Abstract In McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court tasked legislatures, rather than courts, with redressing racial disparities in capital punishment. Elected officials must then decide to amend disparate death penalty procedures. Analyzing floor debates, we explore why legislators make arguments for racial disparity or fairness in deliberations of death penalty reforms. Results suggest views on race and the death penalty are products of partisanship, constituency composition, and the race/ethnicity of legislators, with the interaction of these factors being most predictive of argumentation. Findings illuminate who leads discourse on fairness in criminal justice and the limits of legislative responses to racial injustice.

中文翻译：

---

谁向死刑的差异提出挑战？：关于死刑改革的州立法机构辩论的分析

摘要在McCleskey诉Kemp案中，最高法院责成立法机构而非法院，以纠正死​​刑中的种族差异。然后民选官员必须决定修改不同的死刑程序。通过分析场内辩论，我们探讨了立法者为何在审议死刑改革时就种族差异或公平提出争论。结果表明，关于种族和死刑的观点是党派，选区组成以及立法者的种族/民族的产物，而这些因素的相互作用最能说明论点。调查结果阐明了谁领导着关于刑事司法公正和立法对种族不公制的限制。