Oct. 21, 2019

---

Few see the Court as ideologically extreme; majority support for some liberal and some conservative decisions

Extensive poll exclusively addressed to public understanding and opinion of the Court

Please note: Complete poll results and methodology information can be found online at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/

MILWAUKEE — A Marquette Law School Poll of voters nationwide provides wide-ranging measures of public understanding and opinion of the United States Supreme Court. Among the findings: A majority of respondents have more confidence in the Court than in other parts of the federal government; few see the Court as taking extremely liberal or extremely conservative positions, although views of the Court differ by partisanship; and a majority of the public opposes increasing the number of justices even as a majority supports limiting how long justices may serve.

Other findings include that while there is broad support for the Court as a whole, political conservatives are more favorable to the current make-up and decisions of the Court than liberals are. And majorities support some decisions or potential decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and banning semi-automatic rifles that are generally labeled liberal; at the same time, majorities favor decisions of the Court, including a right to possess firearms and allowance of public funds to support students in religious schools, that are generally considered conservative.

Awareness of the individual justices remains fairly low. Only 34 percent of those polled offered an opinion on at least five of the nine justices, and 28 percent had no opinion on any of them.

A majority of those polled said they want decisions to be nonpartisan and to be generally “fair.” A majority (57 percent) also said that they support the Court’s using “evolving” interpretations of the U.S. Constitution rather than interpretations based solely on the intent of the Constitution’s framers.

The survey was conducted Sept. 3-13, 2019; 1,423 adults were interviewed nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points.

Confidence in the Court and other institutions

Confidence in the Supreme Court is higher than that for other branches of the federal government and some other institutions. Confidence in the respondent’s state supreme court ranks second highest. Confidence in the presidency shows some polarization, with more very-low and very-high ratings, while Congress receives the lowest confidence rating.

Here is a list of institutions in American society. How much confidence do you have in each one?

	None	Very little	Some	Quite a lot	A great deal
U.S. Supreme Court	4	16	43	29	8
State Supreme Court	5	17	46	27	5
Presidency	25	22	25	15	13
Criminal Justice System	8	26	46	17	3
Congress	13	38	40	8	2

When respondents are asked to rank the three branches of the federal government, the Supreme Court inspires the most confidence by a substantial margin. This finding, consistent with much other public opinion research, points to the strength of the Court in the public mind in relation to the other branches of the federal government.

Of the three branches of U.S. government, which one do you trust the most?

Response	Percent
The U.S. Supreme Court (the judicial branch)	57
The U.S. Congress (the legislative branch)	22
The Presidency (the executive branch)	21

Those who are more aware of the U.S. Supreme Court generally express greater confidence in it. Familiarity breeds support in the case of the Court. General attention to politics is associated with greater confidence. (In this table, “none” and “very little” confidence are combined as “low confidence,” and “quite a lot” and “a great deal” are combined as “high” confidence.)

Confidence in the Court by attention to politics

	Low Confidence	Medium Confidence	High Confidence
Low Attention	32	48	20
Medium Attention	17	46	37
High Attention	18	36	46

Partisanship and ideology are related to confidence in the Court. Independents have lower confidence than partisans, while Republicans have higher confidence than Democrats.

Confidence in the Court by party identification

	Low	Medium	High
Republican	14	32	54
Lean Republican	15	42	43
Independent	31	46	23
Lean Democrat	23	56	21
Democrat	21	44	34

High confidence in the Court is also associated with conservative ideology, whereas it is not as high among those with very liberal beliefs.

Confidence in the Court by liberal-conservative ideology

	Low	Medium	High
Very Conservative	13	36	52
Conservative	17	37	46
Moderate	21	46	34
Liberal	21	46	33
Very Liberal	36	34	31

Perceptions of the Supreme Court as moderate to conservative

The poll finds that, despite partisan battles over the U.S. Supreme Court in recent decades, the largest group, 50 percent, considers the Court to occupy a “moderate” position on the liberal-conservative continuum. Considerably more, 39 percent, consider the Court conservative than the 12 percent who consider it liberal. Few respondents see the Court as extreme in either ideological direction, with only 9 percent combined saying that it is either very conservative or very liberal.

