Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
State supreme court partisanship, 2016
| 2016 State Judicial Elections | |
|---|---|
2017 »
« 2015
| |
 | |
| Part 1: Overview | |
| Part 2: Supreme Courts | |
| Part 3: Partisanship | |
| Part 4: Changes in 2016 | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
|
While influence on state supreme courts shifted in the course of 2016 elections, party control of partisan-elected state supreme courts remained unchanged. Among state supreme courts with nonpartisan elections but partisan-affiliated judges, only North Carolina and Michigan could have seen a shift of known political balance. North Carolina shifted from 4-3 Republican-affiliated justices to 4-3 Democratic-affiliated justices; Michigan's balance remained at 5-2 Republican.
Overview
Based on the seats in the seven states with partisan 2016 state supreme court elections, no court could have switched party control.
Despite this, in states with closely divided courts, the 2016 elections set the stage for the next election cycle.
Not all courts elect justices in partisan elections. In most states, justices are appointed. Of those that initially elect their justices, 16 use nonpartisan elections, while only seven use partisan elections. Nonpartisan elections vary widely from state to state. Nonpartisan elections in some states require judges to declare their partisan affiliations; in other states, judges are not required to declare a political affiliation and in fact may be prohibited from doing so. Where possible, Ballotpedia uses the available information to describe the partisan or ideological leanings of nonpartisan candidates. In Michigan and North Carolina, which both elect justices in nonpartisan elections, North Carolina's supreme court shifted balance to 4-3 Democratic-affiliated justices; Michigan's remained unchanged at 5-2 Republican.
Parties and partisan affiliation
Republican majority courts
Republicans had a majority in 2016 on four courts of last resort in three states. A partisan switch was not possible in Louisiana because in one seat, two Republicans ran for what was a Democratic seat; in the other seat, the incumbent Republican ran unopposed.
| Court | Partisan control | Seats up for election | Possible partisan switch? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 9 Republicans 0 Democrats |
3 (R) seats | No |
| Louisiana Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 4 Republicans 3 Democrats |
1 (D) seat & 1 (R) seat | No |
| Texas Supreme Court elections, 2016[1] | 9 Republicans 0 Democrats |
3 (R) seats | No |
| Texas Court of Criminal Appeals elections, 2016[1] | 8 Republicans 1 Democrat |
2 (R) seats & 1 (D) seat | No |
Democratic majority courts
Democrats controlled three state supreme courts in 2016:
| Court | Partisan control | Seats up for election | Possible partisan switch? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois Supreme Court | 4 Democrats 3 Republicans |
No seats up in 2016 | No |
| New Mexico Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 4 Democrats 1 Republican |
1 (R) seats | No |
| Pennsylvania Supreme Court | 5 Democrats 2 Republicans |
No seats up in 2016 | No |
Partisan-affiliated nonpartisan courts
Supreme court elections in Michigan and Ohio are nonpartisan, but the partisan affiliations of justices are known because justices are nominated in party conventions. In Michigan, both incumbent Republican justices were re-elected; the court's balance, therefore, remained steady at 5-2 Republican. In Ohio, a partisan switch was not possible because one incumbent Republican justice ran unopposed. Both of the other seats up for election went to Republicans, leaving the court's balance steady at 6-1 Republican.
| Court | Partisan control | Seats up for election | Possible partisan switch? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan Supreme Court elections, 2016 | (5-2) Republican majority | 2 (R) seats | Yes (did not occur) |
| Ohio Supreme Court elections, 2016 | (6-1) Republican majority | 3 (R) seats | No |
Nonpartisan courts with partisan leanings
In Wisconsin, justices are elected in nonpartisan elections and are not officially nominated in party conventions; however, it is possible to determine the ideological leaning of each of the justices based on election endorsements and personal statements.
In West Virginia, judicial elections were partisan until a 2015 law was passed. Liberal-leaning justices held a 3-2 advantage in the state supreme court heading into the new nonpartisan 2016 elections and continued to hold it in the wake of the race.
In North Carolina, analysts observed a 4-3 conservative majority on the court. This shifted to a 4-3 liberal majority with the election of Judge Michael R. Morgan over incumbent Justice Robert H. Edmunds Jr.
| Court | Partisan control | Seats up for election | Partisan switch? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 5 conservatives 2 liberals |
1 conservative seat | No |
| West Virginia Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 3 liberals 2 conservatives |
1 conservative seat | No |
| North Carolina Supreme Court elections, 2016 | 4 conservatives 3 liberals |
1 conservative seat | Yes |
2016 candidates
Of the 20 states holding partisan or nonpartisan elections, 44 seats were up for grabs.
Incumbents
- See also: State supreme court elections, 2016
In the 2016 elections, 33 incumbents filed for re-election; three incumbents were forced to retire because they reached the mandatory retirement age; eight incumbents had the option to run for re-election but chose not to.
Uncontested races
In the 2016 elections, 33 seats were held by incumbents who decided to run for re-election; 15 of those incumbents had no challengers in either the primary or the general election; one incumbent, Tom Parker, had a primary challenger, but had no general election challengers.
| Court | Unopposed candidate | Primary challenger | General election challenger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Kelli Wise (R) Michael Bolin (R) Tom Parker (R) |
No No Won |
No No No |
| Georgia Supreme Court elections, 2016 | David Nahmias | Georgia holds no judicial primary. | No |
| Idaho Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Roger Burdick | Idaho holds no judicial parimary. | No |
| Louisiana Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Marcus Clark (R) | No | No |
| Mississippi Supreme Court elections, 2016 | James D. Maxwell | Mississippi holds no judicial primary. | No |
| Montana Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Mike McGrath Jim Shea |
No No |
No No |
| Nevada Supreme Court elections, 2016 | James Hardesty Ron Parraguirre |
No No |
No No |
| North Dakota Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Lisa Fair McEvers | No | No |
| Ohio Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Maureen O'Connor (R) | No | No |
| Oregon Supreme Court elections, 2016 | Rives Kistler Lynn Nakamoto Jack Landau |
No No No |
No No No |
2016 trifectas
- See also: State government trifectas
A state government trifecta occurs when one political party holds the following three positions in a state's government:
- The governorship
- A majority in the state senate
- A majority in the state house
A trifecta plus is a state where the party with a trifecta also enjoys control over the state's supreme court.
There are trifectas plus in five of the 50 states.
- 5
Republican trifectas plus - 0
Democratic trifectas plus
Republican trifectas plus
The following states had a Republican trifecta plus going into the 2016 elections. This means that the state has a Republican governor, a Republican majority in the state legislature, and a Republican majority on the state supreme court.
Trifectas in states with nonpartisan or retention elections
Below are the states with nonpartisan or retention elections, and their 2016 trifecta status.
Republican trifecta states |
Democratic trifecta states |
Divided government |
See also
Footnotes
| ||||||||
| |||||||
