Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye by the numbers

Today, we're continuing our series of data-driven profiles of the justices of the California Supreme Court. Our third subject, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, was sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011, after her appointment by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The chief justice had previously served as an associate justice of the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

Of course, any analytics profile of the chief justice necessarily gives only a partial picture of her tenure, since a substantial part of her duties involve administering the state-wide court system. As the state's ranking judicial officer, the chief justice has promoted bail reform, noting the impact of unaffordable bail on those accused of criminal acts. She has been a strong advocate with the Legislature for increasing the funding for both the courts and the bar. She has also emphasized the importance of California's courthouses being a safe zone for all Californians to come to resolve their differences without risking arrest by Immigration officials.

To date, the chief justice has voted in 270 civil cases and 431 criminal, quasi-criminal, juvenile, disciplinary and mental health cases. She has written 39 majority opinions in civil cases -- 14.44% of the cases she has participated in. Her two busiest years were 2015 and 2018, when she wrote seven and eight majority opinions, respectively. Aside from her first year, the chief's lightest year on the civil side was 2014, when she wrote only two majority opinions. The chief justice has written 65 majority opinions in criminal cases, or 15.08% of her total cases. The chief justice's busiest year was 2012 when she wrote 12 majority opinions and her lightest years were 2017 and 2018, with four majorities apiece.

The chief justice has filed concurring opinions in only 1.85% of the civil cases she has participated in and 0.46% of the criminal cases. The numbers are roughly reversed with respect to dissents -- the chief justice has filed a dissent in only 0.74% of her civil cases but has dissented in 1.86% of her criminal cases.

A primary focus for most chief justices is promoting unanimity. The court's unanimity rate in civil and criminal cases during the chief justice's tenure is almost identical -- 79.14% in civil cases and 79.64% in criminal cases. Nevertheless, unanimity has tended to fluctuate a bit more on the civil side than on criminal cases during the chief justice's tenure. Between 2011 and 2016, unanimity on the civil side was in the 60s or 70s every year but one (2015). The overall civil average was only pulled up to nearly the same level as the criminal docket by the unanimity rate in 2018 (93.94%) and 2019 (95.24%). On the criminal side during the same years, unanimity was over 80% every year but 2011 and 2015 and reached 92.31% in 2016.

On the civil side, the chief justice has written 11 opinions on civil procedure, 10 of them majority opinions. She has written nine opinions on constitutional law and government and administrative law; while all nine were majorities in constitutional law, only five of the nine government and administrative law opinions were majorities. The chief justice has written five tort opinions, including four majorities, and two opinions in wills, trusts and estates, both majorities. She has written two opinions each in tax and insurance law, all majority opinions. The chief justice has written two employment law opinions, one a majority and one majority opinion in election law. Finally, she has written one opinion each in domestic relations, environmental law and contract; each of these opinions was a majority.

Thirty-four of the 50 civil cases in which the chief justice wrote an opinion were unanimous decisions. Thirty-two of those 34 decisions were majority opinions. The chief justice has written two majority opinions in 6-1 civil cases, two in 5-2 cases and three in 4-3 cases. The chief justice's civil concurrences have been evenly spread out: two in 7-0 cases, two in 6-1 cases and one in a 5-2 case. Neither of the chief justice's civil dissents were in a sharply divided case -- one was a 6-1 decision and the other was a 5-4.

In our previous profiles, we've suggested that the frequency with which a justice is in the majority gives a rough approximation of how in sync with the court's consensus he or she is. The chief justice has been in the majority in 97.41% of her civil cases and 96.75% of her criminal cases. On the civil side, the chief's "lowest" year was 2016, when she voted with the majority in 94.44% of civil cases. On the criminal side, her lowest year was 2017, when the Chief voted with the majority in 90.48% of cases.

Most of the chief justice's opinions in criminal cases have involved death penalty cases -- 35 opinions in all, 33 of them majorities. The chief justice has written 10 opinions each in sentencing and criminal procedure; nine of the sentencing cases and eight of the criminal procedure cases were majorities. The chief justice has written six constitutional law opinions, four of them majorities. The chief justice has written four opinions in juvenile cases (three majorities) and four in habeas corpus cases (all majorities). Both of the chief's opinions about sexual offenses were majority opinions. Finally, she has written one opinion each involving property crimes, attorney regulation and discipline and violent crimes -- all three of these opinions were majorities.

The chief justice has written majority opinions in 52 unanimous criminal decisions, six cases involving 6-1 votes, five cases where the vote was 5-2 and two cases which were 4-3. She has saved her dissents for cases where the court was badly split: three were in 5-2 cases and five were decided by 4-3 votes.

Next, we assess which justices' voting patterns were mostly closely aligned with the chief justice's. We calculate agreement rates by first excluding unanimous decisions. This is done in order to make divisions easier to see in the data; given that three-quarters of the court's cases are decided unanimously, agreement rates across the entire docket would be uniformly very high.

In her first three years, the chief justice was most closely aligned with Justice Kathryn Werdegar, agreeing with her in 84.21% of non-unanimous civil cases. Justices Carol Corrigan and Marvin Baxter were next, with agreement rates at 77.78% and 76.47%, but after that, we see a mild surprise: an agreement rate between the chief justice and Justice Goodwin Liu of 75%. The chief justice agreed with Justice Ming Chin in 70.59% of cases, and with Justice Joyce Kennard only 52.63% of the time.

