State supreme courts

2025 State Judicial Elections
2026 » « 2024
Overview
Supreme Courts Overview
Appellate Courts Overview
View judicial elections by state:
Select a state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSelect court type:Trial courtsAppellate courtsSupreme courtsReset

Each state within the United States, plus the District of Columbia, has at least one supreme court, or court of last resort. Oklahoma and Texas both have two courts of last resort, one for civil appeals and one for criminal appeals.

The supreme courts hear appeals of the decisions made in the lower trial or appellate courts. The number of justices on each court varies between five and nine. The length of a justice's term can be as short as six years or a lifetime appointment.

In eight states, the partisanship of the courts is explicitly labeled as a result of partisan elections. Democrats control three of these states, and Republicans control five. The remaining 42 states do not have explicitly partisan courts. Ballotpedia uses three methods to determine a state court's partisan balance:

1. How many justices were registered members of a political party;
2. The partisan affiliation of the governor who appointed each justice
3. If those methods didn't work, we survey media coverage of the court and its decisions to determine partisan leanings.

On this page, you will find:

• Overview

  A look at every state court, how many members are appointed, and partisan control.
  Read more
• Judicial selection

  Information about how justices are selected.
  Read more
• Analysis

  Information on past elections, plus analysis of win rates and campaign finance.
  Read more

Overview of state supreme courts

There are 344 justices across all 52 state supreme courts, including Oklahoma and Texas' courts of criminal appeals. Each state has a different method for appointing justices and a different length of their terms. Each court also has a different partisan makeup.

The following tabs will show various differences of supreme courts among states:

• The tab "List of courts" lists each state's court of last resort and information about how many justices sit on the court, how a justice is selected, how long their term is, if there's a retirement age, and what the court's partisan control is.
• The tab "Partisan makeup" breaks down which courts have explicitly partisan ones, and visualizes what the make up of the courts were after the 2024 elections based on Ballotpedia's criteria in determining partisanship.

List of courts

Partisan makeup

Click on the following table for an overview of each state's highest court, how many justices sit on the court, the method of appointment, term length, and the partisan makeup based on the partisan affiliation of justices where available, the partisan affiliation of the body appointing the justice and media commentary.

List of US state supreme courts

Court	Number of seats	Method of selection for full-term	Length of full term	Mandatory retirement age	Partisan control
Alabama Supreme Court	9	Partisan elections	6 years	70	Republican
Alaska Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	70	Republican
Arizona Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	70	Republican
Arkansas Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	None	Republican
California Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints with legislative confirmation	12 years	None	Democratic
Colorado Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	72	Democratic
Connecticut Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	70	Democratic
Delaware Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	12 years	None	Democratic
Florida Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	75	Republican
Georgia Supreme Court	9	Nonpartisan election	6 years	None	Republican
Hawaii Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	70	Democratic
Idaho Supreme Court	5	Nonpartisan election	6 years	None	Republican
Illinois Supreme Court	7	Partisan elections	10 years	None	Democratic
Indiana Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	75	Republican
Iowa Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	72	Republican
Kansas Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	75	Democratic
Kentucky Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	None	Split
Louisiana Supreme Court	7	Partisan elections	10 years	70	Republican
Maine Supreme Judicial Court	7	Governor appoints with legislative confirmation	7 years	None	Democratic
Maryland Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	70	Republican
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court	7	Governor appoints with legislative confirmation	Until 70 years of age	70	Republican
Michigan Supreme Court	7	Michigan method	8 years	70	Democratic
Minnesota Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	6 years	70	Democratic
Mississippi Supreme Court	9	Nonpartisan election	8 years	None	Republican
Missouri Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	12 years	70	Republican
Montana Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	None	Democratic
Nebraska Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	None	Republican
Nevada Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	6 years	None	Democratic
New Hampshire Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints with legislative confirmation	Until retirement or the age of 70	70	Republican
New Jersey Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints with legislative confirmation	7 years; until age 70	70	Democratic
New Mexico Supreme Court	5	Partisan elections	8 years	None	Democratic
State of New York Court of Appeals	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	14 years	70	Democratic
Supreme Court of North Carolina	7	Partisan elections	8 years	72	Republican
North Dakota Supreme Court	5	Nonpartisan election	10 years	None	Republican
Ohio Supreme Court	7	Partisan elections	6 years	70	Republican
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	None	Republican
Oklahoma Supreme Court	9	Governor appoints through nominating commission	Initial term 1 year; if retained, 6 years	None	Republican
Oregon Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	6 years	75	Democratic
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	7	Partisan elections	10 years	75	Democratic
Rhode Island Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	Life terms; no mandated retirement	None	Republican
South Carolina Supreme Court	5	Legislative election of judges	10 years	72	Republican
South Dakota Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	70	Republican
Tennessee Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commissionn	8 years	None	Republican
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals	9	Partisan elections	6 years	75	Republican
Texas Supreme Court	9	Partisan elections	6 years	75	Republican
Utah Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	75	Republican
Vermont Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	90	Republican
Supreme Court of Virginia	7	Legislative election of judges	12 years	73	Republican
Washington State Supreme Court	9	Nonpartisan election	6 years	75	Democratic
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia	5	Nonpartisan election	12 years	None	Republican
Wisconsin Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	10 years	None	Democratic
Wyoming Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	70	Republican
Total number of state supreme court justices	344

While most states are nonpartisan, some have justices with explicit partisan affiliations. In other cases, media outlets have identified specific court members as having an ideological leaning, leading some to determine the partisan majority.

Partisan makeup in states with partisan court elections

The following map shows which states have expressly partisan supreme courts due to partisan elections.

Partisan makeup across the United States

Ballotpedia determines the partisan makeup of the courts through the partisan affiliation of justices where available, the partisan affiliation of the body appointing the justice, and media commentary. As of July 2025, Ballotpedia has identified state supreme courts as having the following partisan breakdown:

• Democrats control 19 state supreme courts
• Republicans control 32 state supreme courts
• One state supreme court has a court split.

The following chart shows the number of courts controlled by each party.

Partisan makeup after the 2024 elections

See also: State supreme court elections, 2024

The following map shows the makeup of state supreme court elections after 2024. It does not account for changes that may have occurred after the election:

Selection methods

States may have different methods of selections depending on whether it is for a full-term or to complete an unfonished term. On re-election, justices my be re-elected in a different type of election from the initial type they were elected under. The following tabs break down the differences in selection methods, with deference to when a justice is appointed:

• The tab "Selection methods (full-term)" shows how each state selects a justice for a complete term, such as when a justice is appointed to replace a retiring justice, or a regularly scheduled election is held.
• The tab "Selection methods (to fill vacancies)" shows how each state selects a justice to complete a term when a vacancy happens at an irregular interval.
• The tab "Re-election methods" shows how each state renews a justice's term once the initial term ends.

Click the tabs below to see the various selection methods for state supreme court justices:

Selection methods (full-term)

Selection methods (to fill vacancies)

Re-election methods

See also: Judicial selection in the states

When a justice vacates their seat near the end of their term, or when a justice serving an unexpired term finishes their term, the following selection methods are used. Following the conclusion of a justice's first full term, in states with retention elections, the justice may choose to run in a retention election.

Here is a brief explanation of what these terms mean:

• Partisan election: The justice runs in an election with a stated partisan affiliation.
• Nonpartisan election: The justice runs in an election without a stated partisan affiliation.
• Gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation: The governor picks the justice, with legislative approval.
• Legislative election: A nominating commission picks a justice and the legislature votes to confirm or reject the nominee.
• Michigan method: A justice runs in a partisan primary, and then a nonpartisan general election.
• Assisted appointment: A nominating commission selects several nominees for the court, and the governor picks one. The rules of making up the commission vary by state.
  • A bar-controlled process sees a state bar association pick the majority of the commission's members.
  • A governor-controlled commission sees the governor pick the majority of the commission's members.
  • A hybrid commission sees neither the state bar association nor the governor pick a majority of the commission's members.

The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.

The following chart shows the total number of states using each method.

Partisan elections

Click on the following table for a full list of states that use partisan elections to elect their justices.

List of state supreme courts that use partisan elections to elect their justices

Court	Number of seats	Length of term	Mandatory retirement age	Partisan control
Alabama Supreme Court	9	6 years	70	Republican
Illinois Supreme Court	7	10 years	None	Democratic
Louisiana Supreme Court	7	10 years	70	Republican
New Mexico Supreme Court	5	8 years	None	Democratic
Supreme Court of North Carolina	7	8 years	72	Republican
Ohio Supreme Court	7	6 years	70	Republican
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	7	10 years	75	Democratic
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals	9	6 years	75	Republican
Texas Supreme Court	9	6 years	75	Republican

Nonpartisan elections

Click on the following table for a full list of states that use nonpartisan elections to elect their justices.

List of state supreme courts that use nonpartisan elections to select their justices

Court	Number of seats	Length of term	Mandatory retirement age	Partisan control
Arkansas Supreme Court	7	8 years	None	Republican
Georgia Supreme Court	9	6 years	None	Republican
Idaho Supreme Court	5	6 years	None	Republican
Kentucky Supreme Court	7	8 years	None	Split
Minnesota Supreme Court	7	6 years	70	Democratic
Mississippi Supreme Court	9	8 years	None	Republican
Montana Supreme Court	7	8 years	None	Democratic
Nevada Supreme Court	7	6 years	None	Democratic
North Dakota Supreme Court	5	10 years	None	Republican
Oregon Supreme Court	7	6 years	75	Democratic
Washington State Supreme Court	9	6 years	75	Democratic
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia	5	12 years	None	Republican
Wisconsin Supreme Court	7	10 years	None	Democratic.

Gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation

Click on the following table for a full list of states using gubernatorial appointments with legislative confirmation to select their justices.

