Introduction

Scholars have investigated the characteristics of federal court judges and made conclusions about how their economic, political, religious, and social backgrounds have affected their likelihood of nomination or confirmation, especially as the courts have diversified significantly in the post–civil rights era (Goldman, Slotnick, Gryski, and Zuk 2000; Slotnick, Schiavoni, and Goldman 2017; Solberg and Diascro 2020). This scholarship has created an understanding of these jurists’ lives before they reached the federal bench. Conversely, research on the backgrounds, lives, and paths of state court judges is rare. The common characterization of early twentieth-century judges being conservative white men is still being used to describe most state court judges, leaving us with a possibly inaccurate and outdated portrait of the state judiciary today (Canon 1972; Carp, Stidham, and Manning 2017, 210 and 261; Glick and Emmert 1986; Gryski and Main 1986). State court judges are also less known for sharing their personal experiences with the public via interviews and memoirs. Consequently, we do not know much about their paths to the bench and how they compare with federal judges’ experiences and characteristics (Vining and Wilhelm 2023).

Moreover, the federal judiciary has successfully increased its surface-level diversity over the past 50 years, although deep-level diversity among federal judges is at its lowest amount on record (Iuliano and Stewart 2016). Surface-level diversity can be characterized as the heterogeneity of a group in terms of age, gender, or race/ethnicity. Conversely, deep-level diversity refers to characteristics that are not visible, such as work experience, educational background, religiosity, and socioeconomic/class background. As the state courts have increased the number of nonwhite judges in recent years (George and Yoon 2017; Goelzhauser 2020), one question becomes apparent: Is the diversity on state courts surface or deep-level diversity?

Overall, existing research on state court judges is not current and inclusive of the recent racial diversification of the courts. This is the purpose of this chapter. We seek to shed light on the backgrounds and experiences of state court judges to better understand how diverse our nation’s busiest legal tribunals are. We focus on Black and white state court judges in this analysis because they represent the two largest racial groups of judges in state courts.^[1] Our research is guided by two questions. First, what patterns exist among current state court judges along educational, career, class, religious, and political lines? Second, are there any noteworthy similarities or differences that exist between white and Black state judges’ childhood and adulthood life experiences regarding their backgrounds that might be influential for their judicial work? We draw on recent data from an original survey with state court jurists conducted between 2019 and 2022 to answer these questions. This survey included open- and close-ended questions and asked judges to share details about their backgrounds, socialization, and life experiences. Utilizing these data helps us understand the characteristics of current state court judges and the paths those judges have taken to the bench.

Examining judges’ backgrounds and paths to the bench is important for numerous reasons. In a representative democracy, it is important that people in power resemble and reflect the diversity within the population. Also, judicial decision making is a human endeavor that scholars now understand as being influenced by case facts, precedent, law, and judges’ identities (Brace and Hall 1997; Harris 2024). Many of the background characteristics to be examined in this chapter may be significant for judges’ decision making and court outcomes because many of these characteristics are known to be agents of socialization that shape one’s values, worldview, attitudes, and identities. Finally, by examining and analyzing state court judges’ backgrounds, we will be in a better position to evaluate and understand whether, and if so why, it is crucial that our courts are racially diverse. Before presenting the survey results, we discuss what scholars currently know about American jurists’ childhood and early adulthood backgrounds.

Existing Scholarship: What We Already Know about Judges’ Backgrounds

Educational Backgrounds

An important factor for measuring the deep level of diversity within state judiciaries is the educational experience of state court judges, which helps determine the extent to which judges were socialized in diverse spaces. Many people thought the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), would lead to more diverse educational settings for American children. This has not happened because neighborhoods are still racially segregated (Clotfelter 2011). Indeed, schools are still racially segregated today despite more than five decades passing since Brown was decided, making it likely that Black and white judges grew up in segregated schools (Logan and Parman 2017).