In general, would you describe the U.S. Supreme Court as very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal?

Response	Percent
Very conservative	6
Conservative	33
Moderate	50
Liberal	9
Very liberal	3

Those who pay the most attention to politics are more likely to see the Court as conservative or very conservative, with 41 percent saying that it is moderate. For the less attentive, majorities place the Court at the middle of the ideological scale.

Perceived ideology of the Court by attention to politics

	Very conservative	Conservative	Moderate	Liberal	Very liberal
Low	3	24	62	7	5
Medium	5	29	55	10	1
High	7	41	41	8	3

A majority of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic see the Court as conservative or very conservative. Independents and Republicans are much more likely to call the Court moderate, with about 60 percent of each of those two groups placing the Court at the middle on ideology. None of the partisan categories sees an especially extreme court, showing that the Court is seen as being to the middle, with the public view tilting a bit more one way or the other depending on attention to politics or partisanship.

Perceived ideology of the Court by party identification

	Very conservative	Conservative	Moderate	Liberal	Very liberal
Republican	4	23	58	11	3
Lean Republican	2	27	61	9	2
Independent	2	23	64	6	5
Lean Democrat	10	50	35	5	0
Democrat	8	42	38	9	2

While most people think the next appointment to the Court is important, one in five think that it is not too important or not at all important (combined as “not important” in tables below).

Importance of next court appointment

Response	Percent
Not important	22
Somewhat	31
Very important	47

Those who pay the most attention to politics in general are much more likely to say the next appointment to the Court is very important.

Importance of next court appointment by attention to politics

	Not important	Somewhat	Very important
Low	50	32	18
Medium	22	41	37
High	7	23	70

Institutional change

There has been public discussion of changing the institutional structure of the Court. A majority oppose increasing the number of justices, although more than one in three somewhat favor an increase and 8 percent strongly favor a change.

[Increase the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court] How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court?

Response	Percent
Strongly favor	8
Favor	35
Oppose	40
Strongly oppose	17

There is majority support for setting a fixed term for justices to serve on the Court, replacing the current life tenure.

[Have judges serve a fixed term on the court rather than serving life terms] How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court?

Response	Percent
Strongly favor	34
Favor	38
Oppose	20
Strongly oppose	8

Restricting the power of judicial review is supported by 38 percent while 62 percent oppose this.

[Limit the ability of the Supreme Court to review and set aside acts of Congress as unconstitutional] How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court?

Response	Percent
Strongly favor	8
Favor	30
Oppose	43
Strongly oppose	19

Partisanship plays a role in willingness to make changes to the number of justices, with Democrats more supportive than Republicans, although even among strong Democrats support for expansion is evenly divided.

Favor expanding the Court by party identification

	Strongly favor	Favor	Oppose	Strongly oppose
Republican	3	28	42	27
Lean Republican	4	31	35	30
Independent	14	40	33	14
Lean Democrat	8	35	48	9
Democrat	10	40	40	10

Support for fixed terms is independent of partisanship, with similar support across all party groups.

Favor fixed terms for justices by party identification

	Strongly favor	Favor	Oppose	Strongly oppose
Republican	34	35	22	8
Lean Republican	34	35	20	11
Independent	32	40	19	9
Lean Democrat	33	38	24	5
Democrat	34	41	19	6

There are modest differences between partisans in support for limiting judicial review, with Republicans a little more supportive than Democrats.

Favor limiting judicial review by party identification

	Strongly favor	Favor	Oppose	Strongly oppose
Republican	13	32	38	17
Lean Republican	6	21	49	24
Independent	11	34	37	18
Lean Democrat	5	23	51	21
Democrat	4	33	44	19

Opposition to nominees

The confirmation of nominees to both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts has grown far more contentious over the past several decades. During this period, opposition based on expected policy differences and based on partisanship, which once was rare, has become common.

While partisan and policy differences have come to dominate elite debate over nominations, substantial majorities of the public say that these are not sufficient reasons to reject an otherwise qualified nominee.

