A public interest group based in Las Vegas — the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage — recently filed a petition alleging the non-random assignment of judges in a subset of same-sex marriage cases decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (In federal cases, appeals on the merits are decided by three-judge panels and judges are supposed to be assigned randomly to these panels.) When we first heard of these allegations, we were intrigued by the possibility of “panel packing” or non-randomness in the assignment of judges, since we suspect that the assignment of judges to high-profile cases is anything but random. But, a few days ago, when we finally read the statistical study on which these allegations are based, we detected a possible reference class problem. (For the record, the report was prepared by Dr James H. Matis, a retired statistics professor.)
Continue reading →