Struggles to create diverse student bodies persist in higher education, which may increasingly be an issue after the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC that effectively eliminated affirmative action in college admissions. In 1961, President Kennedy issued an executive order (EO 10925) declaring institutions to “take affirmative action” to guarantee that applicants and employees are treated “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” After decades of affirmative action, Terry Hartle of the American Council on Education notes that “Blacks and Hispanics have gained ground at less selective colleges” but have not made the same progress at highly selective institutions (quoted in Ashkenas, Park, and Pearce 2017). At the same time, the enrollment of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students has increased in law schools, but their admissions rates are still noticeably less than their white counterparts, according to the Law School Admissions Council’s diversity enrollment data (Conway, Saidman-Krauss, and Schreiber 2021).

While high-ranking law schools such as Harvard and Yale are traditionally overrepresented among federal court judges, the opposite can be said about state court judges due to the growing preference of states to fill their courts with judges who attended their respective in-state public law schools (Bonica and Sen 2017; Bratton and Spill 2004). When considered in conjunction with the admissions trends of undergraduate institutions and law schools, it stands to reason that state court judges’ educational backgrounds would be more diverse because they did not all graduate from a select group of institutions. This study will work to further expand the limited understanding of state court judges’ childhood and collegiate educational backgrounds.

Religious Backgrounds

Religion is politically important because, for those who are religious, their religious values and beliefs can impact how and what they think about numerous societal issues such as marriage and reproduction. Often, children are socialized into religion during childhood, and research shows that religious children tend to stay religious into their adulthood (Hunsberger and Brown 1984) and likewise may ultimately impact how judges adjudicate (Pearson-Merkowitz and Gimpel 2008). For much of the US Supreme Court’s history, the courtroom was dominated by Protestant Christians (Scheb 2010). A study of the religious identities of different state supreme court judges across the United States underscores a similar trend of overrepresentation of Protestant Christians and an “uneven selection of religious groups for the courts with merit systems being the least likely to provide opportunities for religious minorities” (Glick and Emmert 1986, 235). The lack of representation of religious minority groups may be a factor as to why judicial policies tend to favor more conservative views linked to Protestantism as opposed to more liberal views favored by religious minorities and religions. Religious minorities such as Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists tend to lean more toward the liberal side and are less represented in the courtroom (Lipka 2016).

Studies have explored whether religious background influences judges’ decision making and court outcomes. Some literature suggests that this is not the case—a judge’s devotion to their religion will directly influence not how they make decisions but rather how they interpret case issues, facts, and the law (Pryor 2006). Other research identifies trends in how judges of identical religious backgrounds differ in terms of their politics and how they vote on certain religious matters, such as gay marriage and abortion rights (Blake 2012; Bornstein and Miller 2009, 115). Past research, for instance, shows that Catholic and Jewish judges tend to be more liberal leaning than their Protestant counterparts on certain issues (Glick and Emmert 1986). While the information on Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish judges is readily available, especially among federal jurists, there is an absence of literature on the presence of other religious minority groups, such as Muslim judges, and whether judicial adherents to minority religions are influenced by their religious beliefs. This is beyond the scope of this current study, but future research into the backgrounds of state judges might consider how religious diversity among jurists influences their work. Furthermore, like many of the topics covered in this chapter, little research has been done on the childhood religious upbringing of state court judges. In this study, we examine state court judges’ childhood and adulthood religious backgrounds and religiosity to understand religious diversity in the backgrounds of state court judges.

Political Socialization and Exposure to Politics, Political Identities, and Political Participation

Political socialization is the process by which a person’s political values and beliefs are developed over a long period of time (Niemi and Sobieszek 1977).

