Increasing the diversity of justice institutions is believed to be important both per se and because increased diversity may serve a variety of normatively appealing goals. Scholars have suggested that well-designed appointment processes can promote diversity without substantive goals, much less quotas. If correct, these proposals raise the possibility of promoting greater diversity without having to resolve politically charged debates about quotas. Yet, scholars disagree strongly about the effects of particular design choices. Worse, estimating causal effects of institutions in observational data is particularly difficult. We develop a design to evaluate the effect of institutional change on the gender diversity of peak courts cross-nationally. Specifically, we consider the effect of an increase in the number of actors involved in the appointment process. We clarify existing theoretical claims and propose an observational design for causal inference, which among other features includes a bifurcated data collection plan to ensure credibility. A preliminary analysis conducted on a partial data set proves inconclusive, but suggests that an increase in the number of actors involved in selection of justices may increase the opportunities for women to hold seats on peak courts.