List of state supreme courts where the governor appoints justices with legislative confirmation

Court	Number of seats	Length of term	Mandatory retirement age	Party of governor
California Supreme Court	7	12 years	None	Democratic
Maine Supreme Judicial Court	7	7 years	None	Democratic
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court	7	Until 70 years of age	70	Democratic
New Hampshire Supreme Court	5	Until retirement or the age of 70	70	Republican
New Jersey Supreme Court	7	7 years; until age 70	70	Democratic

Legislative election

Click on the following table for a full list of states that use legislative elections in the selection of their justices.

List of state supreme courts that use legislative elections

Court	Number of seats	Length of term	Mandatory retirement age	Partisan control
South Carolina Supreme Court	5	10 years	72	Republican
Supreme Court of Virginia	7	12 years	73	Democratic

Michigan method

The Michigan method is a system in which a justice is nominated through a partisan convention and then runs in a nonpartisan general election. Click on the following table for a full list of states that use the in the election of their justices.

List of state supreme courts that use the Michigan method

Court	Number of seats	Length of term	Mandatory retirement age	Partisan control
Michigan Supreme Court	7	8 years	70	Democratic

Assisted appointments

Assisted appointments refer to when a judicial nominating commission and the governor work in tandem to pick a nominee. The type of assisted appointment can differ by state. There are three possible methods:

• A bar-controlled process is when the state bar association picks the majority of commission members. This process is used in one state.
• A governor-controlled commission is when the governor picks the majority of the commission members. This process is used in eight states.
• A hybrid commission differs by state, but neither the state bar association nor the governor gets to pick a majority of members. This process is used in nine states.

Click on the following table for a full list of states that use assisted appointments in the initial selection of their justices.

List of state supreme courts that use assisted appointments to initially select justices

Court	Number of seats	Commission control	Length of term	Mandatory retirement age	Party of governor
Alaska Supreme Court	5	Hybrid	10 years	70	Republican
Arizona Supreme Court	7	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	6 years	70	Democratic
Colorado Supreme Court	7	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	10 years	72	Democratic
Connecticut Supreme Court	7	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	8 years	70	Democratic
Delaware Supreme Court	5	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	12 years	None	Democratic
Florida Supreme Court	7	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	6 years	75	Republican
Hawaii Supreme Court	5	Hybrid	10 years	70	Democratic
Indiana Supreme Court	5	Hybrid	10 years	75	Republican
Iowa Supreme Court	7	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	8 years	72	Republican
Kansas Supreme Court	7	Bar controlled	6 years	75	Democratic
Maryland Supreme Court	7	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	10 years	70	Democratic
Missouri Supreme Court	7	Hybrid	12 years	70	Republican
Nebraska Supreme Court	7	Hybrid	6 years	None	Republican
State of New York Court of Appeals	7	Hybrid	14 years	70	Democratic
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals	5	Hybrid	6 years	None	Republican
Oklahoma Supreme Court	9	Hybrid	Initial term 1 year; if retained, 6 years	None	Republican
Rhode Island Supreme Court	5	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	Life terms; no mandated retirement	None	Democratic
South Dakota Supreme Court	5	Hybrid	8 years	70	Republican
Tennessee Supreme Court	5	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	8 years	None	Republican
Utah Supreme Court	5	Assisted appointment (governor-controlled commission)	10 years	75	Republican
Vermont Supreme Court	5	Hybrid	6 years	90	Republican
Wyoming Supreme Court	5	Hybrid	8 years	70	Republican

See also: Judicial selection in the states

The map below shows how each state fills vacancies in the middle of a justice's term. After the succeeding justice serves out the remainder of their predecessor's term, states will use full-term selection methods to select a justice to serve a full term. Depending on the state, the incumbent justice can be selected again using a state's full-term selection method.

Here is a brief explanation of what these terms mean:

• Gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation: The governor picks the justice, with legislative approval.
• Governor from nominating commission list: A nominating commission selects several nominees for the court, and the governor picks one.
• Legislative election: A nominating commission picks a justice, and the legislature votes to confirm or reject the nominee.
• Special election: A special election is scheduled, and candidates can run for the vacant seat. The state that uses it, Louisiana, uses partisan elections.
• State Supreme Court: The state supreme court picks a justice to fill the vacancy.

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.

The following chart shows the total number of states using each method.

Governor fills vacancy

Click on the following table for a full list of states where the governor fills vacancies on the state supreme court.

State supreme courts where governors fill vacancies

Court	Party of governor
Alabama Supreme Court	Republican
Arkansas Supreme Court	Republican
California Supreme Court	Democratic
Maine Supreme Judicial Court	Democratic
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court	Democratic
Michigan Supreme Court	Democratic
Minnesota Supreme Court	Democratic
Mississippi Supreme Court	Republican
Montana Supreme Court	Republican
New Jersey Supreme Court	Democratic
Supreme Court of North Carolina	Democratic
Ohio Supreme Court	Republican
Oregon Supreme Court	Democratic
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Democratic
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals	Republican
Texas Supreme Court	Republican
Washington State Supreme Court	Democratic
Wisconsin Supreme Court	Democratic

Governors pick from nominating commission

Click on the following table for a full list of states where the governor picks from a list provided by a nominating commission on the state supreme court.

Legislature fills vacancy

Click on the following table for a full list of states where the state legislature fills vacancies on the state supreme court.

List of US state supreme courts where the legislature fills a vacancy

Court	Partisan control of legislature
South Carolina Supreme Court	Republican
Supreme Court of Virginia	Democratic

Special election to fill vacancy

Click on the following table for a full list of states where a special election is held to fill vacancies on the state supreme court.

List of US state supreme courts that use special elections to fill vacancies

Court	Type of election
Louisiana Supreme Court	Partisan

State supreme courts fill vacancy

Click on the following table for a full list of states where the state supreme court fills vacancies on the state supreme court.

List of US state supreme courts where the court picks the replacement

Court	Partisan control
Illinois Supreme Court	Democratic

See also: Judicial selection in the states

The procedure for renewing a justice's term varies by state and, in some cases, can be different from the initial selection process.

Here is a brief explanation of what these terms mean:

• Partisan election: The justice runs in an election with a stated partisan affiliation.
• Nonpartisan election: The justice runs in an election without a stated partisan affiliation.
• Retention election: The justice doesn't directly run for election. Voters choose whether to keep the justice or not. If a justice is removed, what happens to them varies by state.
• Gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation: The governor reappoints the justice, with legislative approval.
• Legislative election: A nominating commission picks a justice and the legislature votes to re-confirm or reject the nominee.
• Michigan method: A justice runs in a partisan primary, and then a nonpartisan general election.
• Assisted appointment: A nominating commission re-selects the justice, and the governor picks one.

The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country, in those states that have retention as a valid selection method.

The following chart shows the total number of states using each method.

States that don't use elections

In 11 states, justices can be reappointed by the governor, the state legislature, a judicial commission, or a combination of these.

Click on the following table for a list of states that reappoint justices through non-electoral means:

State supreme courts that use non-electoral methods

Court	Number of seats	Method of selection	Length of term	Party of governor
Connecticut Supreme Court	7	Governor re-appoints, and the general assembly approves	8 years	Democratic
Delaware Supreme Court	5	Judicial commission decides	12 years	Democratic
Hawaii Supreme Court	5	Judicial commission decides	10 years	Democratic
Maine Supreme Judicial Court	7	Governor re-appoints and the senate approves	7 years	Democratic
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court	7	Governor re-appoints and the senate approves	7 years	Democratic
New Hampshire Supreme Court	5	None	None	Republican
New Jersey Supreme Court	7	Governor re-appoints and the senate approves	7 years	Democratic
State of New York Court of Appeals	7	Governor re-appoints and the senate approves	14 years	Democratic
South Carolina Supreme Court	5	Legislature votes for justice	10 years	Republican
Vermont Supreme Court	5	Legislature votes for justice	6 years	Republican
Supreme Court of Virginia	7	Legislature votes for justice	12 years	Republican

States that use elections

See also: Judicial selection in the states

State supreme court elections are primarily contested in three ways: partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and retention elections.

Thirty-eight states hold elections to re-elect state supreme court justices for another term.

Partisan election of judges

In a partisan election, candidates may be nominated by political parties or declare their party affiliations upon filing to stand in the election. Primaries are typically held to narrow down the candidates to one per party before the general election; some states hold primaries in which candidates of all parties compete with each other and the top vote-getters advance regardless of party.

Click on the following table for a list of states that use partisan elections:

State supreme courts that use partisan elections to re-elect justices

Court	Number of seats	Initial method of selection	Length of term	Partisan control
Alabama Supreme Court	9	Partisan elections	6 years	Republican
Louisiana Supreme Court	7	Partisan election	10 years	Republican
Supreme Court of North Carolina	7	Partisan election	8 years	Republican
Ohio Supreme Court	7	Partisan elections	6 years	Republican
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals	9	Partisan election	6 years	Republican
Texas Supreme Court	9	Partisan election	6 years	Republican

Nonpartisan election of judges

In a nonpartisan election, some states allow candidates to declare their party affiliations, while others prohibit them from doing so. If primaries are held, they do not narrow the candidates to one per party; instead, they typically narrow the candidates to two for each seat, regardless of party.

In Michigan, nonpartisan general elections are combined with a partisan nominating process to create the Michigan method. To read more about this selection method, click here.