During this process, people learn about political leaders, institutions, and processes and acquire political beliefs, attitudes, understandings, and practices. Important agents of political socialization are parents, communities, schools, religions, and jobs (Glasberg and Shannon 2011). The contemporary study of political socialization concerns how children develop political ideas. Given the connection between socialization and exposure to personal development, there should be more scholarship on judges’ exposure to politics and political activism (Rutkowski 2023) and how their political identities have developed. To better understand state court judges’ political socialization, we draw on data that highlights politically relevant characteristics in the backgrounds and paths of judges.

The federal judicial appointment process (see Article III of the United States Constitution) affords presidents and senators substantial control over who becomes a federal judge. With this power, they typically “prioritize seating like-minded judges higher in the judiciary,” understanding ideology influences judges’ decisions (Bonica and Sen 2017, 591; Solberg and Lindquist 2006). To measure the ideology of a federal judge, scholars have often relied on the party and ideology of the appointing president, which is not always a reliable indicator, as evidenced by Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who was thought to be conservative but eventually sided with the Court’s liberal wing. While federal court judges’ ideology can be presumed in part by considering who appoints them, assessing state court judges’ political identities in terms of ideology and partisan affiliation is more challenging, considering that not all state court judges share their political identities publicly during the appointment or election process. Furthermore, while state judges have strong incentives to incorporate partisanship into their decisions (Kang and Shepard 2015), especially when they run for reelection, inferring judges’ partisan affiliations from their case decisions is also challenging. There is limited information about judges’ political exposure before becoming judges, as it is unclear whether and how they were politically socialized as children by their parents and household members. We know that political engagement and activism on the part of parents influence children’s later political activism and engagement (Gidengil, Wass, and Valaste 2016). Therefore, in this study, we analyze both state court judges’ political self-identifications before and after going to the bench and their childhood exposure to politics and political activity to see if there is any notable relationship present.

Career Backgrounds

Being an attorney is not a constitutional requirement for serving as a judge in the United States. In fact, in the United States, there is no constitutionally required educational background for federal judges; conceivably, virtually anyone can consider and pursue judging as a profession irrespective of their career background. Nevertheless, many state judges have been attorneys, and if presiding over criminal cases, states require a legal education (Ford 2017).

A state judge’s career path to the bench can also be shaped by their state’s system for selecting judges. In states where judges are appointed, judges are more likely to have worked as legislators (Jacob 1964). Where state judges are elected, jurists are more likely to be local and to have worked as a district attorney or prosecutor, allowing them to develop a reputation in local politics (Jacob 1964). In states with nonpartisan elections, judges are more likely to have worked in private practice (Jacob 1964). To better understand the career patterns of state judges, studies need to examine the current diversity or lack thereof in the career backgrounds of state court judges. Such research would shed light on how diverse the state courts are in terms of the types of career backgrounds, even among attorneys, that end up being represented on the courts. This is particularly important because career differences may influence judicial decision making (Myers 1988; Harris and Sen 2024). In this study, we ask judges to share their primary careers before becoming judges to understand career diversity on the bench.

Socioeconomic Backgrounds

Socioeconomic status is a defining feature of society and one of the ways used to study one’s life experiences, helping to meaningfully infer access to resources, power, and wealth. This status hinges on a combination of factors, including educational level, income, and occupation. One way to understand someone’s socioeconomic status is through class, which categorizes people based on their economic position in society. However, definitions of class have shifted over time, and self-reported data can be unreliable as people tend to define it subjectively in place of objective criteria (Gordon 1949). For example, scholars have noted a general propensity for people to identify as middle class, even though criteria used to determine class might indicate otherwise (Bellani, Bledow, Busemeyer, and Schwerdt 2021).