Fewer than 40 percent say that a senator would be justified in rejecting an otherwise qualified nominee, with no ethical problems, based on how the senator believes the nominee would decide cases. More than 60 percent say that this is not a justification for rejecting a nominee.

If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified and has no ethical problems, would U.S. senators be justified or not justified in voting against that nominee simply because of how they believe the justice would decide cases on issues such as abortion, gun control, or affirmative action?

Response	Percent
Justified	38
Not justified	62

Partisan objections to a nominee are seen as even less justified, with more than 80 percent saying that rejecting a qualified nominee simply because of party is not justified, while 19 percent say that this is reason enough for a vote against confirmation.

If a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is qualified and has no ethical problems, would U.S. senators be justified or not justified in voting against that nominee simply because the senator is from a different political party?

Response	Percent
Justified	19
Not justified	81

Rejection due to partisan (i.e., party) differences is equally disapproved across party identification, ideology, and strength of party identification or ideology. While party and policy are inextricably linked, the public does not support partisan differences as the sole basis of confirming or rejecting court nominees.

Rejecting nominees based on how they are believed likely to rule on cases is somewhat more dependent on the respondent’s party and ideology. While Democratic and Republican differences are not statistically significant, independents are significantly more likely to say that rejection based on policy differences is not justified.

Reject nominee over policy by party identification

	Justified	Not justified
Republican	37	63
Lean Republican	34	66
Independent	26	74
Lean Democrat	43	57
Democrat	44	56

Those who say that the next appointment is important are more likely to say that rejecting a nominee on policy grounds is justified. This does not carry over to rejection on partisan grounds, however, where there are no significant differences among respondents based on the importance that they attach to the next appointment. Even among those who rate the next appointment as very important, less than half say that rejection of a nominee is justified on policy grounds, and only one in five say so on party grounds.

Rejecting nominee over policy by importance of next appointment

	Justified	Not justified
Not important	29	71
Somewhat	38	62
Very important	42	58

Rejecting nominee over party by importance of next appointment

	Justified	Not justified
Not important	15	85
Somewhat	20	80
Very important	21	79

Those who are most attentive to politics are also more willing to justify rejection of a nominee on policy grounds, but not willing to do so over partisan differences. As with the importance assigned to the next nominee, more than half of those who pay the most attention to politics say that rejecting a qualified nominee on policy grounds is not justified, and more than 80 percent say this with respect to partisan grounds.

Rejecting nominee over policy by attention to politics

	Justified	Not justified
Low	29	71
Medium	38	62
High	42	58

Rejecting nominee over party by attention to politics

	Justified	Not justified
Low	20	80
Medium	22	78
High	17	83

Confirmations during an election year

The decision by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, in 2016 not to hold hearings on any nominee by President Barack Obama to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia was controversial. For the mass public this action was, in retrospect at least, not the right thing to do.

In February 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not consider or hold hearings on any nominee President Obama might name during an election year. In March, Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not hold a hearing and the nomination expired in January 2017. Was not holding a hearing on the nomination the right thing or the wrong thing to do?

Response	Percent
Right thing to do	27
Wrong thing to do	73

The possibility of a nomination during the 2020 election year faces the question of consistency with the 2016 precedent. Most respondents believe that a nomination in 2020 should result in hearings. However, nearly one in three now believe that hearings should not be held in an election year.

If there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court during the 2020 presidential election year and President Trump nominates someone, what should the Senate do?

Response	Percent
Hold hearings	69
Not hold hearings	31

Views of the lack of hearings in 2016 are strongly related to partisanship, with Republicans more likely than others to say that the refusal to consider a nomination was the right thing to do. But, even among Republicans, a majority say that it was the wrong decision, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats.

No confirmation hearings in 2016, by party identification

	Right thing to do	Wrong thing to do
Republican	45	55
Lean Republican	34	66
Independent	30	70
Lean Democrat	13	87
Democrat	13	87

As for holding hearings if a 2020 vacancy were to occur, Republicans strongly support hearings in the presidential election year, while nearly four in 10 Democrats say that no hearings should occur.