Click on the following table for a list of states that use nonpartisan elections for their justices:

State supreme courts that use nonpartisan elections to re-elect justices

Court	Number of seats	Initial method of selection	Length of term	Partisan control
Arkansas Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	Republican
Georgia Supreme Court	9	Nonpartisan election	6 years	Republican
Idaho Supreme Court	5	Nonpartisan election	6 years	Republican
Kentucky Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	Indeterminate
Michigan Supreme Court	7	Michigan method	8 years	Democratic
Minnesota Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	6 years	Democratic
Mississippi Supreme Court	9	Nonpartisan election	8 years	Republican
Montana Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	Democratic
Nevada Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	6 years	Democratic
North Dakota Supreme Court	5	Nonpartisan election	10 years	Republican
Oregon Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	6 years	Democratic
Washington State Supreme Court	9	Nonpartisan election	6 years	Democratic
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia	5	Nonpartisan election	12 years	Republican
Wisconsin Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	10 years	Democratic

Retention election of judges

In a retention election, an incumbent judge does not face an opponent. A question is placed on the ballot asking whether each judge shall be retained for another term, and voters choose "yes" or "no." Judges must receive a majority of "yes" votes in order to remain in their seats.

Click on the following table for a list of states that use retention elections.

State supreme courts that use retention elections to re-elect justices

Court	Number of seats	Initial method of selection	Length of term	Partisan control
Alaska Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	Republican
Arizona Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	Republican
California Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints	12 years	Democratic
Colorado Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	Democratic
Florida Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	Republican
Illinois Supreme Court	7	Partisan election	10 years	Democratic
Indiana Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	Republican
Iowa Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	Republican
Kansas Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	Democratic
Maryland Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	Republican
Montana Supreme Court	7	Nonpartisan election	8 years	Democratic
Missouri Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	12 years	Republican
Nebraska Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	Republican
New Jersey Supreme Court	7	Governor appoints	7 years; until age 70	Democratic
New Mexico Supreme Court	5	Partisan elections	8 years	Democratic
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	6 years	Republican
Oklahoma Supreme Court	9	Governor appoints through nominating commission	Initial term 1 year; if retained, 6 years	Republican
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	7	Partisan election	10 years	Democratic
South Dakota Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	Republican
Tennessee Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	Republican
Utah Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	10 years	Republican
Wyoming Supreme Court	5	Governor appoints through nominating commission	8 years	Republican

Election analysis

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive coverage of state supreme court elections. Below is information on multiple factors, including: partisan control, incumbent win rates, and satellite spending. Additionally, other outlets have provided analysis of broader trends in state supreme court elections.

The following tabs provide information on state supreme court elections:

• The tab "Campaign finance" shows how spending in state supreme court elections have changed since 2000. The Brennan Center for Justice conducts this analysis biannually.
• The tab "Incumbent win rates" shows how often an incumbent justice is re-elected, and breaks it down by year and by election.
• The tab "Battlegrounds" provides links to Ballotpedia's past coverage of some of the most competitive and nationally watched races.
• The tab "Historical results" provides links to Ballotpedia's past coverage of state supreme court elections in a national context, highlighting the overall national change in partisan control each year.

Campaign finance

Incumbent win rates

Battlegrounds

Historical results

Spending in state supreme court elections

Judicature's Nicholas Rowe wrote in 2016, "[s]ince approximately the last decade of the 20th century, judicial elections have come to resemble “political” campaigns — they are increasingly expensive and competitive... they more often involve discussion and debate of legal policy and issues."

The Brennan Center for Justice has biannually tracked financial data for state supreme court elections, with data going back to 2000. To read their reports, click here.

Click the tabs below to view information about incumbent win rates in state supreme court elections over time. In this section, you will find:

• Win rates by year
• Win rates in partisan elections
• Win rates in nonpartisan elections
• Win rates by state

Win rates by year

Win rates in partisan elections

Win rates in nonpartisan elections

Win rates by state

Incumbents tend to do better in elections for any office than newcomers facing incumbents. This is no less true in state supreme court elections. Across all types of state supreme court elections, incumbent justices running for re-election won 93% of the time from 2008 to 2024. The year when the most incumbents lost was 2024, when eight incumbents did not win re-election. The year with the lowest re-election rate was 2015, when out of two justices, only one (50%) was re-elected. In years where more justices were running, the year with the lowest re-election rate was 2024, when 89% of justices were re-elected..

Incumbent win rates in state supreme court elections (2008-2024)

Election year	Total incumbent elections	Incumbent elections won	Incumbent elections lost	Incumbent win rate
2024	73	65	8	89%
2023	0	—	—	—
2022	78	75	3	96%
2021	0	—	—	—
2020	70	64	6	91%
2019	0	—	—	—
2018	58	52	6	90%
2017	4	4	0	100%
2016	65	62	3	95%
2015	2	1	1	50%
2014	71	69	2	97%
2013	3	3	0	100%
2012	65	60	5	92%
2011	4	4	0	100%
2010	68	63	5	93%
2009	1	1	0	100%
2008	63	57	6	90%
TOTAL	625	580	45	93%

In partisan elections, incumbents running for re-election won 80% of the time from 2008 to 2024. The number of seats incumbents lost in a single year was 2024, when five incumbents lost.

Incumbent win rates in partisan state supreme court elections (2008-2024)

Election year	Total incumbent elections	Incumbent elections won	Incumbent elections lost	Incumbent win rate
2024	15	10	5	67%
2023	0	—	—	—
2022	16	13	3	81%
2021	0	—	—	—
2020	14	12	2	86%
2019	0	—	—	—
2018	13	9	4	69%
2017	1	1	0	100%
2016	10	9	1	90%
2015	1	0	1	0%
2014	5	5	0	100%
2013	0	—	—	—
2012	11	8	3	72%
2011	0	—	—	—
2010	7	6	1	86%
2009	0	—	—	—
2008	8	8	0	100%
TOTAL	101	81	20	80%

In nonpartisan elections, incumbents running for re-election won 91% of the time from 2008 to 2024. The most incumbents lost in 2008, when six did not win re-election. Michigan had partisan primaries but nonpartisan general elections and so are counted here as holding nonpartisan elections. Additionally, North Carolina and Ohio previously held nonpartisan elections and are counted here up until they no longer hold them, which is 2016 and 2020, respectively.

Incumbent win rates in nonpartisan state supreme court elections (2008-2024)

Election year	Total incumbent elections	Incumbent elections won	Incumbent elections lost	Incumbent win rate
2024	27	25	2	93%
2023	0	—	—	—
2022	21	21	0	100%
2021	0	—	—	—
2020	26	23	3	88%
2019	0	—	—	—
2018	22	20	2	91%
2017	1	1	0	100%
2016	22	20	2	91%
2015	1	1	0	100%
2014	31	29	2	93%
2013	1	1	0	100%
2012	24	22	2	92%
2011	1	1	0	100%
2010	22	20	2	91%
2009	1	1	0	100%
2008	28	22	6	79%
TOTAL	228	207	21	91%

Among the 38 states that conduct elections for supreme court justices, 15 have seen incumbents lose elections from 2008 to 2024. These were Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In the other 23 states, incumbent supreme court justices won re-election 100% of the time from 2008 to 2024.

The average win percentage of state supreme court justices was 93%. 13 states fell below this average, while 25 had a higher win rate. Of the 13 states, seven use partisan elections, five use nonpartisan elections, and one uses retention elections.

Incumbent win rates by state in state supreme court elections (2008-2024)

State	Total incumbent elections	Incumbent elections won	Incumbent elections lost	Incumbent win rate
Alabama	20	17	3	85%
Alaska	9	9	0	100%
Arizona	16	16	0	100%
Arkansas	9	9	0	100%
California	12	12	0	100%
Colorado	17	17	0	100%
Florida	21	21	0	100%
Georgia	23	23	0	100%
Idaho	14	14	0	100%
Illinois	14	12	2	86%
Indiana	12	12	0	100%
Iowa	20	17	3	85%
Kansas	21	21	0	100%
Kentucky	11	10	1	91%
Louisiana	5	5	0	100%
Maryland	18	18	0	100%
Michigan	16	13	3	81%
Minnesota	21	21	0	100%
Mississippi	20	15	5	75%
Missouri	13	13	0	100%
Montana	13	13	0	100%
Nebraska	19	19	0	100%
Nevada	16	16	0	100%
New Mexico	16	14	2	88%
North Carolina	12	6	6	50%
North Dakota	9	9	0	100%
Ohio	21	13	8	62%
Oklahoma	44	43	1	97%
Oregon	21	21	0	100%
Pennsylvania	7	6	1	86%
South Dakota	9	9	0	100%
Tennessee	15	15	0	100%
Texas	50	45	5	90%
Utah	7	7	0	100%
Washington	27	26	1	96%
West Virginia	7	5	2	71%
Wisconsin	8	6	2	75%
Wyoming	12	12	0	100%
TOTAL	625	580	45	93%

2025

See also: State supreme court elections, 2025

Pennsylvania

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2025

Three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices—Christine Donohue (D), Kevin M. Dougherty (D), and David N. Wecht (D)—are up for retention elections on November 4, 2025.

WHYY's Carmen Russell-Sluchansky wrote, "State judicial elections typically garner little attention, but Pennsylvania’s 2025 state Supreme Court races are shaping up to be the next major political battleground,"

The state court has a 5-2 Democratic majority. The court has been Democratic-controlled since 2015, when Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht won election to their seats. If voters do not retain a justice, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) with approval from two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate, can appoint a temporary replacement until 2027, when an election would be held for a permanent replacement. Additionally, if all three justices are not retained, the court, and the Senate does not approve Shapiro's nominees, the court would be split with two liberals and two conservatives, which The Philadelphia Inquirer's Gillian McGoldrick wrote could leave the court "unlikely to reach majority decisions and could weaken the voice of Pennsylvania’s top court going into the 2028 presidential election, when the swing state could decide the next president yet again."

