Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship/Confidence Scores

← Retention Elections and Vacancy Appointments

State Partisanship

Main page

PDF Version

Overview

Methodology and defintions • Overview of Confidence Scoring Results • State Supreme Court Control Compared to State Government Trifectas • Breakdown of Justices by Confidence Categories

The Most and Least Divided State Supreme Courts

The Least Homogeneous State Supreme Courts • The Most Homogeneous State Supreme Courts • The Percentage of the Population that Lives in States with Democratic- or Republican-Controlled Courts

Judicial Selection Methods and Partisanship

Partisanship of Justices Across Judicial Selection Methods • Comparison of Appointment Methods by Court Balance Score and Median Court Score • Difficulties with Our Analysis of Pure Partisanship Scores by Selection Method

Partisan Balance Rules

Retention Elections and Vacancy Appointments

Retention Elections • Vacancy Appointments

Confidence Scores

Highest Confidence Scores • Indeterminate Justice Confidence Scores • Pure Partisan Scores

June 2020

Jump to:

• Highest confidence scores
• Indeterminate Justice Confidence Scores
• Pure partisan scores

Highest confidence scores

Many states hold partisan elections for state supreme court, yet the judicial code of conduct discourages justices from political activity. In this section, we list some of the justices who recorded the highest Confidence Scores.

The code of conduct for United States Judges reads as follows:

“

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity

”

While the judicial code of conduct is binding on every justice in the United States, and all seek to live up to its ideals, it is unclear to what extent Canons 4 and 5 should modify a judge’s behavior outside of the court. For example, should an aspiring judge refrain from partisan political activity? What exactly is the line between “extrajudicial activities” and “political activities?” Although the judicial code of conduct asks judges to refrain from political activity, six states hold partisan elections for state supreme court seats, and two states hold partisan primaries before a nonpartisan general election. In short, partisan activity and judicial selection have become blended in several states across the country.

Our justice Confidence Scores rely on data drawn from a justice’s political activity before they took the bench and should not be taken as a measure of the extent to which a justice has broken the fifth canon of the judicial code of conduct. Our confidence measure seeks to inform citizens of the partisan affiliations of justices before their selection to the state supreme court.

The justices for whom we have the most confidence of their Democratic political affiliation are Anne Burke from Illinois and Chris Garrett from Oregon. The justices for whom we have the most confidence in their Republican affiliation are Pat Dewine from Ohio and Kelly Wise from Alabama.

Indeterminate Justice Confidence Scores

Our study recorded 47 justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores, or 13.7% of all justices. Twenty-one states (42%) have no indeterminate justices, and 29 states (58%) have at least one indeterminate justice.

Below is a table which shows the number of justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores by state:

Number of Indeterminate Justices	List of States
1	Arizona, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington
2	Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oklahoma, Vermont, Wisconsin
3	Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana

There are two reasons why a justice might record an Indeterminate Confidence Score in our study.

• Conflicting data: Some justices have conflicting data because they changed their political affiliation. Others may provide conflicting data because they only loosely affiliate with their political party, but have, in some instances, affiliated with the opposite party. Most commonly, justices have recorded Indeterminate Confidence Scores because they are affiliated with one party, but have been appointed by a governor of the opposite party, or have been selected in a state with a trifecta controlled by the opposite party.
• Inadequate data: Other justices record Indeterminate Confidence Scores because the data on their political affiliation is either not available because of a lack of coverage of state supreme court races in the state, or because the justice is a recent appointment in a state that does not rely on political parties in its method of selection.

Of the justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores, 19 have Indeterminate Confidence Scores due to inadequate data, and 28 have Indeterminate Confidence Scores due to conflicting data.

Below is a table displaying the justices who recorded Indeterminate Confidence Scores due to inadequate data and conflicting data:

Indeterminate due to conflicting data (28)		Indeterminate due to inadequate data (19)
Alaska	Peter Maassen	Alaska	Susan Carney
Arizona	Ann Timmer	Arkansas	Josephine Hart
Arkansas	Robin Wynne	California	Carol Corrigan
Arkansas	Dan Kemp	Connecticut	Christine Vertefeuille
California	Ming Chin	Kentucky	Samuel T. Wright III
California	Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye	Kentucky	John Minton
Colorado	Carlos Armando Samour Jr.	Louisiana	Marcus Clark
Colorado	Brian Boatright	Maine	Thomas Humphrey
Connecticut	Richard Robinson	Maryland	Brynja McDivitt Booth
Delaware	Karen Valihura	Minnesota	Anne McKeig
Georgia	John Ellington	Missouri	George Draper
Georgia	Michael P. Boggs	Montana	Laurie McKinnon
Iowa	Edward Mansfield	Oklahoma	Noma D. Gurich
Kentucky	Lisabeth Tabor Hughes	Rhode Island	Maureen McKenna Goldberg
Maine	Catherine Connors	Vermont	Harold Eaton
Maryland	Jonathan Biran	Vermont	Karen R. Carroll
Maryland	Michele D. Hotten	Virginia	S. Bernard Goodwyn
Massachusetts	Kimberly S. Budd	Washington	Susan Owens
Massachusetts	Frank Gaziano	Wisconsin	Ann Walsh Bradley
Montana	Dirk M. Sandefur
Montana	Ingrid Gustafson
Nevada	Lidia Stiglich
Nevada	Abbi Silver
New Hampshire	James Bassett
New Jersey	Walter F. Timpone
North Dakota	Gerald VandeWalle
Oklahoma	David B. Lewis
South Carolina	Donald Beatty

