Judicial election methods by state

Methods of judicial selection
Election methods
Partisan election
Nonpartisan election
Michigan method
Retention election
Assisted appointment
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Direct appointment
Court appointment
Gubernatorial appointment
Legislative election
Municipal government selection

Methods of judicial election vary across the United States. Though each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they fill their state and local judiciaries, there are three main election methods:

• Partisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
• Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
• Retention election: Judges run in yes-no elections without opposition to determine whether or not the judge remains on the court.

In addition to these three election methods, states that use the Michigan method combine a nonpartisan general election with a partisan candidate selection method.

Other methods of judicial selection include: assisted appointment, gubernatorial appointment, and legislative elections. To read more about how these selection methods are used across the country, click here.

State supreme court elections

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

Selection methods (full-term)

Selection methods (partial-term)

Selection methods (retention)

See also: Judicial selection in the states

The map below shows how each state fills full-term vacancies. 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. In states with retention elections, following the conclusion of a justice's first full term, the justice may choose to run in a retention election.

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

See also: Judicial selection in the states

The map below shows how each state fills partial-term vacancies. When a justice steps down before their term is scheduled to end, the following selection methods are used. 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.

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

See also: Retention election

The map below shows which states hold retention elections. After a justice serves a complete term, they have the option to stand for retention. Retention elections, unlike partisan or nonpartisan elections, only list the incumbent justice, but allow voters to choose in favor of or against the justice remaining on the court.

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

Intermediate appellate and trial court election systems by state

States with partisan elections

The following states elect their judges in partisan elections:

Alabama Arizona* Connecticut** Georgia* Illinois Indiana*

Kansas**** Louisiana Maine** Missouri New Mexico

New York North Carolina Pennsylvania South Carolina** Tennessee

Texas Vermont** West Virginia

States with nonpartisan elections

The following states elect their judges in nonpartisan elections:

Arizona* Arkansas California Florida Georgia* Idaho

Indiana* Kentucky Maryland*** Michigan Minnesota Mississippi

Montana Nevada North Dakota Ohio*** Oklahoma Oregon

South Dakota Washington Wisconsin

* Holds both partisan and nonpartisan elections, depending on the type of court.
** Only probate court judges are elected.
*** Holds partisan primaries and nonpartisan general elections.
**** Holds both partisan elections and retentions, depending on the type of court.

States that hold retention elections

Incumbent judges face retention elections in the following states:

• Alaska**
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado**
• Florida
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa**
• Kansas
• Maryland
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska**
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma
• Pennsylvania
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Utah**
• Wyoming**

** Retention elections only (no partisan or nonpartisan elections for judges).

States without judicial elections

The following states do not elect any judges by popular election:

• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Massachusetts
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Rhode Island
• Virginia

States that hold judicial elections in odd-numbered years

While most states conduct their elections in even-numbered years, the following states may elect judges in odd-numbered years as well. Pennsylvania is the one state that only elects judges in odd-numbered years.

• Louisiana
• New York
• Pennsylvania
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Comparison table

For more judicial election details, click on the name of a state, or visit Portal:Judicial elections.

Key:
"P"=partisan
"NP"=nonpartisan
"R"=retention
* = probate judges only ** = justice court judges only

Judicial election methods by state
State	Type of elections	Primary?	Runoff?	Odd-year elections?
Alabama	P	No	Yes	No
Alaska	R	No	No	No
Arizona	P/NP/R	Yes	No	No
Arkansas	NP	Yes	Yes	No
California	NP/R	Yes	No	No
Colorado	R	No	No	No
Connecticut*	P	Yes	Yes	No
Delaware	No judicial elections
Florida	NP/R	Yes	No	No
Georgia	P/NP	Yes	Yes	No
Hawaii	No judicial elections
Idaho	NP/R	Yes	No	No
Illinois	P/R	Yes	No	No
Indiana	P/NP/R	Yes	No	No
Iowa	R	No	No	No
Kansas	P/R	Yes	No	No
Kentucky	NP	Yes	No	No
Louisiana	P	Yes	Yes	Yes
Maine*	P	Yes	Yes	No
Maryland	NP/R	Yes	No	No
Massachusetts	No judicial elections
Michigan	NP	Yes	No	Yes
Minnesota	NP	Yes	No	No
Mississippi**	NP	Yes	Yes	Yes
Missouri	P/R	Yes	No	No
Montana	NP/R	Yes	No	No
Nebraska	R	No	No	No
Nevada	NP	Yes	No	Yes
New Hampshire	No judicial elections
New Jersey	No judicial elections
New Mexico	P	Yes	Yes	No
New York	P	Yes	Yes	Yes
North Carolina	P	Yes	Yes	No
North Dakota	NP	Yes	No	No
Ohio	NP	Yes	No	Yes
Oklahoma	NP/R	Yes	Yes	No
Oregon	NP	Yes	No	No
Pennsylvania	P/R	Yes	No	Yes
Rhode Island	No judicial elections
South Carolina*	P	Yes	No	No
South Dakota	NP/R	Yes	No	No
Tennessee	P/R	Yes	No	No
Texas	P	Yes	No	No
Utah	R	No	No	No
Vermont*	P	Yes	Yes	No
Virginia	No judicial elections
Washington	NP	Yes	No	Yes
West Virginia	P	Yes	No	No
Wisconsin	NP	Yes	No	Yes
Wyoming	R	No	Yes	No