While judges’ salaries may paint their collective socioeconomic status as homogenous, diverse upbringings preceding their arrival on the bench may be politically salient. No judge is immune to the influence of their upbringing, and their backgrounds can come with biases. For example, federal judges have been shown to exhibit socioeconomic bias in a variety of cases, from childcare cases involving low-income litigants to appellate tax decisions (Neitz 2013; Schneider 2005). To determine whether state judges’ socioeconomic bias impacts their decisions, researching their socioeconomic backgrounds from childhood and adulthood is necessary. However, most research examining this background information focuses on the federal judiciary (Goldman and Saronsen 1994). The socioeconomic background of state court judges is a topic ripe for study since little is known about their childhood experiences. What economic privileges or disadvantages were state judges exposed to before the bench? We address this question by presenting information about state court judges’ socioeconomic backgrounds, which also reveals state courts’ economic diversity. Because people from a variety of class backgrounds appear in court, it is important to have judges from various class backgrounds adjudicating cases because jurists will be in a better position to understand their experiences.

Data and Methods

To understand the educational, career, class, religious, political, and social backgrounds of state judges, we draw on recent data from an original survey of state judges. This survey, which featured close- and open-ended questions, allows us to explore and analyze state court judges’ backgrounds from their perspectives. The survey was self-administered between September 2019 and September 2022. We sent out a total of 1,000 surveys to Black state court judges and 2,000 to white state court judges. After several follow-up invitations, we obtained 567 completed surveys, 273 from Black judges (27% response rate) and 276 from white judges (14% response rate).^[2] Again, Black and white judges compose the two largest racial groups represented within the judiciary. We use the entire sample in our analysis that follows.

We would have liked to have a random sample, but no database exists that includes the names and contact information of all state court judges that we could have randomly drawn from to recruit participants for this study. Consequently, our sample is not random and instead is purposive (Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim 2016). We sent the recruitment material to the known Black state court judges across the nation (~1,000). We built a database of a diverse group of 2,000 white judges, with 40 judges from each state, an emphasis on white judges from the largest and smallest cities and counties in each state, and an eye toward gender, age, and judicial selection diversity.

Judges’ contact information was gathered from court administration websites, and each judge was sent a recruitment mailing packet. In the packet, judges received a recruitment letter, a sheet with frequently asked questions about the project and principal investigator, and a document with the research team’s short biographies. Judges had the option of completing a hard copy survey, although they were encouraged to complete the survey online via the online survey platform Qualtrics due to the ongoing pandemic. The survey, invitation, and reminder messaging were available to respondents in English.

The demographics of our sample are as follows. Our sample consists of 49% women and 51% men. Judges ranged in age from 34 to 81, and the average age of the sample was 57.5 years old. The judges are also diverse along ideological and partisan attachment lines. Twenty-nine percent identify as moderate/middle of the road, 53% identify as liberal, and 18% identify as conservative.^[3] Fifty-two percent identify as Democrat, 36% identify as independent, 12% identify as Republican, and less than 1% identify as other. Judges surveyed were overwhelmingly heterosexual, although at least 5% of the surveyed judges identified as LGBTQ . The majority of judges (87%) surveyed reported having children, and the majority of judges surveyed were married/partnered. Based on the demographics of the US population, lawyers, and judges, our sample is quite diverse.

The average number of years spent as a judge was 11 years. Additionally, judicial election/selection to the bench is an important topic that influences how judges experience the legal system and view issues within the system. Judges surveyed in this study reported reaching the bench mainly through appointment, and only 3 in 10 respondents reached the bench initially via election.

Next, we turn to our analysis, which we divide into sections based on the topic. In each section, we first focus on addressing the research question, What patterns, if any, exist among current state court judges along educational, career, class, religious, and political lines? We follow this by addressing the research question, Are there any noteworthy similarities or differences that exist between white and Black state judges’ childhood and adulthood life experiences regarding their backgrounds that might be influential for their judicial work?

Results: Better Understanding the Backgrounds of Twenty-First-Century State Court Judges

State Court Judges’ Educational Backgrounds

We first asked judges to share information about their K–12 schooling. As we mentioned above, one of the defining features of the K–12 education system in the United States, irrespective of the type of school setting, is the lack of childhood socialization in a diverse educational setting (i.e., the prevalence of racial school segregation). Although school segregation is no longer mandated or enforced by law, de facto segregation persists because of segregated residential communities.