Below are examples of partisanship data of the justices for whom we assigned Indeterminate Confidence Scores:

Indeterminates Due to Conflicting Data

Michael P. Boggs, Georgia, Nonpartisan Election

Justice Boggs has donated $2,400 to Democrats and $2,175 to Republicans. He is a former Democratic Member of the Georgia State Legislature. He was appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court by Gov. Nathan Deal (R) at a time when the state was under the control of a Republican Trifecta. He was nominated by President Barack Obama (D) to a federal court but rejected by Democrats in the Senate. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, who led the Judiciary Committee said, "It had become clear after talking to his colleagues that Mr. Boggs, under fire from Democrats for his conservative positions, could not win committee support... Mr. Boggs earns the unusual distinction as the first Obama judicial nominee this term to fail because of Democratic opposition."

Lidia Stiglich, Nevada, Nonpartisan Election

Justice Stiglich is a former member of the Democratic Party. She has donated $2,698.10 to Democratic candidates, among whom was Hillary Clinton in 2016. She is former legal counsel for Lieutenant Gov. Brian K. Krolicki (R). She received campaign donations from the Nevada Board of Education, which donates most frequently to Democratic candidates. She also received endorsements from Republicans, among whom were Lieutenant Gov. Mark Hutchison (R) and Gov. Brian Sandoval (R).

Indeterminates Due to Lack of Data

Below are some examples of state supreme court justices with indeterminate scores due to conflicting partisan data.

Samuel T. Wright III, Kentucky, Nonpartisan Elected

Justice Wright has donated $500 to Republican candidates. Kentucky was a split state government at the time of Wright’s election. Wright was not affiliated with a political party at the time of his election to the court.

Harold Eaton, Vermont, Assisted Appointment

Justice Eaton has donated $400 to Republican candidates. Vermont was under a Democratic-controlled trifecta at the time of his appointment to the court. He was appointed to the supreme court by Gov. Peter Shumlin (D). He was appointed to the Vermont Superior Court by Jim Douglas (R).

Pure Partisan Scores

The average Pure Partisanship Score of state supreme court justices across the United States is 7.1. The average Court Balance Score of the state supreme courts is 1.7.

Pure Partisan Scores by Presidential Term

According to our data, there has been a correlation between state supreme court justice partisanship and the party of the president. In the first four years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the court balance score across the United States was 1.2, a Republican average. In the last four years of Bush’s presidency, the average score was a -0.6, a Democratic average. Following that period, Barack Obama (D) was elected president. In the last four years of Obama’s presidency, the average court balance score was 1.8, a Republican average. Following that period Donald Trump (R) was elected president.

Timeframe	Total Number of Justices	Pure Partisan Aggregate	Pure Partisan Average	Partisan Aggregate	Court Balance Score
1978-2000	27	163	6	39	1.4
2001-2004	29	218	7.5	36	1.2
2005-2008	37	236	6.4	-24	-0.6
2009-2012	57	386	6.8	74	1.3
2013-2016	83	563	6.8	149	1.8
2017-2020	108	829	7.7	293	2.7
Total	341	2,395	7	567	1.7

From 2017-2020 more state supreme court justices took the bench than in any four-year period since 1978. The average Pure Partisanship Score of justices jumped almost a full point from the last four years of Barack Obama’s presidency through the first four years of Donald Trump’s presidency. Those justices provided more partisan data than in previous years, leaning 0.9 points further in the direction of the Republican Party.

Pure Partisan Scores by Year

Year	Total Judges	Partisan Average	Number of Republicans	Number of Democrats	Republican Average	Democrat Average
2000	9	3.2	6	1	6.2	-8
2001	5	-0.6	2	3	11	-8.3
2002	2	-1	1	1	5	-7
2003	10	0.9	5	4	7.4	-7.5
2004	12	2.7	8	4	7.6	-7.3
2005	7	2	3	2	7	-4.5
2006	8	-4.3	2	5	8.5	-10.6
2007	10	-2.8	2	5	6	-7
2008	12	1.9	7	4	7	-7
2009	10	2.4	6	3	7.2	-7.3
2010	11	3.5	7	3	8.9	-8.3
2011	16	-2.9	3	9	7.3	-7.3
2012	20	2.9	10	5	8.8	-7
2013	14	1.5	8	6	8.4	-7.7
2014	15	1.3	7	5	7.6	-6.8
2015	24	-0.6	11	10	6	-8
2016	30	4.1	20	4	8.1	-8.7
2017	36	3.7	23	8	7.7	-5.9
2018	33	2.4	19	10	9.2	-9
2019	29	1.8	16	11	9.9	-9.7
2020	10	3.1	6	3	7.3	-4.7
Totals/
Averages	323	1.7	172	106	8	-7.8

About the authors

Samuel Postell is a staff writer on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team and a lecturer at the University of Dallas.

Luke Seeley is a staff writer on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team.

Heidi Jung developed the graphics.

Ballotpedia CEO Leslie Graves, Ballotpedia COO Gwen Beattie, Editor-in-Chief Geoff Pallay, and Ballotpedia Vice President of external relations Alison Prange reviewed the report and provided feedback as did editor Cory Eucalitto. Outside reviewers included Dr. G. Alan Tarr from Rutgers University, and Dr. Aman McLeod from the University of Idaho College of Law.