Hold confirmation hearings in 2020 by party identification

	Hold hearings	Not hold hearings
Republican	72	28
Lean Republican	81	19
Independent	76	24
Lean Democrat	62	38
Democrat	63	37

Preferences on past and potential decisions

We asked about a total of 14 cases. We described seven past decisions and seven possible future decisions. In the latter group, we based some descriptions on actual cases, while others were hypothetical, and we did not indicate whether such a description was based on an actual as opposed to hypothetical case. Our choice of topics reflects recent and current cases that have received widespread news coverage. In all cases, we adopted common journalistic language to describe the outcome or consequences of decisions, rather than attempting a fuller syllabus for each case. With the exception of Roe v. Wade, we did not identify cases by name.

Opinion of past cases

Past decisions describe rulings on same-sex marriage, use of race in college admissions, a ban on travel to the United States from Muslim-majority countries, coverage of birth control in employee health plans, campaign spending by corporations and unions, partisan gerrymandering, and an individual’s right to possess a firearm.

Public views of these actual or possible decisions vary. In some cases, a majority favor past decisions, while in others the majority oppose the decisions. With potential future decisions, there are some possible outcomes that receive more popular support than others.

The full question wording and the short description used in the table below follow.

• Past decisions: “How much do you favor or oppose the following recent Supreme Court decisions?”
  • Corporate political spending: “Decided that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money to directly support or oppose political candidates.”
  • Race in admissions: “Decided colleges can use race as one factor in deciding which applicants to admit.”
  • Partisan gerrymanders: “Decided that federal courts lack the constitutional authority to rule on cases involving legislative and congressional district boundaries designed to favor one political party (known as gerrymanders).”
  • Exclude birth control coverage: “Decided that privately held, for-profit companies may choose not to pay for coverage of prescription birth control in their workers’ health plans if the company’s owner has religious objections.”
  • Upheld travel ban: “Upheld President Donald Trump’s travel ban against citizens of five Muslim-majority countries.”
  • Same-sex marriage: “Established a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.”
  • Right to firearms: “The Second Amendment reads: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ In 2008, the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Public views of past decisions.

	Strongly Oppose	Oppose	Favor	Strongly Favor	Don’t know
Corporate political spending	53	22	11	3	10
Race in admissions	57	21	11	4	7
Partisan gerrymanders	26	19	15	11	29
Exclude birth control coverage	44	19	13	14	10
Upheld travel ban	33	16	19	23	10
Same-sex marriage	23	13	20	36	9
Right to firearm	11	13	27	40	8

Possible future decisions

Some of the future decisions are taken from cases currently on the Court’s docket while others are hypothetical. These questions asked how much the respondent would favor or oppose the outcome as described. Possible decisions included overturning Roe v. Wade; striking down the Affordable Care Act; allowing business owners to deny services to gay people for religious reasons; allowing the Trump administration to end the DACA program; extending protections against employment discrimination to cover gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals; allowing public funds that support students attending private schools to also include those attending religious schools; and deciding that a ban on semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment. The full question wording and the short description used in the table below follows.

• Possible future decisions: “How much do you favor or oppose the following possible Supreme Court decisions?”
  • Overturn Roe v. Wade: “Overturn Roe versus Wade, thus striking down the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in all 50 states.”
  • End DACA: “Decide the administration can end the DACA program that allows young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children to register and avoid immediate deportation.”
  • Deny service to gay people: “Decide that a business owner’s religious beliefs or free speech rights can justify refusing some services to gay people.”
  • Public funds for religious school students: “Decide that a program that financially supports students attending private schools may also include religious schools without violating the constitution.”
  • Strike down ACA: “Strike down the 2010 health care reform law, also called Obamacare, by declaring it unconstitutional.”
  • Second Amendment prohibits semi-automatic rifle ban: “Decide that a ban on semi-automatic rifles violates the Second Amendment and thus is unconstitutional.”
  • Employment discrimination includes LGBTQ people: “Decide that laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex also apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation of gay, lesbian, or transgender individuals.”