Pennsylvania uses partisan elections to select a justice for an initial 10-year term, and uses a retention election to determine whether to keep them. If a justice is retained, they will serve another 10-year term. Pennsylvania is one of eight states to use partisan elections for the initial selection of a justice and one of 22 to use retention elections for the renewal of a term.

According to Pennsylvania's Code of Judicial Conduct, justices are limited in their ability to campaign. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have said they would be involved in this race. The Republican State Leadership Committee have run ads on social media, asking voters to vote against retaining the justices, which said "In 2024, we voted by mail and flipped Pennsylvania red. This year, radical liberal judges are trying to secure another decade of power. We need you to stop them, show up again, vote ‘no’ in November." As of August 2025, there was no reporting on Democratic efforts, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee said in February 2025 that they intended to invest in the state, writing in a statement "We must preserve fair majorities to ensure state legislative races are run on fair maps and to protect the future of abortion access, voting rights, workers’ rights, and so much more."

Since retention elections were established in 1968, only one Pennsylvania justice, Russell Nigro (D) in 2005, has not been retained. Since 2020, in 102 elections, 100 justices (98%) have won retention. The most recent justice in the U.S. to not win retention was Yvonne Kauger in Oklahoma in 2024.

Wisconsin

See also: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2025

Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel in the nonpartisan general election for a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 1, 2025. Incumbent Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not run for re-election. The filing deadline was January 7, 2025. The primary scheduled for February 18, 2025, was canceled after only two candidates filed to run.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, but candidates often take stances on specific issues and receive backing from the state's political parties during their campaigns. The state’s Democratic Party endorsed Crawford, and Schimel was the former Republican attorney general.

With Crawford's win, liberals retained a 4-3 majority on the court. Liberals first won a 4-3 majority in the April 2023 election, when Judge Janet Protasiewicz won an open seat, defeating Daniel Kelly 55.4% to 44.4% shifting ideological control of the court for the first time in 15 years.

Crawford was a judge on the Dane County Circuit Court. She previously worked as an attorney for the state attorney general’s office and as legal counsel to former Gov. James Doyle (D). Crawford said she ran to "protect the basic rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites under our constitution." She said she would focus on safety when making decisions: "I believe people in Wisconsin deserve to feel safe as they go about their lives . . . My top priority in making decisions is always to make our communities safer." Crawford campaigned on keeping the current balance on the court intact, and said, "For the first time in years, we have a majority on the court focused on getting the facts right, following the law, and protecting our constitutional rights. We can’t risk having that progress reversed." In addition to the state Democratic Party, Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz — who local media outlets described as the court’s four liberal justices — also endorsed Crawford.

Schimel was a judge on the Waukesha County Circuit Court and was the state’s attorney general from 2015 to 2019. Schimel said he ran to "restore confidence in the people of Wisconsin that the justice system will be fair and impartial. I will be honest about my principles, but will never prejudge a case." Schimel’s website said he "dedicated his career to defending victims, supporting law enforcement, and ensuring that criminals are held accountable." Schimel criticized the court for "impos[ing] on the people of this state their will, rather than impartial judgment based on the law." He campaigned on changing the balance of the court and said, "There is no check on this new liberal Supreme Court majority. . . . The only check on them is to take back the majority by winning in 2025.” President Donald Trump (R) and the Wisconsin Professional Police Association received Schimel.

According to WisPolitics, the candidates and satellite groups spent more than $100 million on the race.This surpassed the 2023 election as the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. According to WisPolitics, candidates and satellite groups spent more than $56 million in the 2023 election. As of March 24, Crawford raised $21.8 million and spent $21.4 million, and Schimel raised $10 million and spent $9.5 million. Click here to learn more about spending in this race.

Media outlets covering the race wrote that the outcome could affect rulings on issues such as the state’s abortion laws, union rules, and the redistricting process. University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Barry Burden said, "I think the Supreme Court races have become as important as any other race in the state. It’s become the one election that really decides the direction of the state."

Click on the tab below to read Ballotpedia's coverage of past battleground elections.

• Past battleground elections

  2024

  See also: State supreme court elections, 2024

  Arizona

  See also: Arizona Supreme Court elections, 2024

  Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King were retained in the retention election for Arizona's Supreme Court on Nov. 5, 2024. Click here for detailed results.

  In Arizona, governors select all supreme court justices from a list of names that the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments compiles. Once appointed, justices serve at least two years on the court before they must stand for retention in an uncontested yes-no election. Justices who are retained serve six-year terms.

  Then-Gov. Doug Ducey (R) appointed Bolick to succeed Justice Rebecca White Berch on the court in 2016. Bolick won retention in 2018 with 70% of the vote. Ducey appointed King, who succeeded Justice Andrew W. Gould, in 2021. This was King's first retention election. Republican governors appointed all seven justices who sat on the nonpartisan court at the time of the election.

  As a result of his retention, Bolick may serve on the court until 2027, when he will reach the court’s mandatory retirement age of 70. King's retention meant she could serve a full, six-year term. Gov. Katie Hobbs would have selected a successor if either had lost retention.

  Arizona voters defeated Proposition 137, a statewide ballot measure ending retention elections for judges, on Nov. 5, 2024. Click here for detailed results. If voters had approved the measure, Bolick and King's retention election results would have been nullified. This meant that even if voters decided not to retain the justices, they would not have been removed from the court. According to the Arizona Mirror's Caitlin Sievers, the justices would then only need to stand retention if the "Judicial Performance Review Commission finds a judge committed 'a pattern of malfeasance' in office or if the judge: is convicted of a felony; is convicted of a crime involving fraud or dishonesty; files for personal bankruptcy; or has a mortgage that is foreclosed upon."

  This election took place against the backdrop of the court’s April 2024 ruling regarding an 1864 abortion law. At the time of the ruling, Arizona had two conflicting abortion laws—an 1864 territorial law banning abortion and a 2022 law with a 15-week ban. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the 1864 law took precedence. Bolick and King were part of the 4-2 majority that upheld the law.The Arizona Legislature repealed the 1864 law in May 2024.

  The Arizona Republic’s Stacey Barchenger wrote that Bolick and King’s decision in the case received attention from organizations that support and oppose their retention. According to Barchenger, two organizations—The Judicial Independence Defense and Arizonans for an Independent Judiciary—had raised about $500,000 through Sept. 30, 2024, to retain Bolick and King. Barchenger also wrote that the organization Protect Abortion Rights: No Retention Bolick & King, which had not reported any fundraising through Sept. 30, 2024, “was relying on individual interaction with voters to oust the judges.”

  Arizona was one of 33 states that held state supreme court elections in 2024 and one of 16 that held supreme court retention elections. To read more about which states held supreme court elections in 2024, click here.

  Kentucky

  See also: Kentucky Supreme Court elections, 2024

  
  Pamela R. Goodwine defeated Erin Izzo in the general election for the Kentucky Supreme Court 5th District on November 5, 2024. Kentucky was one of 13 states to elect state supreme court justices in nonpartisan elections and one of four states to elect justices by district instead of statewide.

  Goodwine and Izzo ran to replace retiring incumbent Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter. The winner did not replace VanMeter as chief justice, however. The court selected Justice Debra Hembree Lambert as chief justice on September 23, 2024, effective January 6, 2025.

  Kentucky's seven-justice Supreme Court was officially nonpartisan. However, Democrats and Republicans both endorsed and donated to opposing candidates. Governor Andy Beshear (D) endorsed Goodwine, and former Govs. Steve Beshear (D) and Paul Patton (D) donated to her campaign. The Clark County Republican Party endorsed Izzo, and local Republican groups in Fayette and Madison counties donated to her campaign.

  According to Bolts, "While Kentucky is now staunchly red, its judicial elections are nonpartisan, and the court’s politics can be difficult to decipher. ... [W]ith Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter—a Republican even if he ran for judge without a party label—retiring and leaving an open seat on the ballot … [t]he race to replace him could shift the court one step to the left."

  Goodwine, a judge for the Kentucky Court of Appeals 5th Appellate District, said, "I have been a registered independent since I became a judge and I am known for continually displaying a strong work ethic along with honesty and integrity to ensure justice for all. ... I have staunch supporters from all parties and welcome and accept invitations from all parties to participate in their events." Izzo, a partner at Lexington law firm Landrum & Shouse, said she was also open to appearing before groups that lean left, right, or were neutral, and that it "'would be dangerous for Kentucky' to open up judicial races to more partisanship in the future."

  According to Sabato's Crystal Ball's Louis Jacobson, Kentucky was one of five states — the other four having been Michigan, Ohio, Montana, and North Carolina — to "have competitive supreme court elections this year with results that could shift the court’s ideological balance, at least to a degree."

  In an interview with the Kentucky Lantern, both candidates spoke on their experience, motivations for running, and judicial philosophy. Having served on an intermediate appellate, circuit, and district court, Goodwine said, "Upon election to the Kentucky Supreme Court, I will be the first woman and only the fifth person in history to serve at all levels of the judiciary in Kentucky. And I pledge to bring ... not only the legal expertise, work ethic, preparedness and passion for the law ... but also a commitment to approaching each case with a dedication to the rule of law and justice for all." She also said that the Supreme Court was "'the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, laws and rulings' ... and renders rulings with binding legal precedents."

  Izzo said her 19 years of work on litigation, arbitration, and mediation qualified her to serve on the Supreme Court and that "[a]s an arbitrator, we do a lot of the same things that judges do. We look at cases. We have attorneys come before us. I hear arguments. I make decisions. I hear evidence. I preside over trials." She also described herself as a constitutionalist. She said, "If there’s something there that might be better socially, or might (be) something that I disagree with, it’s not my place to change. I look at how things are, what the intention of the founding fathers were with our Constitution, and that kind of carries over to what legislative intent was when a law was adopted."