When asked about the diversity of their K–12 schooling, Black judges shared they went to schools more diverse than white judges. The overwhelming majority of white judges (84%) went to schools that were 61%–100% white, whereas less than half of Black judges (45%) went to schools that were 61%–100% Black. Because K–12 schools are important sites for socialization, this finding suggests that, as children, Black judges were socialized in more diverse educational spaces than white judges and, therefore, exposed to a greater diversity of people and perspectives. Such exposure and experience may lead Black state court judges to be able to understand and empathize more with people from different backgrounds than their white counterparts, and this ultimately could influence how they understand people and issues that come before them as judges. The opposite is true for white judges, who were less likely to attend racially heterogeneous schools.

Although it is not a formal qualification to become a judge, most judges in the United States have an undergraduate degree and a law school degree. The American Center for Progress reports that 25% of federal judges attended either Harvard or Yale; however, we expect that these elite academic institutions will not appear at the same rate among state court judges (Root, Faleschini, and Oyenubi 2019). Prestigious schools provide their students with connections and job opportunities that lead them to obtain highly coveted positions, such as federal clerkships and, eventually, judgeships. However, many students graduating from Ivy League schools, especially law schools, go into private practice rather than enter public service, such as working as a judge, given the difference in salary (Alaimo 2023). This leads us to expect that, with the vast amount of state court judgeships that need to be filled and a limited number of graduates from elite law schools who may lack an interest in pursuing them, state judges’ educational backgrounds will be more diverse than federal judges’ backgrounds.

Although some judges earned associate degrees, master’s degrees, and even doctoral degrees, most of the judges in our study (79%) said their adult education consisted of having earned a bachelor’s degree and a law degree. We also asked judges about the types of undergraduate and law school institutions they attended. Table 1 displays their responses. As expected, few state court judges reported attending an Ivy League school. Many judges, however, attended public and private institutions for their undergraduate and law school educations, with most state court judges surveyed, irrespective of race, having attended public institutions for their undergraduate and law degrees.

We note some racial differences in the types of institutions state court judges attended. Black judges are more likely to have attended a historically Black college or university (HBCU) for their educational degrees. This is not surprising given these institutions’ long history of educating the nation’s Black political leaders, especially when racism led non-HBCUs to exclude Black students (LeMelle 2002). Diversity in the types of institutions judges attend for college is important for ensuring a broad representation of experience and knowledge among state court judges.

State Court Judges’ Socioeconomic Backgrounds

Judges also shared their childhood family’s socioeconomic class.^[4] Table 2 displays their responses. Eighty-two percent of respondents said they grew up in a lower-middle-class or middle-class family, with almost half of the judges saying they grew up in a middle-class family. Very few judges reported coming from wealthy families. A significant racial difference to note is Black state court judges were more likely to come from poorer class backgrounds than white state court judges. Whereas almost one-quarter of Black judges (23%) reported coming from a poor family, only 6% of white judges reported a similar class background. Another significant racial difference is between the judges who reported a middle-class childhood background. Six in 10 white judges said they came from a middle-class background, although only 4 in 10 Black judges said they came from the same class background.

We also asked judges about their socioeconomic class just before going to the bench. Instead of asking whether they identified as poor, lower middle class, middle class, or wealthy, we asked judges to share their net worth. Having judges share a rough estimate of their net worth before becoming judges helps us better understand the nuance in the class background of state court judges.^[5] Ten percent of judges said their net worth was less than $50,000 before going to the bench. Almost two-fifths of respondents said their net worth was between $50,000 and $99,999. Another 20% of respondents said their net worth was between $100,000 and $200,000. Four in 10 judges reported a net worth between $200,000 and $999,999, with the plurality of respondents, roughly one-quarter (24%) of all judges surveyed, sharing their net worth before becoming a judge was $200,000–$499,999. One percent of respondents said their net worth was more than one million dollars, and 8% reported “other” when asked about their prebench net worth. These results reveal that, before becoming judges, state court jurists were wealthier than most Americans, which is partly the result of generational wealth (i.e., see their childhood family class) and prebench careers that helped them accumulate wealth. Although not as wealthy as federal judges, many state judges were nevertheless part of the country’s economic elite, even before they became judges.