Public views of possible future decisions.

	Strongly Oppose	Oppose	Favor	Strongly Favor	Don’t know
Overturn Roe v. Wade	47	14	13	16	9
End DACA	37	16	20	17	9
Deny service to gay people	40	17	15	19	9
Public funds for religious school students	17	16	31	22	14
Strike down ACA	35	17	15	23	10
Second Amendment prohibits semi-automatic rifle ban	36	17	14	25	8
Employment discrimination includes LGBTQ	18	12	22	39	9

Awareness and perception of justices

We asked respondents if they had never heard of each justice, had heard of each justice but didn’t have an opinion, and if they were aware whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion.

There is considerable variation in awareness of the justices, from 84 percent unable to rate Justice Stephen Breyer to 42 percent for Justice Brett Kavanaugh and 41 percent for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The awareness and favorability ratings of the justices are shown in the table below.

Some justices of the Supreme Court are better known than others. For each of these names, have you never heard of them, heard of them but don’t know enough to have an opinion of them, have a favorable opinion, or have an unfavorable opinion?

	Unfavorable	Unable to rate	Favorable
Breyer	5	84	11
Kagan	7	78	15
Alito	8	78	15
Gorsuch	12	70	18
Roberts	9	66	25
Sotomayor	11	59	30
Thomas	23	49	28
Kavanaugh	32	42	26
Ginsburg	17	41	41

Just over one in four respondents lacked enough information to rate even a single justice, with an additional 11 percent able to rate only one justice. Just over a third of respondents said that they were able to rate a majority of the justices.

Number of justices able to rate, full scale

Response	Percent
0	28
1	11
2	9
3	9
4	9
5	8
6	8
7	6
8	4
9	8

Factual knowledge

We measure knowledge of the Court and the Constitution through four items, assessing understanding of judicial review, the authority of the Court over the president, the location of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution, and which party’s presidents have appointed a majority of the current Court.

Does the Supreme Court have the power to review laws passed by Congress and to declare them invalid if they conflict with the Constitution?

Response	Percent
Yes, the Supreme Court has this power	86
No, the Supreme Court does not have this power	14

If the Supreme Court rules against the president in a case, does the president have the power to ignore that ruling, or is the president required to do as the ruling says?

Response	Percent
The president has the power to ignore the ruling	23
The president is required to do as the ruling says	77

Which part of the Constitution is called the ‘Bill of Rights’?

Response	Percent
Article I	9
Article II	3
Article III	2
Amendments 1-10	52
Amendments 13-15	1
I don’t know	33

What is your guess as to whether a majority of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents?

Response	Percent
Definitely Democratic Majority	4
Probably Democratic Majority	23
Probably Republican Majority	54
Definitely Republican Majority	19

(The correct answer is Republican. Five were appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democratic presidents.)

We can sum up the correct answers to create a knowledge score for each respondent, ranging from zero to four correct answers.

Knowledge of factual information, full scale

Response	Percent
0	2
1	6
2	25
3	39
4	29

 

How the public thinks justices decide and how it thinks they should decide

While some see the Court as driven by politics, a near two-to-one majority say that justices base their decisions primarily on the law.

In general, what most often motivates Supreme Court justices’ decisions?

Response	Percent
Mainly politics	36
Mainly the law	64

A majority say that justices should base their decisions on an evolving meaning of the Constitution rather than on what the Constitution was originally understood to mean.

How should Supreme Court justices base their decisions? On their interpretations of what the U.S. Constitution was understood to mean when it was originally written or on the Constitution as a document whose meaning may have evolved over time?

Response	Percent
Original meaning	43
Evolving meaning	57

A majority of the public believes that a decision should produce a “fair” outcome rather than strictly follow the law if that would produce an unfair outcome.

Which is more important, a decision that leads to a fair outcome or one that follows the law, even if seemingly unfair?

Response	Percent
That leads to a fair outcome	56
That follows the law, even if seemingly unfair	44

In thinking about the qualities important in a justice, the public puts greater emphasis on good judgment and empathy, followed by respect for existing decisions. Following a judicial philosophy was deemed least important. (In this table “not at all important” and “not very important” are combined as “unimportant.”)

