Noteworthy cases coverage at Ballotpedia

How does Ballotpedia...
...define candidacy?
...define incumbency?
...order candidate lists?
...choose battlegrounds?
...cover primaries?
...cover endorsements?
...cover campaign finance?
...cover polls?
...cover recall efforts?
...call an election?
...cover recounts?
...handle postponements?

Ballotpedia is the online encyclopedia of American politics and elections. Our goal is to inform people about politics by providing accurate and objective information about politics at all levels of government. Ballotpedia covers local, state, and federal politics. Our content includes neutral, accurate, and verifiable information on government officials and the offices they hold, political issues and public policy, elections, candidates, and the influencers of politics. As part of these efforts to provide encyclopedic content, and consistent with our firm commitment to neutrality, we sometimes make editorial judgments to better serve our mission and our readers.

One such area is in highlighting noteworthy cases on our judicial profiles. The decision to include a case as noteworthy is based on Ballotpedia's criteria for inclusion, which were drafted and adopted in April 2017. These criteria were developed by our professional writers and editors and approved by our senior editorial team.

Selection criteria for noteworthy cases[edit]

The decision to classify a case as noteworthy is based on a decision-tree analysis. We analyze potential cases based on a series of dichotomous questions. Not every case that satisfies our criteria will be included, but these criteria serve to guide our decisions as to whether a case merits inclusion.

Question One: Does the case set or overturn an existing legal precedent such that the case:

(a) materially affects a politically significant population or subpopulation, or

(b) substantively relates to an area of editorial interest to Ballotpedia, or

(c) reverses an established, longstanding precedent (greater than 50 years) and/or was established through a court of last resort?

If the answer to any of these is yes, we may consider the case noteworthy. If the answer to all of these is no, we proceed to a secondary analysis.

Question Two: Is the ruling being used against a sitting judge or a judicial nominee in a public way (election campaigns, reappointment campaigns, impeachment/recall proceedings) and has the judge/nominee commented (or had opportunity to comment) upon the complaints?

If the answer to this question is yes, we may consider the case noteworthy. If the answer is no, we consider one additional criterion.

Question Three: Is the case receiving state and/or federal coverage in traditional, wide-circulation mass media that names and directly quotes the judge?

If the answer to this question is yes, we may consider the case noteworthy.

In addition to the criteria listed above, Ballotpedia reserves the right to include cases falling outside the scope of these criteria should an editorial judgment be made that the case merits inclusion.

If you have any questions or comments about our criteria for noteworthy cases, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.