Benchmarking transparency: A comparative case study of state judicial financial disclosure protocols
Abstract
This comparative case study examines judicial financial disclosure protocols across Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming, evaluating transparency, accessibility, and regulatory consistency. Through analyzing financial disclosure reports from each state’s supreme court justices from the 2023 reporting year, the research identifies significant variations in disclosure requirements and public availability. While some states prioritize financial transparency and have expansive requirements, others impose restrictive access or have vague requirements, raising concerns about judicial accountability. The study highlights the implications of these inconsistencies for public trust and proposes best practices for standardizing state-level judicial financial disclosures.
Primary Faculty Mentor Name
Paul Deslandes
Status
Undergraduate
Student College
College of Arts and Sciences
Program/Major
Political Science
Primary Research Category
Social Science
Benchmarking transparency: A comparative case study of state judicial financial disclosure protocols
This comparative case study examines judicial financial disclosure protocols across Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming, evaluating transparency, accessibility, and regulatory consistency. Through analyzing financial disclosure reports from each state’s supreme court justices from the 2023 reporting year, the research identifies significant variations in disclosure requirements and public availability. While some states prioritize financial transparency and have expansive requirements, others impose restrictive access or have vague requirements, raising concerns about judicial accountability. The study highlights the implications of these inconsistencies for public trust and proposes best practices for standardizing state-level judicial financial disclosures.