  The Kentucky Supreme Court 5th District was last up for election in 2016, with VanMeter defeating Glenn Acree 74.05% to 25.95%. At the time of the election, both ran nonpartisan campaigns, but VanMeter was registered to vote as a Republican and Acree as a Democrat. The district included Franklin, Scott, Woodford, Jessamine, Fayette, Bourbon, Clark, and Madison counties.

  Thirty-three states held state supreme court elections in 2024. In total, 82 of the 344 seats on state supreme courts were up for election. Of these seats: nonpartisan justices held 61, Republican justices held 15, and Democratic justices held six.

  
  

  Michigan

  See also: Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2024

  Democrats expanded their majority on the Michigan Supreme Court from 4-3 to 5-2 after the November 5, 2024, elections.

  Both parties aimed to have control of the court based on the outcome of the races. Heading into the elections, the Associated Press wrote, "Democratic-backed justices currently hold a 4-3 majority. Republican victories in both races would flip control of the court, while two Democratic wins would yield a 5-2 supermajority. Republicans have framed the races as a fight to stop government overreach, while Democrats say it is a battle to preserve reproductive rights."

  Kimberly Thomas defeated Andrew Fink in the election for a full eight-year term. Incumbent Kyra Harris Bolden defeated Patrick W. O'Grady in a special election. Michigan's Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan, but candidates are nominated through a party convention. Thomas and Bolden were affiliated with the Democratic Party. Fink and O'Grady were affiliated with the Republican Party. Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) appointed Bolden in November 2022. The special election determined who would serve the remaining four years of Bridget Mary McCormack's term. Incumbent David Viviano (R) did not run for re-election.

  In 2022, incumbent justices Richard Bernstein (D) and Brian Zahra (R) both won re-election, defeating three other candidates, including Bolden. Bernstein received 33.9% of the vote, Zahra received 23.9%, and Bolden came in third place, receiving 21.9%. Democrats won control of the court in the 2020 elections. That year, McCormack (D) and Elizabeth Welch (D) won 32.3% and 20.2% of the vote respectively, defeating two Republican-nominated candidates and three other candidates.

  All four candidates completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey. Click here to read their responses.

  Fink was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2020. He earned a bachelor's degree from Hillsdale College and a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School. Before he was elected to the House, Fink was a commissioner-at-large of the State Bar of Michigan, served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a judge advocate, and worked in private practice. In his Candidate Connection survey, Fink said he was running "to restore our judiciary’s commitment to protecting the will of the people, interpreting the law as it is written, and ensuring everyone receives due process, not just insiders."

  At the time of the election, Thomas was a lawyer and professor at the University of Michigan Law School. At the university, she was also the director and co-founder of the Juvenile Justice Clinic. She earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland, and a law degree from Harvard Law School. In her Candidate Connection survey, Thomas said, "I will bring over two decades of experience as a trial and appellate lawyer and a law professor to ensure that the Michigan Supreme Court fulfills its constitutional role in our democracy and that the people of Michigan can have access to, and be respected in, our court system."

  Bolden assumed office on January 1, 2023. Before her appointment, she served in the state House from 2019 to 2023. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Grand Valley State University and a law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. Before holding public office, Bolden was a criminal defense attorney and a civil litigation attorney. In her Candidate Connection survey, Bolden said, "I believe in upholding the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice for all. My philosophy is based on the belief that all legal decisions should be guided by principles of thoughtfulness, fairness, impartiality, and adherence to legislative intent and the Michigan Constitution. Additionally, I believe in the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers to safeguard the integrity of the legal system."

  O'Grady was a judge of the Michigan 15th Circuit Court, at the time of the election. He previously served in the U.S. Army Reserve and worked as an attorney, Michigan state trooper, and Michigan State Police officer. O'Grady earned a bachelor's degree from Western Michigan University and a law degree from Cooley Law School. In Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey, O'Grady said, "My unwavering commitment to safeguarding families, championing individual rights, and upholding the integrity of our beloved Michigan is evident in my distinguished record. My steadfast adherence to the Rule of Law in the trial court is a testament to my judicial philosophy, one that I pledge to bring to bear as a Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court."

  Michigan was one of 33 states that held state supreme court elections in 2024. In total, 82 of the 344 seats on state supreme courts were up for election in 2024. Nonpartisan justices held 61 of those seats, Republicans held 15, and Democrats held six. Click here to learn about Ballotpedia's coverage of state supreme court elections in 2024.

  Montana

  See also: Montana Supreme Court elections, 2024

  Cory Swanson defeated Jerry Lynch for chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court, and Katherine M. Bidegaray defeated Dan Wilson for associate justice of the Montana Supreme Court on November 5, 2024. The seats were open, as Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justice Dirk M. Sandefur retired. The conservative and liberal blocs each remained without a majority after the elections. Click here for detailed results.

  While the election was nonpartisan, Montana Free Press' Arren Kimbel-Sannit wrote before the election, "Partisan interests have already taken sides in these elections. ... Generally, Democratic-aligned groups like the Montana Federation of Public Employees and Montana Conservation Voters have endorsed Lynch and Bidegaray while Swanson and Wilson have received support from some prominent conservatives, including Gov. Greg Gianforte."

  MTN News' Mike Dennison wrote before the election, "Justices James Shea, Mike McGrath and Dirk Sandefur often are seen as the liberal-leaning justices on the high court. ... [Justice Laurie] McKinnon and Justice Jim Rice are usually considered more conservative, while Justices Ingrid Gustafson and Beth Baker are viewed as judges that could identify with either side, depending on the issue." If two conservative-leaning justices had won in 2024, the majority would have leaned conservative as a result. Since at least one liberal-leaning justice won in 2024, both blocs remained without a majority.

  Gustafson and Baker won re-election unopposed in 2018. In 2020, Shea won re-election unopposed, and McKinnon defeated Mike Black 57%-43%. In 2022, Rice defeated Bill D'Alton 77.5%-22.5%, and Gustafson defeated James Brown 54.3%-45.7%.

  Lynch earned a bachelor's degree in biology from Carroll College, a master's degree in zoology and genetics from Montana State University, and a law degree from the University of Montana Law School. He worked as a federal magistrate in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, a law clerk, and an attorney in private practice. Lynch described his judicial philosophy as "fair, impartial and independent of any partisan or political motivation."

  Swanson earned a bachelor's degree in political science from Carrol University, a law degree from the University of Montana Law School, and a master's degree in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College. Swanson worked as an attorney in a Helena law firm, deputy attorney general, Broadwater county attorney, and served in the Montana Army National Guard. Swanson said that in his judicial philosophy, "judges should be as fair and impartial as possible in every instance. ... That means rigorously applying the appellate standards for decisions, relying upon the plain text of the statute to understand the law, and avoiding personal temptations to re-write the law in a particular direction."

  Bidegaray earned a bachelor's degree in political science and philosophy from the University of Montana and a law degree from the University of Montana School of Law. Bidegaray owned and operated a family ranch and worked as an attorney in the state auditor's office, an attorney in private practice, and a district court judge. She said, "My judicial philosophy centers on fairness, respect, and impartiality, devoid of political or personal bias. I adhere strictly to the 1972 Montana Constitution, the United States Constitution, and established legal precedents and statutes."

  Wilson earned a bachelor's degree from Pennsylvania State University and a law degree from the University of Minnesota. Wilson's experience included working as an attorney, Flathead County Justice of the Peace, and a district court judge. Wilson said, "My judicial philosophy is simple: interpret and apply the provisions of the United States and Montana Constitutions and all laws according to their original intent and plain meaning, and do not follow the views of special interests or personal views to determine the outcome of any case."

  Montana was one of 33 states that held state supreme court elections in 2024. Click here to learn more about state judicial elections.

  North Carolina

  See also: North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2024

  Incumbent Justice Allison Riggs (D) defeated Jefferson Griffin (R) in the partisan general election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court on November 5, 2024.

  On May 7, 2025, Griffin conceded the election, ending all recounts and legal challenges to the outcome. To read a detailed timeline of events surrounding post-election lawsuits and recounts, click here.

  The Raleigh News & Observer's Kyle Ingram wrote the race "lack[s] much of the public vitriol or big personalities present in races higher on the ballot — but the stakes are high."

  At the time of election, the court had a 5-2 Republican majority. Heading into the 2020 election, Democrats held a 6-1 majority on the court. They lost 2 seats, reducing their majority on the court to 4-3. In 2022, Republicans won two seats, changing the balance of the court to a 5-2 Republican majority. In 2024, the court could have remained a 5-2 Republican majority or could have turned into a 6-1 Republican majority. To read more about past court elections, click here.

  Both parties saw this race as crucial for control of the court. Riggs said, "The supreme court isn't flipping control in this election. I am employing a plan, working with Justice Anita Earls and many others to help win back our courts in the 2028 election. Still, we're going to have to defend my seat in 2024. Justice Earls’ seat in 2026 before we can do that." North Carolina GOP Judicial Victory Fund Chair Susan Mills highlighted the importance of winning this seat, saying, "Having the majority this cycle doesn't guarantee we will keep it in the future." The Charlotte Observer's Paige Masten wrote, "If Democrats lose in November, they technically still have a chance of flipping the court in 2028. But that will be significantly harder."

  Gov. Roy Cooper (D) appointed Riggs to replace Justice Michael R. Morgan (D) in 2023. She said her "record demonstrates without question my commitment to our constitution and the protections it provides for the people of this state." She said that she "value[s] reproductive freedoms. I value democracy and know that it doesn’t defend itself without people on the bench being willing to enforce the Constitution." Riggs described Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's judicial method as an influence and said that she has "been intentional in applying this in my own judicial work. By focusing on process, rather than 'brand,' I believe I am best complying with my constitutional duty to rule without fear or favor." Riggs was a former appellate justice and civil rights attorney.

