Lies, Damned Lies, and...
Power Line
There has been considerable buzz about a Houston Bar Association judicial survey that came out a few days ago and purported to show Justice Priscilla Owen with relatively poor ratings by Houston lawyers. This survey was prominently featured in the Reuters hit-job on Owen that I linked to earlier today. It was pretty obvious what happened: now that the Democrats' filibuster of Justice Owen is topping the news, Democratic lawyers in Houston are dropping their evaluations of her. I searched the web for earlier evaluations, done before the political factor kicked in, but couldn't find any.
Reader Chris Wildermuth was more resourceful. I can't improve on his email, and will reproduce it in full:
<<<
Reading "Freakonomics" helps you spot interesting trends in every day life, and help you not just ask "what's wrong with this picture?" but to also answer it.
For example, the bogus results of the Houston Bar Association (HBA) poll that ranked Priscilla Owen as the worst judge looked a bit out of whack. So I compared it to the 2001 poll (also helpfully listed on the HBA site), which is the last survey done BEFORE she was first nominated by President Bush
Here are the overall 2005 results:
Outstanding Acceptable Poor
(2005) 39.5 - 15.2 - 45.3
Wow, that seems pretty poor. Except you have to know the sample size is 350 lawyers, so every 3.5 lawyers change the results 1%. Further, her results seem fairly polarized. Not much middle ground.
Could she be that polarizing? Or perhaps the HBA lawyers are biased?
Maybe if we look at Owen's 2001 results that might tell us something:
Outstanding Acceptable Poor
(2001) 41.1 - 26.1 - 32.9
Interestingly, the "Outstanding" rating is pretty consistent. But the spread from Acceptable to Poor is pretty much split evenly. Not so polarized. Maybe we should compare it to two other judges on the Texas Supreme Court who were also ranked in 2001, Nathan L. Hecht and Harriet O'Neill:
Outstanding Acceptable Poor
Hecht (2001) 43.1 - 16.7 - 40.3
Hecht (2005) 40.3 - 17.4 - 42.3
Diff. -2.8 +0.7 +2.0
O'Neill (01) 46.8 - 37.6 - 15.6
O'Neill (05) 55.0 - 30.0 - 14.5 (oddly, doesn't add to 100%)
Diff. +8.2 -7.6 -1.1
In this case it appears Hecht is rather a polarizing justice, while O'Neill his highly thought of. But in both cases their scores from 2001 to 2005 are pretty consistent. Most are well within a margin of error, although O'Neill shows improvement from those who rank her Acceptable to Outstanding. Considering she was appointed in 1999, it would seem logical that she would not score as highly right after her appointment compared to 5 years later.
Now lets look again at Owen's ratings side-by-side:
Outstanding Acceptable Poor
Owen (2001) 41.1 - 26.1 - 32.9
Owen (2005) 39.5 - 15.2 - 45.3
Diff. -1.6 -10.9 +12.4
The Acceptable and Poor scores are fairly evenly dispersed in 2001, yet very polarized in 2005. Could 35 lawyers really change their opinion that much? Well, considering the coverage she received afterward, and the polarizing nature of Bush's appointments on his opponents, to believe that 35 lawyers (10%) of the Houston Bar might decide to move someone they didn't agree with from Acceptable to Poor as a political penalty isn't only feasible - it would seem the most reasonable explanation.
The Acceptable and Poor scores are fairly evenly dispersed in 2001, yet very polarized in 2005. Could 35 lawyers really change their opinion that much? Well, considering the coverage she received afterward, and the polarizing nature of Bush's appointments on his opponents, to believe that 35 lawyers (10%) of the Houston Bar might decide to move someone they didn't agree with from Acceptable to Poor as a political penalty isn't only feasible - it would seem the most reasonable explanation.
To the HBA's slight credit, they appeared to have delayed the poll results until mid-May, when in the past they normally report the results in April. But they should have spotted that tremendous difference in those results. And they certainly shouldn't have highlighted Owen's poor score for the press. For shame.
In case you're interested, here are the key links:
2005 results: hba.org
2001 results: hba.org
>>>
The only thing I would add is that these survey results are from a single city. Other results from state-wide bar association surveys are no doubt available, as well as from other cities. Given the small sample size and the evident politicization of these Houston results, it is shameful that the media have widely reported these numbers without inquiring further.
powerlineblog.com |