There was also a racial difference in the prebench net worth reported. The plurality of Black respondents, about one-quarter of Black judges, said their net worth was between $50,000 and $99,999, and 23% reported having a net worth between $200,000 and $499,999. On the other hand, one-quarter of white judges reported a net worth between $200,000 and $499,999, and 18% of white respondents said their net worth was even higher than the plurality of respondents, reporting a prebench net worth between $500,000 and $999,999. Based on the reported net worth, white judges appear to have been slightly wealthier before becoming a judge than Black judges because slightly more than half of the Black judges (52%) reported prebench net worth less than $150,000; 34% of white judges reported the same net worth.

State Court Judges’ Religious Backgrounds

Given data collected in a recent survey (Acquaviva and Castiglione 2009) in which the average state court supreme justice is a Protestant, we expected that the majority of state court judges would identify as Christian, with the plurality identifying as Protestant. Survey results supported our expectations. Most judges surveyed reported being raised in a family that identified with one of the many branches of Christianity. The most popular branches (i.e., with at least 20 judges self-identifying) were Baptist (27%), Catholic (25%), and Methodist (11%). The plurality of Black judges (45%) identified as Baptist during childhood, and the plurality of white judges (33%) identified as Catholic.

Beyond self-identification, we also asked judges to share how important religion was to their lives while growing up. More than half of respondents (52%) said religion was either very (36%) or extremely (18%) important. But religion appeared to be more important to Black judges’ lives while growing up than white judges’ lives. About 6 in 10 Black judge respondents (63%) said religion was either very or extremely important to their life growing up, while about 4 in 10 white judges responded the same way.

One of the ways religious affiliation and identification can be significant during one’s life is how it is connected to politics. Some religions feature discussions about politics and political topics and encourage and sometimes facilitate members’ political engagement. This is one of the ways religion functions as an agent of political socialization. Consider, for example, the Black church’s role in mobilizing and facilitating political engagement and activism during the civil rights era (Morris 1996). Consequently, we thought it was important to ask judges whether politics was discussed in their religion/religious services and whether members were encouraged to engage in politics.

Two-thirds of the judges said politics was either rarely (31%) or never (35%) discussed during religious services, and roughly five-eighths of the participants said they never (35%) or only rarely (28%) were encouraged to participate in politics. But like many other topics explored in this chapter, a notable racial difference was evident in the data. The plurality of Black judges (38%) said politics was sometimes discussed during religious services, whereas the plurality of white judges (40%) said politics was never discussed during religious services. The plurality of Black judges (27%) also said they were sometimes encouraged to participate in politics during services, whereas the plurality of white judges (47%) said they were never encouraged to participate in politics. In other words, Black judges were more likely to be politically socialized in religious spaces than white judges.

State Court Judges’ Career Backgrounds

Given the Brennan Center’s analysis of state supreme court justices’ career backgrounds, we suspect that the majority of state judges will have been lawyers as their primary career before ascending to the bench (Adelstein and Bannon 2021). Although working as an attorney is not a constitutional qualification for becoming a judge, this is true. The survey data reveals that irrespective of the specific type of law and title, most judges’ primary occupations were working in the legal profession as an attorney. Judges shared they worked in various capacities as attorneys, with most judges having been employed as prosecutors, public defenders, attorneys general, and private attorneys. In fact, many of the judges were employed in more than one of these positions. Variation in occupations is another way the diversity of background can matter, especially when their work as attorneys exposes them to the (practice of) law and leads them to develop a deep understanding of the legal system, its issues, and litigants within the system.

