Abstract
The assignment of a majority opinion author is a pivotal moment in the judicial decision-making process, yet nearly all our understanding of the assignment decision is drawn from research on the U.S. Supreme Court. The variation across state courts in the method of opinion assignment and other institutional features suggest that this decision may differ across contexts. In this paper, we examine how and when justices on state supreme courts make a particular assignment decision to write the majority opinion themselves. Comparing across different institutional configurations, we ask what drives both chief justices and associate justices to self-assign. Our findings indicate that chief justices, but not associate justices are motivated by certain goals in deciding whether to self-assign. Chiefs seek to avoid self-assignment when they face a peer vote but seek out this assignment in constitutional cases. However, this is mitigated by their time in the position and the administrative burdens of their office.
