Ministers are less likely to present divergent votes in the Federal Supreme Court than their fellow men, it shows recent research on dissident behavior in the court.
The data is in line with evidence that, suggesting that genre -related power dynamics can influence the decision -making process in the court, the study says.
The authors used an unprecedented database of more than 2 million individual votes given over 35 years – the promulgation of the Federal Constitution in 1988 at the first half of 2023.
HAS Sheet One of the study researchers, Ivar Hartmann, from Insper, says that so far, research on the Supreme and how the ministers voted for almost exclusively a small portion of volume processes.
“Now we have information on how ministers work in all their areas of competence and jurisdiction,” he says, co -author of the article alongside Diego Werneck, Insper, and Evan Rosevear of the University of Southampton (United Kingdom).
From afar, who most diverged throughout the period was the minister, now retired. The magistrate was responsible for two thirds of the divergent votes in the court. The probability of a divergent vote is multiplied by 24 in cases where he voted.
Excluding the “Marco Aurélio effect” of the analysis, the research points out that, although in absolute terms the difference is small, male ministers have twice the likelihood of presenting divergent votes when compared to women’s ministers.
In addition, considering the genre of the rapporteur of cases, those reported by ministers are less likely to vote.
The conclusions differ from previous studies, which pointed to greater feminine propensity to divergence, in the case of the supreme cut of Canada, and greater likelihood of dissent in the Supreme Court, both men and women, and the rapporteur is female.
The disparity of another research on the Supreme can be explained by the methodology, says Hartmann. Studies consider distinct data sets collected at different periods.
According to the authors, the result of the article can be explained by gender dynamics, although not the object of the study.
Hartmann raises hypotheses for the lowest divergence in female reports male condescension or the possibility that women reporters have produced more convincing arguments, generating less divergence. Both possibilities still need to be tested.
The research points out, however, that the results should be analyzed with caution, as there have only been three STF ministers so far. They are Ellen Gracie, Rosa Weber and Cármen Lúcia, the latter still in court.
To distinguish gender effects more in -depthly, a study would be necessary considering a more diverse composition in the court.
Ideology
The study also analyzes the influence of ideology on the likelihood of diverging. Conservative ministers were generally 40% less likely to issue a divergent opinion.
The ideological question is complex, however. The results indicate that ministers considered progressive differ more when the rapporteur is progressive than when he is conservative, contrary to popular belief.
The authors base analysis on an ideological classification of an updated worked until 2015. They complement with the ministers sworn in later:
Hartmann says he is convinced that this division between conservatives and progressives does not work as much as in the United States, for example, and signals the need for a more appropriate ideological framework.
Transmission
Similarly, the transmission of a trial – by TV channel justice on television or on YouTube – is associated with a greater propensity of ministers to make divergent votes.
“The court of the past was a court in which there was no justice TV. We showed that TV Justice has an effect on how they behave. The court of the future is a court that will have justice TV,” says the insper researcher.
In addition to transmission, the research points out that requests for view, the greater complexity of the type of process and the fact that the president of the board (class or plenary) is the rapporteur increase the likelihood of divergent votes.