State Court Judges’ Political Backgrounds

As agents of political socialization, parents influence their children’s thoughts about politics. How one is politically socialized by their parents can influence whether/how they connect to and engage in politics. Given political socialization’s long-term effect, we asked judges to share their political backgrounds to better understand if and how they have been affected by their parents (table 3). The plurality of judges (42%) reported that their parents talked to them about politics some of the time, and one-quarter of judges (25%) reported their parents rarely did. Twenty-five percent reported that their parents talked to them about politics at least most of the time. Results show judges were generally raised in households where their political socialization included parents discussing politics at least some of the time.

We also assessed whether there was a racial difference in how Black and white state court judges were politically socialized. Data revealed both Black and white judges reported having parents with similar propensities to discuss politics. Additionally, we asked judges to share whether they grew up around politically active parents. Witnessing political activism and engagement is another way judges may have been politically socialized. Whereas almost half (47%) of white judges grew up in households with parents who were never politically active, only about one-quarter of Black judges grew up with parents who were not active in politics. In other words, 76% of Black judges grew up with parents who were at least slightly active, with three in 10 Black judges saying their parents were somewhat active. Therefore, data indicates that Black judges grew up in households with more political engagement and activity than white judges but not necessarily more political discussions.

State Court Judges’ Political Identities

Political ideology and partisanship are two political identities that influence how people view political issues and participate politically (Feldman 2003; Pew Research Center 2019; Putnam 1966). Given their political importance, we asked judges in our study to share their prebench political identities. Many practicing lawyers tend to be liberal (Bonica and Sen 2014). Because most judges were lawyers prior to joining the bench, we suspect that a majority of state court judges will also be liberal. Table 4 displays the judges’ responses. While the majority of our study’s judges (54%) reported a liberal ideology, roughly 30% identified as moderate, and 17% identified as conservative. Thus, there is a diversity of judges in terms of ideology both in our data and in the state judiciary. Roughly the same percentage of Black judges and white judges identified as liberal, 56% and 53%, respectively. However, whereas Black judges were more likely to identify as moderate than white judges, white judges were more likely to identify as conservative than Black judges, which is consistent with ideological patterns in the broader American community (Saad 2022).

We also asked judges about their partisan affiliations. A majority of lawyers tend to donate to Democratic campaigns and lean Democrat (Pazzanese 2017). Given this, we suspect that the majority of state court judges also identify as Democrats, although white judges may more likely identify as Republican given general partisan patterns (Westwood and Peterson 2022). Table 4 displays judges’ reported partisanship affiliation. The majority of judges identified as Democrat (58%). Thirty percent of judges identified as independent, and 13% of judge respondents identified as Republican.

Black judges and white judges differed somewhat in their prebench partisan affiliation. Whereas roughly 7 in 10 Black judges surveyed identified as Democrat, less than half of white judges identified as Democrat. Roughly two in 10 white judges surveyed identified as Republican, although only 4% of Black judges surveyed identified as being Republican. This reflects patterns found in the general population (Westwood and Peterson 2022).

Discussion: Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity

There are three diversity-related takeaways from this study. First, presenting information about state judges’ educational backgrounds, political socialization, prebench occupations, childhood and adulthood socioeconomic class backgrounds, religious backgrounds, and prebench political identities highlights the paths and socialization of American judges. Although state court judges have taken different paths to the state bench and the courts are filled with judges with varying background characteristics, some patterns exist in state court judges’ backgrounds.