• “How important is it for a good Supreme Court justice to have each of these characteristics?”
  • “Be able to empathize with ordinary people; that is, to be able to understand how the law hurts or helps the people”
  • “Exercise good judgment and wisdom in the application of the law rather than only strict technical compliance with the law as it is written”
  • “Respect for existing Supreme Court decisions”
  • “Interpret the law according to the justice’s judicial philosophy, whether liberal or conservative” 

How important is it for a good Supreme Court justice to have each of these characteristics?

	Unimportant	Somewhat	Very
Empathy	10	21	69
Good judgment	10	25	65
Respect precedent	12	44	44
Judicial philosophy	26	31	43

The Court and opinions of the president

Appointments to the Supreme Court emerged as an important element in the 2016 presidential campaign when then-candidate Donald Trump released a list of names from which he pledged to select nominees to the Court. With two subsequent appointments to the Court, this issue has remained salient as a congressional issue as well.

Asked how much they approve of President Trump’s handling of Supreme Court appointments, 43 percent approve, and 57 percent disapprove.

[Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court] How much do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling the following issues?

Response	Percent
Strongly approve	22
Somewhat approve	21
Somewhat disapprove	19
Strongly disapprove	38

For comparison, 40 percent approve of President Trump’s handling of his job overall, while 60 percent disapprove, a slightly worse overall approval rating than for his handling of court nominations.

Overall, how much do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president?

Response	Percent
Strongly approve	20
Somewhat approve	20
Somewhat disapprove	14
Strongly disapprove	46

Asked about their confidence in a future Trump nominee, 32 percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence, 13 percent have some, while 56 percent say they have little or no confidence that the next nominee will be the right kind of person for the Court.

If there is another opening on the Supreme Court, how much confidence do you have that President Donald Trump will select the right kind of person to sit on the Supreme Court?

Response	Percent
A great deal of confidence	19
Quite a lot of confidence	13
Some confidence	13
Very little confidence	19
None at all	37

Views of presidential performance overall and of judicial matters are, unsurprisingly, closely tied to partisanship, with nearly identical correlations of 0.74 and 0.73, respectively.

Approval of Trump’s handling of nominations to the Supreme Court by party identification

	Strongly approve	Somewhat approve	Somewhat disapprove	Strongly disapprove
Republican	59	30	7	4
Lean Republican	39	41	12	8
Independent	7	28	31	34
Lean Democrat	1	5	31	63
Democrat	2	7	22	69

A multivariate model of overall Trump job approval, including the effects of partisanship and ideology, finds that approval of court nominations has a strong and statistically significant relationship with overall job approval. The favorability rating of Justice Kavanaugh is also a statistically significant predictor of job approval, while the rating of Trump’s other appointee, Justice Gorsuch, is not statistically significant.

Opinion on handling of nominations also has statistically significant effects on vote choice for president in 2020. A multivariate model that predicts vote if the final election is between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden and if the final election is between Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren results in similar conclusions. The model, which includes partisanship, ideology, and overall job approval, finds that there is an additional statistically significant effect of approval of court nominations, and of favorability to Kavanaugh, with no statistically significant effect for favorability to Gorsuch.

While other factors such as party, ideology, and overall performance are powerful predictors of vote choice, the statistical model supports the idea that court appointments are an additional factor in evaluations of presidential performance and in vote choice.

A more detailed analysis of the survey findings is available at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/

About the Marquette Law School Poll

The survey was conducted Sept. 3-13, 2019, interviewing 1,423 adults nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-3.6 percentage points. Interviews were conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) using its AmeriSpeak Panel, a national probability sample, with interviews conducted online. The detailed methodology statement, complete survey instrument, topline results, and crosstabs are available at https://law.marquette.edu/poll/category/results-and-data/.

---

About Kevin Conway

Kevin is the associate director for university communication in the Office of University Relations. Contact Kevin at (414) 288-4745 or kevin.m.conway@marquette.edu.