  Griffin campaigned on his experience and said, "I’ve been able to show the people of North Carolina that I’m a constitutional conservative, that I believe in the rule of law." Griffin said that he is "more of an originalist than anything...My interpretation of it is, I’m gonna look at this legal document...as of the time it was written." He said that he admires "Clarence Thomas’s judicial philosophy. He’s always consistent." Griffin believed that North Carolina voters "want judges who interpret the law and aren’t activists, who don’t go up there with any agenda...I’m there to do my job, I have no policy agenda — I’m there to interpret the law." Griffin served on the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

  According to the most recent fundraising data before the election, Riggs had raised $1.1 million and spent $456,619, and Griffin raised $1.2 million and spent $198,521. To read more about campaign finance data, click here

  North Carolina was one of 33 states that held state supreme court elections in 2024 and one of seven that held partisan supreme court elections. To read more about which states that held supreme court elections in 2024, click here.

  Ohio

  See also: Ohio Supreme Court elections, 2024

  
  Six candidates ran for three seats on the Ohio Supreme Court in the partisan general election on November 5, 2024. Republicans won in all three races, defeating two incumbent Democrats.

  Dan Hawkins (R) defeated Lisa Forbes (D) in the race for the open seat on the court. Megan Shanahan (R) defeated Michael Donnelly (D) in the race for Donnelly's seat. Joseph Deters (R) defeated Melody Stewart (D) in the race for Stewart's seat.

  The three wins meant that Republicans maintained their majority on the court.

  The Ohio Capital Journal wrote that the outcome of the race would “have major impacts on a wide variety of issues that affect the lives of Ohioans," including the state’s universal school voucher program, energy decisions like ratemaking and where oil and gas drilling can take place, challenges to the state’s 2023 abortion amendment, and redistricting.

  Before the election, the court had a 4-3 Republican majority. If all three Democrats had won the races, Democrats would have held a 4-3 majority. For Republicans to maintain their majority, at least one Republican needed to win a race. In 2024, Republicans had held a majority on the court since 1986.

  Three of the seven justices on the court ran for re-election in two seats, leaving the third seat open. In one contest, two incumbent justices ran against each other for a seat that carried with it a full, six-year term on the court. Justice Joseph Deters (R), whom Gov. Mike DeWine (R) appointed to the court in January 2023, decided to run for a full term against incumbent Justice Melody Stewart (D). Deters replaced Justice Sharon L. Kennedy (R), who won election to the chief justice seat in the 2022 general election.

  In the race for Deters’ open seat, Lisa Forbes (D) ran against Dan Hawkins (R). In the race for Justice Michael Donnelly's (D) seat, the incumbent ran against Megan Shanahan (R).

  In 2022, all three Republican candidates won their elections by at least 10 percentage points.

  This was just the second election cycle in which judicial candidates appeared on the ballot under partisan labels. In 2021, the state passed a law that judges must be listed alongside a political party affiliation on the general election ballot. Before that, judges were selected through partisan primaries and nonpartisan general elections.

  Thirty-three states held state supreme court elections in 2024. In total, 82 of the 344 seats on state supreme courts were up for election. Of these seats, 61 were held by nonpartisan justices, 15 were held by Republican justices, and six were held by Democratic justices. Click here to learn more.

  
  

  Oklahoma

  See also: Oklahoma Supreme Court elections, 2024

  Two justices, James Edmondson and Noma D. Gurich, were retained, and one justice, Yvonne Kauger, was defeated in the retention election for Oklahoma's Supreme Court on November 5, 2024. Additionally, three justices on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals were retained. Click here for detailed results.

  At the time of the election, Oklahoma was one of two states with two courts of last resort. The Oklahoma Supreme Court was the court of last resort for civil matters, while the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was the court of last resort for criminal matters. As of 2024, Texas was the only other state with this system. To read more about each state's court of last resort, click here.

  In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission sends a list of three possible Supreme Court nominees to the governor, who then appoints a new justice from that list.

  The Center for Politics' Louis Jacobson wrote, "While Oklahoma has become a ruby red state in recent years, the three supreme court justices facing retention elections this year were all appointed by Democratic governors." Oklahoma's government is a Republican trifecta. The state Supreme Court is narrowly Republican, with a 5-4 majority.

  Three of nine justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court were up for retention election—James Edmondson, Noma D. Gurich, and Yvonne Kauger. Governor George Nigh (D) appointed Kauger to the court in 1984. Gov. Brad Henry (D) appointed Edmonson in 2003 and Gurich in 2011. If she had been retained and served another six-year term, Kauger would have become the longest-serving justice on the court. In 2018, Edmondson, Gurich, and Kauger were retained with 59.4% of the vote, 61.6% of the vote, and 62.2% of the vote, respectively. In 2012, Edmondson, Gurich, and Kauger were retained with 66.9% of the vote, 66.5% of the vote, and 65.7% of the vote, respectively.

  The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had three justices up for retention—William J. Musseman, Scott Rowland, and David B. Lewis. Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) appointed Musseman in 2022, Gov. Mary Fallin (R) appointed Rowland in 2017, and Gov. Brad Henry (D) appointed Lewis in 2005. Four of the justices up for retention were among the last five appointed by Democrats. In 2018, Rowland and Lewis were retained with 62.3% of the vote, and 61.8% of the vote respectively. This election was Musseman's first election as a justice on the court.

  This election marked the first time that an appellate judge from Oklahoma lost a retention election. When a justice loses a retention election, the Judicial Nomination Commission chooses three new judges from a pool of applicants. The governor then chooses one to fill the vacant seat. Oklahoma Bar Association President Miles Pringles said that the system "ensures the people have a voice – and further assures that those who enter Oklahoma’s appellate courtrooms can expect fairness and impartiality."

  Some of the decisions ruled on by the three justices included:

  • joining the 5-4 majority to strike down the state's ban on abortions in cases where the mother's life is threatened
  • joining the 6-2 majority against a religious charter school receiving public funds
  • joining the 9-0 majority in favor of the legislature over Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) on the governor's veto power on tribal matters
  • Kauger and Gurich joined the 8-1 majority against reparations for survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre; Edmondson partially dissented

  People for Opportunity, a group whose website said they wanted to "take the appointments process for selecting justices and judges for our state’s highest courts out of the hands of unelected individuals and put it back closer to the hands of the voters," ran ads critical of the justices' records. The ads attacked the justices' records as liberal for the state. People for Opportunity representative Dave Bond said, "The Oklahoma Bar Association, big medical, and others have had an outsized influence on the Oklahoma Supreme Court...We don’t think that typically works in the favor of most Oklahoma citizens, or of our state economy, or for the ability of good, sustainable jobs to be created in our state." Former Chief Justice Joseph Watt defended the court's record and said, "I think they all ought to be retained because they are doing their job. ... They have years of appellate experience. They are entitled to be retained."

  Oklahoma was one of 33 states that held state supreme court elections in 2024 and one of 16 that held retention supreme court elections. To read more about which states that held supreme court elections in 2024, click here.

  2023

  See also: State supreme court elections, 2023

  Pennsylvania

  See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2023

  
  Daniel McCaffery (D) defeated Carolyn Carluccio (R) in the partisan election for one seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Nov. 7, 2023. The primary was May 16, 2023.

  McCaffery won Justice Max Baer's (D) seat on the court. Baer died on September 30, 2022. Before Baer's death, Democrats had a 5-2 Democratic majority on the court.

  McCaffery was elected to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in 2019. An Army veteran, he worked as an attorney and assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. McCaffery said: “The law is the vehicle that drives society toward a more level playing field. I have always worked to make our society more fair, inclusive, and accepting. Pennsylvanians deserve a justice who will always protect, obey, and defend the constitution. I believe I am that person.”

  Carluccio was a judge on the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas since 2010. Before that, she was an assistant U.S. Attorney and Montgomery County’s Chief Public Defender. In her responses to Ballotpedia’s Candidate Connection survey, Carluccio said, ”As Judge, I am impartial and apply the law as it is written. I will not legislate from the bench.”

  Partisan control of the court did not change as a result of the 2023 election. If Carluccio had won the general election, the balance of the court would have changed from a 4-2 Democratic majority to a 4-3 Democratic one. Because McCaffery won, the court's balance changed from a 4-2 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Democratic one.

  The next scheduled state supreme court elections in Pennsylvania will take place in 2025 when three Democratic justices first elected in 2015 — Kevin M. Dougherty (D), David Wecht (D) and Christine Donohue (D) — will be up for retention.

  Control of the court last changed following the 2015 elections, when it went from a 4-3 Republican majority to a 5-2 Democratic majority.

  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort. It can hear appeals from statewide and local courts and assume jurisdiction over any case in the Pennsylvania court system. Spotlight PA’s Kate Huangpu and Stephen Caruso wrote, “The state Supreme Court takes on relatively few cases, but its rulings can have a major impact on politics and policy in Pennsylvania. In recent years, the court has decided cases on reproductive rights, mask mandates, and election disputes.”

  Justices run in partisan elections for 10-year terms. Judges seeking additional terms must run in retention elections.

  Prior to 2023, Pennsylvania's most recent state supreme court election was in 2021, when Kevin Brobson (R) defeated Maria McLaughlin (D) in the general election, 52% to 48%. Brobson's election did not change the partisan composition of the court since he succeeded Justice Thomas Saylor (R), who did not run for another term because he turned 75 in 2021.

  Our 2020 partisanship study of Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges determined that at the time of the 2021 elections, there were four strong Democrats, one mild Democrat, and two mild Republicans. Click here to read more from our partisanship analysis of all 50 state supreme courts.

