outcomes. Next, hypotheses derived from this formal model are evaluated through quantitative analysis that uses systematic data over multiple years and a qualitative component in the form of case studies involving elite interviews. In addition, elite interviews with state legislators and justices are conducted. Tort reform is a complicated legal issue that cannot be adequately explained through formal and quantitative methods alone. A detailed case study approach that utilizes elite interviewing is necessary to gain a nuanced understanding of how specific factors influence elite decision making. The goal is to make a theoretical contribution to the study of separation of powers models, state policy making, and tort reform. Through the lens of tort reform, how public policy is shaped by the inter-dependent decision- making of elite actors is investigated. Tort reform is one of the most salient examples of policy making at the state level and has sparked an intense separation of powers battle between the state courts and legislatures. Deciphering the motivations behind elite behavior in this issue area reveals salient policy implications. Policy outcomes are not random but instead are a product of the intersection of a number of different variables. If one can identifies these different factors, then both proponents and opponents of tort reform can pursue their policy goals in a more nuanced manner and might consider the disparities in our nation's tort system with renewed focus.