Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Incumbents overwhelmingly prevail in state courts in 2016 elections
| 2016 State Judicial Elections |
|---|
 |
| Part 1: Overview |
| Part 2: Supreme Courts |
| Part 3: Partisanship |
| Part 4: Changes in 2016 |
By Cindy Kehler
Thirty-four states held elections for state supreme court and state court of appeals judges in 2016. These elections were either competitive partisan elections, competitive nonpartisan elections, or retention elections. Two states (Illinois and New Mexico) held both retention and partisan competitive elections. In retention elections, voters are asked to vote "yes" or "no" to the question of whether a particular judge should remain on the bench for another term; these judges have no election opponents.
Whether a competitive election or a retention election, by far the most common result is that an incumbent judge is re-elected. In a few states, a particular judge or court may be the subject of heightened scrutiny in any given year, and such a judge will be at greater risk for re-election defeat. But widespread defeat of incumbents is almost unheard of at the state-court level.
In 2016, this general trend held true. Incumbents suffered defeat in only a few courts, and no judge up for retention rather than competitive election failed to be retained. In addition, only one state supreme court saw a change in its partisan affiliation, from Republican-affiliated to Democratic-affiliated.
Retention
All 120 judges up for retention on all state supreme courts and courts of appeals were retained in 2016. While retention is not always a 100 percent guarantee—three justices were removed in Iowa in 2010, for example—retention is a pretty safe bet.[1] In the state of Kansas, no supreme court justice has ever failed to be retained, a record that continued this year, as five justices standing for retention were retained despite coordinated opposition to four of the five.
| 2016 State Judicial Elections | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Judges retained | State | Judges retained |
| Alaska | 3/3 seats | Maryland | 5/5 seats |
| Arizona | 7/7 seats | Missouri | 3/3 seats |
| Colorado | 11/11 seats | Nebraska | 7/7 seats |
| Florida | 31/31 seats | New Mexico | 4/4 seats |
| Illinois | 7/7 seats | Oklahoma | 7/7 seats |
| Indiana | 4/4 seats | Tennessee | 10/10 seats |
| Iowa | 7/7 seats | Wyoming | 3/3 seats |
| Kansas | 11/11 seats | ||
Competitive election of state supreme court judges
Incumbent supreme court justices standing for either re-election or election following appointment (not retention) in 2016 overwhelmingly prevailed. Only three of 33 incumbents were defeated—one each in North Carolina, West Virginia, and Texas. Two of these three incumbents—in North Carolina and West Virginia—sat on courts with only one seat up for election in 2016.
In another contentious one-seat election—Wisconsin, in April—the incumbent, a recent appointment by Governor Scott Walker (R), was elected.
In North Carolina—and only North Carolina—the defeat of the incumbent justice resulted in a political shift on the court. The North Carolina Supreme Court will now carry a balance of 4-3 Democratic-affiliated justices, shifted from 4-3 Republican-affiliated.
| Court | Partisan control | Seats up for election | Incumbent re-elected? |
Partisan switch? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 5 conservatives 2 liberals |
1 conservative seat | Yes | No; 5-2 Republican-affiliated |
| West Virginia Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 3 liberals 2 conservatives |
1 conservative seat | No | No; 3-2 Democratic-affiliated |
| North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 4 conservatives 3 liberals |
1 conservative seat | No | Yes; now 4-3 Democratic-affiliated |
| Texas Court of Criminal Appeals elections, 2016 | 8 Republicans 1 Democrat |
2 (R) seats & 1 (D) seat |
1 (R) Yes 1 (D) No 1 (R) did not run |
No; now 9-0 Republican |
The following chart provides a state-by-state picture of incumbent supreme court justice status in the 2016 elections.
Recent appointments
Most states use some form of assisted appointment for judges. In some states, appointment is the only way to be seated on the court initially, and after appointment, an appointed judge must then stand for election or retention. Some states use appointment primarily for midterm replacements—appointing successors to judges who step down before the end of their elected terms. Most states require appointed judges to stand for either election or retention at a certain time after their appointments.
In 2016, all 22 state supreme court justices standing for election (either competitive or retention) for the first time following their appointments were elected.
| Court | Newly appointed incumbents | Elected or retained |
|---|---|---|
| New Mexico Supreme Court | Judith Nakamura (R) | Elected 
|
| Michigan Supreme Court | Joan Larsen (R) | Elected
|
| Minnesota Supreme Court | Natalie Hudson | Elected
|
| Mississippi Supreme Court | Dawn Beam Jimmy Maxwell |
Elected Elected
|
| Montana Supreme Court | Jim Shea | Elected
|
| North Dakota Supreme Court | Lisa Fair McEvers | Elected
|
| Oregon Supreme Court | Lynn Nakamoto | Elected
|
| Wisconsin Supreme Court | Rebecca Bradley | Elected
|
| Alaska Supreme Court | Joel Bolger Peter J. Maassen |
Retained Retained
|
| Arizona Supreme Court | Ann Timmer | Retained
|
| Colorado Supreme Court | William W. Hood | Retained
|
| Kansas Supreme Court | Caleb Stegall | Retained
|
| Maryland Supreme Court | Michele D. Hotten | Retained
|
| Nebraska Supreme Court | William Cassel | Retained
|
| Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals | Rob Hudson | Retained
|
| Tennessee Supreme Court | Jeff Bivins Holly Kirby Roger A. Page |
Retained Retained Retained
|
| Wyoming Supreme Court | Kate M. Fox Keith G. Kautz |
Retained Retained
|
Footnotes
| ||||||||||