We found that most state judges have taken a similar educational path to the bench, having earned a bachelor’s degree and a law degree and having attended a public or private college/university rather than an Ivy League institution. State court judges self-identified as having been raised in lower-middle-class and middle-class families. The surveys showed that state court judges started their judicial careers financially well-off, even more so than the average American. Their net worths before going to the bench are quite high when considering how the middle class is defined (i.e., by education and income). Moreover, despite no formal requirement for being an attorney prior to becoming a judge, most judges were attorneys before ascending to the bench. Our data also revealed that judges were not raised in households that were extremely political. State judges reported that their parents did not frequently discuss politics, and they were not extremely active in politics. Finally, judges’ political identities are diverse. Still, most state judges surveyed identified as liberal and Democrat. Ultimately, this study enriched our understanding of state judges’ backgrounds and socialization.

The second key takeaway from the study is that our state courts have increased both surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity. In addition to diversifying along race and gender lines, which is obvious because of the current demographic makeup of state courts (George and Yoon 2017), data from our research highlights the deep-level diversity that exists among state judges. When it comes to judges’ backgrounds, such as their class/socioeconomic background and exposure to diversity during K–12 school years, we see significant diversity. While some judges were raised in middle-class families and had limited exposure to diverse learning spaces, other judges were raised in poor families and had significant experience in diverse academic communities. The existence of deep diversity may influence institutional legitimacy because it may help with the public’s confidence and support in the courts. This leads to this study’s third key takeaway—deep-level diversity is related to, and effectively the result of, surface-level diversity.

Black state court judges’ backgrounds and paths to the bench differ from the backgrounds and paths of white state court judges. Compared to white judges, Black judges were more likely to attend a historically Black college or university for both their undergraduate and law school degrees, come from poorer class backgrounds, have parents who were politically active, be liberal and moderate and not conservative, and identify with the Democratic Party and as independent and not the Republican Party. Moreover, when considering the diversity among state court judges in this study for at least some topics, the diversity is effectively a racial one (i.e., class).

Conclusion

Judicial diversity in state courts is a topic increasingly discussed given its substantiated connection to symbolic representation. Scherer (2023) shows that increased racial diversity on the bench increases the support racial minorities have for the courts and the legitimacy they afford them. Interestingly, as racial diversity increases on the bench, some segments of white America view the courts as less legitimate. More importantly, though, judicial diversity is connected to substantive representation because the primary question asked when considering racial diversity is how it might impact court outcomes (Harris 2024).

Our study highlights some of the factors in state court judges’ backgrounds before they donned their robes. Despite wearing similar attire in the courtroom (i.e., the black judicial robe), the people wearing them differ in their backgrounds and the paths they took to the bench. Such differences are important in and of themselves when one thinks about the importance of broad diversity. But their background differences take on additional significance when considering how judges are not legal machinery, and scholarship has shown that judges’ backgrounds and demographic characteristics matter for the work they do on the bench (Collins and Moyer 2008; Harris 2024; Manning, Carroll, and Carp 2004). And while it is beyond the scope of this chapter to examine whether/how these judicial background characteristics influence judges’ decision making, we recognize and acknowledge the importance of exploring these factors as consequential for judicial decisions, especially given all the existing scholarship that shows judicial background characteristics impact judges’ decision making. The deep diversity highlighted in this chapter will ideally inspire future research into how the differences in judges’ backgrounds are meaningful to the work of the courts.

Ultimately, this study shows deep diversity in state courts and how racial diversity is important in the judiciary. As state courts have continued to diversify, it is important to understand what racial diversity means beyond phenotype, especially skin color. This chapter demonstrates that it is not just surface-level diversity that is increased with the presence of Black judges. Judicial diversity can be and is linked to deep diversity at the state court level. We know this because Black judges’ backgrounds and paths to the bench differ in various ways from those of white judges. This chapter emphasizes that, despite many differences, state court judges share enough similarities in their backgrounds and paths to the bench that is likely to help them be and feel that they are in community. Moreover, this chapter emphasizes and underscores why racial diversity among judges is important for the bench: it means that there is also an increase in experiential diversity / deep-level diversity that judges adjudicating very serious political and social matters have that may be consequential for their understanding of the law, legal facts, and the correct case outcome.