A judicial election is the process most states use to decide who serves on their courts, from trial-level judges up to state supreme court justices. Forty-seven states give their supreme court justices fixed terms and require them to face voters at some point during their tenure, which is the main thing that separates state judges from federal judges serving life terms under Article III.1Cornell Law Institute. U.S. Constitution Article III What that election actually looks like depends entirely on where you live. Some states run judicial races that resemble contests for governor, with party labels and attack ads. Others ask voters a single yes-or-no question about whether to keep a sitting judge for another term.
The Four Systems States Use
There is no national model for picking judges. States use partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, retention elections, merit selection, or some combination depending on the court. A state may elect its trial judges in contested races and use retention votes for its appellate bench. Knowing which system applies to the court on your ballot determines how much homework you need to do before voting.
Partisan Elections
In a partisan judicial race, candidates run under a party label that appears next to their name on the ballot. They compete in primaries, seek party endorsements, and draw support from party organizations. Roughly a dozen states use partisan elections for at least some of their courts. The upside is transparency about a candidate’s likely orientation; the downside is that it pulls the bench into the same partisan machinery that drives legislative races.
Nonpartisan Elections
Nonpartisan elections strip party labels off the ballot entirely. Candidates appear by name only, and voters have to rely on other sources to tell them apart. The design goal is to insulate judges from party organizations and shift attention to legal qualifications. In many nonpartisan systems, if no candidate clears 50 percent in the primary, the top two advance to a runoff or general election regardless of party registration.
Retention Elections
Retention elections work differently because no opponent appears on the ballot. Voters see a single question: should this judge continue to serve? A yes majority keeps the judge for another full term. A no majority creates a vacancy that the governor or a nominating commission fills. Nineteen states use retention elections for at least some of their judges. Sitting judges rarely lose these votes, but high-profile removals do happen and tend to draw heavy outside spending when they do.
Merit Selection (the Missouri Plan)
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia use some form of merit selection for their supreme courts, often called the Missouri Plan after the state that pioneered it in 1940. It works in three stages. A nonpartisan nominating commission reviews applicants and sends a short list to the governor. The governor appoints from that list. After an initial term, the new judge faces a retention election. Supporters say the process filters candidates through professional evaluation before voters get the final word. Critics note that the nominating commissions themselves are often filled by appointees of governors or bar associations with their own leanings.
What You See on the Ballot
Judicial terms are long by design. Across the 47 states with fixed terms for supreme court justices, terms run from 6 to 14 years, with 6, 8, or 10 years being the most common. The extended duration is meant to insulate judges from short-term political pressure and give them time to build expertise without constantly campaigning.
When a judge leaves office mid-term through resignation, retirement, or death, the governor typically appoints a replacement. The interim judge serves until the next general election, when voters decide whether to keep the appointee or choose someone else. Timing rules vary. Some states require the election to be held more than a year after the appointment; others simply use the next regularly scheduled election.
Nineteen states also allow voters to recall elected officials, including judges, before a term ends. Recall begins with a petition and a signature threshold, and in most of these states the petition doesn’t need to allege a specific legal ground. Recall is a political mechanism, not a legal proceeding like impeachment, so voters can act for any reason they find sufficient.2National Conference of State Legislatures. Recall of State Officials Judicial recalls are rare but attract heavy attention when they occur.
The Rules Candidates Run Under
Every state sets minimum qualifications for judicial candidates. A law license and active bar membership are universal. Most states require a minimum number of years in practice, usually five to ten depending on the level of court, with appellate benches demanding more experience than trial courts. In Texas, supreme court candidates need at least ten years of experience, while statutory county court judges need four.3Texas Judicial Branch. Judge Qualifications and Selection in the State of Texas Residency within the district is standard, and many states cap judicial service with a mandatory retirement age, commonly between 70 and 75.
Judicial campaigns also operate under speech restrictions that would be unconstitutional in a race for governor or legislature. The logic is simple: a judge who promises to rule a certain way can’t credibly claim to be impartial once on the bench. Rule 4.1 of the ABA’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, adopted in some form by most states, prohibits judicial candidates from making “pledges, promises, or commitments” inconsistent with impartial performance on issues likely to come before the court.4American Bar Association. Rule 4.1 Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates A candidate can discuss judicial philosophy in general terms but cannot tell voters they will always rule a certain way on abortion, gun rights, or sentencing.5American Bar Association. Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Three U.S. Supreme Court decisions set the outer boundaries of what states can regulate. In 2002, the Court struck down Minnesota’s “announce clause,” which had barred candidates from stating views on disputed legal or political issues, finding it violated the First Amendment.6Justia Law. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) In 2015, going the other direction on fundraising, the Court upheld Florida’s ban on personal solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates, reasoning that judges are not politicians and states have a compelling interest in making sure judges never personally ask anyone for money.7Justia Law. Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015) In practice, a judicial candidate can talk about legal philosophy but typically cannot pick up the phone and ask a donor for a check. Violations of these rules can bring sanctions from a state’s judicial conduct commission ranging from private admonishment to removal from office.
Money in Judicial Races
Spending on state supreme court elections has climbed sharply. During the 2023–24 cycle, candidates, interest groups, and political parties spent at least $157 million on state supreme court races, 35 percent more than any previous cycle.8Brennan Center for Justice. The Politics of Judicial Elections 2023-24 For the first time, outside interest group spending surpassed candidate spending, hitting $85 million, or 54 percent of the total. The acceleration followed the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which cleared the way for unlimited independent expenditures.
Contribution limits are set state by state, so the caps vary significantly. A handful of jurisdictions offer public financing for judicial candidates. New Mexico, for instance, provides full public grants for supreme court races to reduce candidates’ reliance on private donors. Because judicial candidates generally lack the name recognition of politicians running for other offices, they face pressure to raise enough money simply to reach voters who know little about them.
Money raises a concrete legal problem: what happens when a major donor’s case lands before the judge they helped elect? The Supreme Court addressed this in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., where a coal company executive spent $3 million supporting a judicial candidate whose election proved decisive in a case worth $50 million to the executive’s company. The Court held that due process required the judge to step aside, finding that the size of the contribution relative to the campaign’s total spending created an unconstitutional probability of bias.9Justia Law. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) The decision did not set a bright-line dollar threshold for mandatory recusal, leaving lower courts to work out case by case when campaign support crosses it.
How To Evaluate Judicial Candidates
Judicial races consistently rank among the most under-researched items on any ballot. Most voters can name their governor but not a single judge they’re being asked to retain or elect. A few resources help close that gap.
State and local bar associations publish candidate ratings based on surveys of attorneys who have appeared before the candidates or practiced alongside them. Categories vary but commonly include tiers like “Highly Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Not Recommended.” A “Not Recommended” rating is not disqualifying on its own, but it signals that practicing lawyers have concerns about the candidate’s legal knowledge, temperament, or both. These ratings carry particular weight in nonpartisan races where voters have no party label to lean on.
In states that use retention elections, judicial performance evaluations give voters a fuller picture. These reports cover a judge’s legal reasoning, courtroom demeanor, punctuality, and fairness as reported by attorneys, jurors, and court staff. Nonpartisan civic organizations also publish voter guides with candidate questionnaire responses.
Two other sources are worth checking. Disciplinary records from judicial conduct boards are public in most states and show whether a sitting or former judge has been sanctioned for ethical violations. Campaign finance disclosure databases, maintained by state election agencies, show who is funding a candidate’s race. When a large share of a candidate’s contributions comes from a single industry or interest group, that is worth knowing before you vote.