Judicial selection methods

Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:

Election

• Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
• Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
• Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
• Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.

Assisted appointment

• Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list. At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
  • Bar-controlled commission: Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
  • Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
  • Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.

Direct appointment

• Court appointment: Judges are selected by judges in the state judiciary.
• Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
• Legislative election: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
• Municipal government selection: Judges are selected by the governing body of their municipality.

Click a state on the map below to explore judicial selection processes in that state.

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

http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE

Brief history of judicial selection

At the founding of the United States, all states selected judges through either gubernatorial or legislative appointments. In 1832, Mississippi became the first state to implement judicial elections. New York followed suit in 1846, and a national shift occurred as states joined them. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, 24 of the 34 states had an elected judiciary, and every state that achieved statehood after the Civil War provided for the election of some—if not all—of its judges.

Scholars attribute the move toward judicial elections to a variety of factors, including:

• concern over an independent judiciary, especially after Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary's power as equal to that of the executive and legislative branches,
• imitation by the states,
• belief that judges at a local level should be accountable and responsive to their communities, and
• the growing popularity of Jacksonian ideals, which elevated the voice of the average American.

Initially, all judicial elections were partisan. But as time went on, public trust in elected judiciaries wavered, and citizens who viewed the courts as overrun by machine politics began looking for alternative methods. Groups such as the Progressives, the American Bar Association, and the American Judicature Society led an effort to restore what they called "the traditional respect for the bench," which they said had been lost.

One other popular selection method was the nonpartisan election of judges, first implemented by Cook County, Illinois in 1873. By not including party affiliation on the ballot, supporters argued, divisive partisan interests would find no footing in state and local selection processes.

“	Since judges are supposed to be “above politics,” this reform was particularly popular regarding judicial selection. Nonpartisan judicial elections were perceived as a way to clean up corruption and cronyism in the judicial selection process while still keeping judges accountable to the people.	”
—Associate Professor Matthew J. Streb of Northern Illinois University

Though states continued to experiment with selection methods throughout the next century, the methods of legislative elections and direct gubernatorial appointments did not see a return. No state that achieved statehood after 1847 had an original constitution calling for these methods except Hawaii, whose judges were initially chosen by gubernatorial appointment with senate consent.

By 1927, 12 states selected judges in nonpartisan elections. Critics claimed that as long as judges had to campaign for office, politics would still play a role. Other critics questioned whether citizens would be able to cast informed ballots in nonpartisan judicial elections, offering the assumption being that party affiliation communicates a candidate's values in an easy shorthand. Three states that had experimented with nonpartisan elections switched back to partisan ones by 1927.

Out of these concerns arose a third kind of election, the retention election, which the American Judicature Society argued encapsulates the positive aspects of each selection system. Retention elections were meant to work within the assisted appointment method to give judges relief from campaigning against an opponent while also giving voters the power to remove those judges from office if necessary. In 1940, Missouri became the first state to adopt the assisted appointment method as we know it today, and since then more than thirty states followed suit, using some form of retention elections at some level of their judiciary.

See also

State courts	Appointment methods	Election methods
State supreme courts Intermediate appellate courts Trial courts	Assisted appointment Court appointment Gubernatorial appointment Legislative election Municipal government selection	Partisan election Nonpartisan election Michigan method

External links

Suggest a link

• National Center for State Courts
• American Judicature Society - Methods of Judicial Selection