Competitive Elections

Elected judges face voters in three ways: partisan elections (candidates have party labels), nonpartisan elections, and retention elections, in which only the incumbent is on the ballot and  voters decide whether to grant another term.

Partisan elections are the most costly. From 2000 to 2009, candidates in the nine partisan states raised nearly $153.8 million, while candidates in the 13 nonpartisan states raised $50.9 million. Only $2.2 million was raised by incumbents facing retention elections in that period.

The biggest concern about competitive elections is money. Polls show that most Americans believe litigants can gain an unfair advantage in court by spending heavily to elect a judge or judges hearing the case. See Caperton v. Massey in-depth issues guide, Money & Elections.

22 states* hold at least some competitive elections for state Supreme Court and appellate judges. Eight states use partisan elections, while the remaining 14 are nonpartisan.

An additional 10 states elect at least some major trial court judges. Thus, a total of 32 states holds competitive elections for at least some appellate and major trial court judges. (An additional seven states hold retention elections, raising to 39 the total of states where at least some appellate and major trial judges face voters).

To learn more, see:

• "Your State" National Map
  
• Appointment/Retention Systems
• American Judicature Society Judicial Selection Materials

*New Mexico has a hybrid system. Justices are appointed but must then face one competitive election.