The chief justice's agreement rate with Justice Corrigan rose a bit between 2014 and 2016. Justice Liu was down slightly (73.91%), as was Justice Chin (65.22%) and Justice Werdegar was down somewhat more (73.91%). The chief justice agreed with new Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar in 75% of non-unanimous civil cases, and with Justice Leondra Kruger 62.5% of the time.

From 2017 to 2019, Justice Corrigan remained steady at 75% and Justice Kruger was at 66.67%. Justices Werdegar (87.5%) and Chin (83.33%) regained some of the ground they lost between 2014 and 2016. But Justices Cuéllar and Liu were both comparatively low, agreeing with the chief justice in only half of non-unanimous civil decisions.

Philosophical divisions are a bit clearer on the criminal side than on the civil cases. The chief justice's closest voting record matches are probably Justices Chin and Corrigan, and Justice Baxter prior to his retirement. Agreement rates with appointees of Democratic governors are generally much lower.

Between 2011 and 2013, the chief justice's agreement rate was 90.91% with Justice Chin, 87.88% with Justice Baxter and 84.85% with Justice Corrigan. Her agreement rate with Justice Werdegar was 66.67% and with Justice Kennard, 54.55%. The chief's agreement rate with Justice Liu on non-unanimous criminal cases was only 58.33%.

For the years 2014 to 2016, the chief justice's agreement rate with Justices Chin (82.61%) and Corrigan (78.26%) remained high. The chief voted with Justice Werdegar in 65.22% of cases, and with new Justice Cuéllar 63.64% of the time. She voted with Justice Liu in only 56.52% of non-unanimous criminal cases.

The pattern has remained similar from 2017 to 2019. The chief justice's agreement rate with Justice Corrigan is 90% and with Justice Chin, 80%. The chief justice has agreed with Justice Kruger 70% of the time, and with Justice Werdegar in 58.33% of cases. Finally, the chief justice has agreed with Justice Cuéllar in 53.33% of cases, and with Justice Liu only 26.67% of the time.

We conclude with the court's oral arguments across the last three years. For readers who aren't familiar with the academic studies of oral argument analytics, each has reached similar conclusions: (1) the side asked the most questions is more likely to lose; and (2) the same rule applies for individual justices -- more heavily questioning one side usually indicates the justices is voting against that party.

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye ranks roughly in the middle of the court in the frequency of her questioning, generally averaging slightly more questions of appellants (particularly in criminal cases) than of respondents. In 2017 civil cases, the chief justice averaged 3.63 questions in appellants' opening argument, 3.93 of respondents, and 0.71 during rebuttal. On the criminal side, she averaged 4.02 questions in appellants' opening, 2.66 of respondents and 0.29 in rebuttal. In 2018 civil cases, the chief justice averaged 4.17 questions during appellants' opening, 4.9 of respondents and 0.8 in rebuttals. On the criminal side, she averaged 2.62 in appellants' opening, 2.26 of respondents and 0.3 in rebuttals. So far in civil cases decided this year, the chief justice has averaged 3.33 questions in appellants' opening, 3.14 of respondents and 1 during rebuttal. In criminal cases, she has averaged 3.42 questions in opening, 2.27 of respondents and 0.58 in rebuttal.

In civil cases where she is voting with the majority, the chief justice follows the expected pattern, more heavily questioning the party who will lose the case. In 2017 civil affirmances, she averaged 4.73 questions in appellants' openings, three to respondents and 0.07 in rebuttal. The next year in affirmances, she averaged 5.92 questions in openings, 3.15 to respondents and 0.69 in rebuttals. This year so far, she has averaged 4.88 questions in openings, 2.75 to respondents and 1.13 in rebuttals.

As for reversals, in 2017, the chief justice averaged three questions in appellants' openings, 4.65 to respondents and 0.96 in rebuttals. The next year, she averaged 2.93 questions in openings, 6.71 to respondents and one in rebuttals. So far this year, she has averaged 2.33 questions in openings, 3.67 t respondents and one in rebuttals.

The chief justice has largely followed the expected pattern on the criminal side too, more heavily questioning the losing side. In 2017 affirmances, she averaged 4.5 questions in appellants' openings, 2.09 to respondents and 0.18 in rebuttals. The following year, she averaged 2.72 in openings, 1.69 to respondents and 0.28 in rebuttals. This year to date, she has averaged 2.75 questions in openings, 1.83 questions to respondents and 0.25 questions in rebuttals.

As for reversals, in 2017, the chief justice averaged 2.94 questions in openings, 3.41 to respondents and 0.41 in rebuttals. In 2018, she averaged 2.29 questions in openings, 3.24 to respondents and 0.35 in rebuttals. Only this year (so far) has broken the pattern: in criminal reversals, the chief justice has averaged four questions in appellants' openings, 2.64 to respondents and 0.86 during rebuttals.

The data demonstrates the scope of Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye's influence on the Supreme Court. She nearly always votes with the majority, both in civil and criminal cases. The agreement rate data places her squarely in the middle of the court's ideological consensus: moderate occasionally tending liberal in civil cases, somewhat more conservative in criminal cases. Notwithstanding her heavy administrative responsibilities, the chief justice writes a proportional share of the court's majority opinions, and in the very rare criminal case where the chief justice is in the minority, the court is likely to be sharply split. 