  Wisconsin

  See also: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2023

  Janet Protasiewicz defeated Daniel Kelly in the nonpartisan general election for Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 4, 2023. Protasiewicz's election meant the balance of the court would switch from a 4-3 conservative majority to a 4-3 liberal majority for the first time in 15 years.

  The election determined who would succeed retiring conservative Justice Patience Roggensack, whose term expired in July 2023. While supreme court elections are officially nonpartisan, justices and candidates are considered to be liberal or conservative. With Roggensack—a member of the court's conservative majority—retiring, the general election determined the ideological control of the court.

  Wisconsin media identified abortion, election administration, and legislative redistricting as legal issues the court could address following the election. For media analysis and commentary on this election, click here.

  At the time of the election, Protasiewicz, a former assistant district attorney, had served on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court since 2014. After the primary, Protasiewicz said, "We're saving our democracy in the state of Wisconsin. … I'm talking about the ability to vote, to have a vote that counts about women's rights, reproductive freedoms, the fact that the 2024 presidential election results could likely come into our Supreme Court chamber, just everything people care about."

  Kelly previously served on the supreme court from 2016, when Gov. Scott Walker (R) appointed him to fill a vacancy, to 2020, when he lost re-election to Jill Karofsky 55.2% to 44.7%. As a result of that election, the supreme court went from a 5-2 conservative majority to a 4-3 conservative one. Ahead of the 2023 election, Kelly said, "If an activist were to win next April, Wisconsin's public policy would be imposed by four lawyers sitting in Madison instead of being adopted through our constitutional processes. I won't let that happen on my watch.

  At a March 21 debate, Protasiewicz criticized Kelly for accepting the endorsements of organizations that opposed abortion and said Kelly would support keeping in place an 1849 state law that prohibited abortion in most cases. She also accused Kelly of advising state Republican officials who planned on sending an alternate slate of electors to Washington D.C. after the 2020 election.

  Kelly criticized Protasiewicz for accepting contributions from the state Democratic Party and said those contributions might influence her actions as a member of the court. Kelly also criticized Protasiewicz for publicly stating her views on issues that could come before the court, including abortion and legislative redistricting. To view recordings and summaries of the debate, click here.

  The three liberal justices on the court—Rebecca Dallet, Ann Walsh Bradley, and Jill Karofsky—endorsed Protasieweicz. EMILY's List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic women who support abortion, also endorsed Protasiewicz.

  Conservative justices Roggensack, Rebecca Bradley, and Annette Ziegler endorsed Kelly. The groups Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Family Action, and Pro-Life Wisconsin also endorsed Kelly.

  The election set a new record for campaign spending in state judicial elections. According to WisPolitics, candidates and satellite groups spent more than $56 million in the 2023 election. This was more than three times the $15 million spent in the previous record holder, a 2004 Illinois Supreme Court race.

  Voters also decided a state constitutional amendment that would increase the discretion judges have to impose cash bail on people accused of violent crimes. According to NBC's Sam Edelman, the amendment could affect the turnout for the supreme court election. Click here to learn more.

  Protasiewicz and Kelly were the top two vote-getters among the four candidates who ran in the February 21 nonpartisan primary.. Protasiewicz received 46.5% of the primary vote, and Kelly received 24.2%. Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow, a conservative candidate, and Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell, a liberal candidate, received 21.9% and 7.5%, respectively. Together, Protasiewicz and Mitchell received 53.9% of the vote to Kelly and Dorow's combined 46.1%.

  As of 2023, Wisconsin had a divided government. The governor was Democrat Tony Evers, while the Republican Party controlled both chambers of the state legislature.

  2022

  See also: State supreme court elections, 2022

  Kentucky

  See also: Kentucky Supreme Court elections, 2022

  Four seats on the Kentucky Supreme Court were up for nonpartisan election on November 8, 2022. Justices Michelle Keller and Christopher Nickell both ran for and won re-election. Angela McCormick Bisig and Kelly Thompson also won elections for open seats. Their new terms will expire on January 1, 2031.

  WFPL reported that Justice Michelle Keller's re-election campaign would have "implications for abortion access, separation of powers between the three branches of government and how much politics should bleed into judicial races." Keller faced Joseph Fischer, a Republican member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Fischer was the author of Kentucky's law that restricted abortion in the state after conception. Fischer also sponsored a 2022 constitutional amendment (which was defeated 52-48) to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion. Keller received 54.8 percent of the vote and Fischer received 45.2 percent.

  Angela McCormick Bisig defeated Jason Bowman with 80 percent of the vote to Bowman's 20 percent. McCormick Bisig, a circuit court judge, won the seat held by retiring Justice Lisabeth Tabor Hughes. Appeals court judge Kelly Thompson defeated Shawn Alcott with 63 percent of the vote to Alcott's 37 percent. Thompson won the seat held by retiring Chief Justice John D. Minton, Jr. Thompson will not automatically serve as chief justice—the court will elect a new one.

  Nickell was unopposed in his re-election bid. He was first elected to the court in 2019 to fulfill the unexpired term of Bill Cunningham following Cunningham's retirement.

  Michigan

  See also: Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2022

  The terms of two Michigan Supreme Court justices expired on January 1, 2023. The two seats were up for nonpartisan election on November 8, 2022. Partisan control of the court remained split at 3-3 with one vacancy to be filled by an appointment from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D).

  Justices Richard Bernstein (D) and Brian Zahra (R) both won re-election. Three challengers were also on the ballot: Kyra Harris Bolden (D), Paul Hudson (R), and Kerry Lee Morgan (L). All candidates appeared on the same ballot and voters could vote for up to two candidates. The two candidates who received the most votes were elected.

  Among the five other seats of the court, there were two Democratic justices, two Republican justices, and a vacancy to be filled by Whitmer at the time of the election. The table below displays the justices on the court at the time of the election and the winners of the races on the ballot in 2022.

  Although the general election was nonpartisan, political parties in Michigan may nominate candidates for state supreme court elections. Each justice's partisan affiliation above comes from their party affiliation in their most recent re-election campaign.

  Montana

  See also: Montana Supreme Court elections, 2022

  Two seats on the Montana Supreme Court were up for nonpartisan election on November 8, 2022. Justices Ingrid Gustafson and James Rice both ran for and won re-election. Their new terms will expire on December 31, 2030.

  Montana Public Radio's Shaylee Ragar wrote that the election for these seats could have impacted abortion policy in the state. "Montana Republicans are zeroed in on the races for two state Supreme Court seats this election cycle which could decide the future of access to abortion in Montana," she wrote. In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitutional right to privacy protected access to abortion. Rice was part of a five-justice panel that ruled unanimously in August 2022 to block abortion laws while a case between Planned Parenthood of Montana and the state proceeded.

  Gustafson defeated Montana Public Service Commissioner James Brown 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent. While Gustafson did not publicly comment on abortion or participate in the August 2022 ruling, outside groups affiliated with the Democratic Party raised money for Gustafson and encouraged voters to elect her to support legal access to abortion. Gov. Greg Gianforte (R), Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), and U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R) endorsed Brown. Brown criticized the court for what he called "legislating from the bench" and called the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson a "major decision for liberty." Gustafson was first appointed to the court in 2017 by Gov. Steve Bullock (D).

  Rice defeated attorney Bill D'Alton 77.7 percent to 22.3 percent. Rice ran on his record, telling Montana Public Radio, "I believe I have that reputation for listening to all sides, being very careful about the law's application and exercising the powers of the court." D'Alton said he chose to run against Rice after seeing that the incumbent was unopposed. "I believe there should be competition in elections. I think that's good and healthy for the people of Montana to have a choice," he said. Rice was first appointed to the court in 2001 by Gov. Judy Martz (R).

  North Carolina

  See also: North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2022

  Richard Dietz (R) defeated Lucy N. Inman (D), and Trey Allen (R) defeated incumbent Sam Ervin IV (D), in partisan elections for two North Carolina Supreme Court seats on November 8, 2022. As a result of these elections, the court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority in 2023. Heading into the 2020 election, Democrats had a 6-1 majority on the court.

  Justice Robin Hudson (D) did not run for re-election in 2022 because she was nearing the court’s mandatory retirement age. Dietz and Inman, both judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, ran to succeed her.

  Ervin was elected to the court in 2014. At the time of the 2022 election, Allen was general counsel for the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.

  The Carolina Journal’s Donna King wrote in October, "Partisan politics on the high court have come under scrutiny, particularly as battles over the state’s redistricting maps, voter ID, felon voting, and other partisan issues have made their way to the justices who, generally, have voted along partisan lines."

  According to Axios Raleigh's Lucille Sherman and Danielle Chemtob, "All four candidates ... emphasized that they will make decisions independent of their party. They say they aim to restore the public's faith in the courts, as it's become increasingly polarized in recent years."

  Following multiple legal challenges during the 2020 redistricting cycle, court-appointed special masters drew a temporary congressional map for the 2022 midterm elections. At the time of the election, North Carolina congressional redistricting was at the center of the U.S. Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper, and redistricting litigation was also ongoing in state court.

  Spending in these two races put North Carolina in the top three states for most expensive supreme court races in 2022. Satellite groups spent millions of dollars on ads focusing on crime and abortion.

  In 2020, Republicans gained two net seats, with incumbent Associate Justice Paul Martin Newby (R) defeating incumbent Chief Justice Cheri Beasley (D) by 412 votes in the race for chief justice and Tamara Barringer (R) defeating incumbent Associate Justice Mark A. Davis (D) 51.2% to 48.8%.

  North Carolina began using partisan elections for judicial selection in 2018. Supreme court justices are elected to eight-year terms.

  Ohio

  See also: Ohio Supreme Court elections, 2022

  Three seats on the Ohio Supreme Court were up for partisan election on November 8, 2022. A partisan primary was scheduled for May 3, 2022. Incumbents Pat Fischer (R) and Pat DeWine (R) won re-election, while Sharon L. Kennedy (R) defeated Jennifer L. Brunner (D) in the chief justice election.

  According to an analysis by Bolts, Ohio was one of four states where the partisan balance of the state's highest court could change as a result of the 2022 elections. Heading into the election, Ohio's supreme court was made up of four Republican justices and three Democratic justices. Three seats held by Republicans were on the ballot in 2022. Republicans won all three seats and maintained their 4-3 majority on the court.

  Incumbent Pat DeWine (R) ran for re-election against Marilyn Zayas (D). DeWine had served on the court since 2017. Zayas served as a judge on the Ohio First District Court of Appeals, a position she had held since 2016.

  Incumbent Pat Fischer (R) ran for re-election against Terri Jamison (D). Fischer had been on the court since 2017. Jamison had served as a judge on the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals since 2021.

  In the race for chief justice of the court, incumbent Maureen O'Connor (R) did not seek re-election due to age limits. At the time of the election, Ohio was one of 31 states with mandatory retirement ages for judges. In Ohio, judges had to retire after the term during which they turned 70.

  Two associate justices on the court ran for the chief justice seat: Justice Jennifer L. Brunner (D) and Justice Sharon L. Kennedy (R). Brunner had served on the Ohio Supreme Court since 2021, and Kennedy had served on the Ohio Supreme Court since 2012. Kennedy won the election for the chief justice position, leaving the governor of Ohio with the authority to fill her vacancy on the court.

  News 5 Cleveland's Morgan Trau wrote, "There are a few major issues that could be drastically altered depending on the makeup of the court." One of the issues Trau listed was redistricting. In a series of 4-3 decisions in 2022, O'Connor joined the Democratic justices on the court in striking down redistricting maps drawn by the Ohio Redistricting Commission (ORC). Litigation challenging both the state legislative and congressional maps was ongoing at the time of the election. To read more about the legal challenges surrounding Ohio's 2020 redistricting process, click here.

  Trau also listed abortion as a major issue for the court, saying "Arguably the most time-pressing issue at this point, the Ohio Supreme Court gets to decide if abortion laws are constitutional or not." As of September 15, 2022, a court had temporarily suspended Ohio's abortion law, which restricted abortion at the threshold of six weeks since the last menstrual period.

  This marked the first Ohio Supreme Court election where candidates were listed on the general election ballot with a party signifier next to their names. The change came after Governor Mike DeWine (R) signed SB 80 into law in 2021. Politico's Zach Montellaro and Shia Kapos wrote, "For the first time in the state, candidates will have party affiliation next to their name on the general election ballot — previously they were nominated by the parties, but party affiliation was not listed for the general election — and the race would be moved up the ballot to be grouped with other statewide offices instead of being listed down below."

  2021

  See also: State supreme court elections, 2021

  Pennsylvania

  See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2021

  Kevin Brobson (R) defeated Maria McLaughlin (D) in the general election for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 2, 2021. Justice Thomas Saylor (R), who joined the court in 1998, did not run for another term because he turned 75 in 2021. Pennsylvania judges must retire at the end of the calendar year in which they reach 75 years of age. A primary election took place on May 18, 2021.

  Brobson received 52% of the vote in the Republican primary, defeating Patricia McCullough and Paula A. Patrick. McLaughlin ran unopposed in the Democratic primary.

  During the campaign, Brobson said he wanted to bring a new perspective to the court and supported allowing the public to have easier access to court rulings. McLaughlin said she is known for her commitment and compassion both on and off the bench.

  After 2021, the next scheduled election for a seat on the court was in 2023, as current chief justice Max Baer (D) reached the mandatory retirement age of 75 that year. After that, the next scheduled state supreme court elections in Pennsylvania will take place in 2025 when the three Democratic justices first elected in 2015 will be up for re-election. Unless there are unexpected vacancies, 2025 is the first year that the partisan balance of the court can change from a Democratic to a Republican majority.

  Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press wrote in July: "The result won’t shift power on the high court, currently with a 5-2 Democratic majority, but in a state where the two parties have for decades been locked into a perpetual death match over political control, it will surely draw considerable money and the most statewide attention."

  This was the first state supreme court election in Pennsylvania since 2017, when three justices were up for election or retention. Justice Sallie Mundy (R) won election to a full 10-year term after Gov. Tom Wolf (D) had originally appointed her in 2016, and then-Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Debra Todd (D) won retention elections. This did not change the partisan balance on the court.

  The partisan balance of the court changed as a result of the 2015 elections from a 4-3 Republican majority to a 5-2 Democratic majority. Justices Kevin M. Dougherty (D), David Wecht (D) and Christine Donohue (D) were elected to three open seats. There were two vacant seats that year after Justices Ronald Castille (R) and Seamus P. McCaffery (D) retired, and Justice Correale Stevens (R) lost in the May 2015 primary.

  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. At the time of the election, five judges on the court were elected in partisan elections as Democrats, and two were elected as Republicans. Since Brobson won, the court's partisan composition remained the same. If McLaughlin had won, there would have been six Democrats and one Republican.

  Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices run in partisan elections for 10-year terms. After a judge's first term, he or she must run in a retention election to serve subsequent terms. In the event of a midterm vacancy, the governor appoints a successor who must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the state senate. Interim justices must stand for election at the next general election occurring more than 10 months after the vacancy occurred. Click here to learn more about judicial selection in Pennsylvania.

  Our 2020 partisanship study of Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges determined that at the time of the 2021 elections, there were four strong Democrats, one mild Democrat, and two mild Republicans . Click here to read more from our partisanship analysis of all 50 state supreme courts.
  

2024

See also: State supreme court elections, 2024

Thirty-three states held state supreme court elections in 2024. In total, 82 of the 344 seats on state supreme courts were up for election.

Republicans lost one state court, Democrats did not gain or lose control of a state court, and one court became a divided court.

2023

See also: State supreme court elections, 2023

Two states—Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—held state supreme court elections in 2023. In total, two of the 344 seats on state supreme courts were up for election.

Republicans lost one state court, Democrats gained control of one state court.

State supreme courts with elections in 2023
Party		As of the 2023 elections	After the 2023 elections
	Democratic Party	16	17
	Republican Party	28	27
	Indeterminate	8	8
Total		52	52

2022

See also: State supreme court elections, 2022

In 2022, 29 states held elections for 84 state supreme court seats. Republicans gained three seats, and a Democrat gained one seat. As a result, Republicans gained a majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court, and Democrats gained no new majorities.

Two incumbents were defeated. In Illinois, Mary O'Brien (D) defeated Michael Burke (R). In North Carolina, Trey Allen (R) defeated Sam Ervin IV (D).

Republicans gained one state court, Democrats lost control of one state court.

2021

See also: State supreme court elections, 2021

One state—Pennsylvania—held a state supreme court election in 2021. In total, one of the 344 seats on state supreme courts was up for election.

No states saw partisan control of their courts change hands as a result of the elections.

2020

See also: State supreme court elections, 2020

Thirty-five states held state supreme court elections in 2020. In total, 78 of the nation’s 344 state supreme court seats were up for election. At 23%, this was the greatest number of seats up for election in recent years.

Click [show] at the right to view more past election results.

2019 See also: State supreme court elections, 2019 In 2019, three states—Kentucky, Louisiana, and Wisconsin—held elections for three supreme court justices. Kentucky and Wisconsin held nonpartisan elections, while Louisiana held partisan elections. 2018 See also: State supreme court elections, 2018 In 2018, 32 states held state supreme court elections for 68 seats. Twenty seats were up for partisan election and included one Democratic justice and 19 Republican justices. Democrats gained five seats in those partisan elections, leaving them with six justices and Republicans with 14. 2017 See also: State supreme court elections, 2017 In 2017, two states held supreme court elections for four seats. The only seat up for contested election in 2017 was in Pennsylvania, where sitting Justice Sallie Mundy (R) defeated Judge Dwayne D. Woodruff (D). In Wisconsin, the other race that could have produced a contested election saw Republican-affiliated Justice Annette Ziegler run unopposed in a nonpartisan election. Two other judges in Pennsylvania—Chief Justice Thomas Saylor (R) and Justice Debra Todd (D)—were retained. 2016 See also: State supreme court elections, 2016 In 2016, 32 states held supreme court elections for 76 seats. Four states held partisan elections. In Alabama (three seats), Louisiana (two seats), and Texas (six seats), the 2016 elections either maintained or increased Republican majorities on the courts. In New Mexico (one seat), the Democratic majority was maintained. Additionally, 16 states held nonpartisan elections for 32 seats, and 12 states held retention elections for 31 seats.

See also

Select your state from the dropdown menu or map below to navigate to relevant judicial selection.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE

• Female chief justices of state supreme courts
• First black judges on the state supreme courts
• Historical caseloads data of the state supreme courts
• State supreme court opinions
• State supreme court vacancies, 2025

Election coverage by office

Click the tiles below to navigate to 2024 election coverage:

• 
  U.S. Senate
  Read More
• 
  U.S. House
  Read More
• 
  Governors
  Read More
• 
  Secretary of state
  Read More
• 
  Attorney general
  Read More
• 
  Other state executives
  Read More
• 
  State legislatures
  Read More
• 
  State ballot measures
  Read More
• 
  Local ballot measures
  Read More
• 
  State judges
  Read More
• 
  Local judges
  Read More
• 
  Municipal government
  Read More
• 
  School boards
  Read More
• 
  Recalls
  Read More

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox