Forty-two states elect judges in some form, leaving only eight where voters have no direct say over who sits on the bench. Those eight are Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Everywhere else, at least some judicial seats go on a ballot, though what that ballot looks like varies enormously. Some states run bare-knuckle partisan races with party labels next to each name. Others hold quiet retention votes where a sitting judge just needs a majority “yes” to keep the job.
The count is a starting point, not the whole picture. Most states mix methods depending on court level, so a state that “elects” its trial judges might fill its supreme court through appointment, and vice versa.
The Four Main Election Formats
Popular judicial elections come in three shapes: partisan, nonpartisan, and retention. A fourth method, merit selection, isn’t an election itself but produces the appointed judges who later face retention votes, so it belongs in the same conversation.
Partisan Elections
Candidates run with a party label attached, the same way candidates for governor or the legislature do. Eight states use partisan elections to fill seats on their highest court, and roughly 20 use partisan elections for at least one lower court level. Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, New York, and Texas are among the most prominent examples.
Supporters say the party label gives voters a meaningful shortcut for evaluating judicial philosophy. Critics say it ties judges to party machinery and donor networks. Partisan races tend to attract the most campaign spending, and candidates usually have to win a primary before reaching the general election.
Nonpartisan Elections
The ballot mechanics are the same, but no party designation appears next to the candidate’s name. Thirteen states use nonpartisan elections for their supreme court, and 19 use them for at least some lower courts. Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin rely heavily on this method.
In theory, removing the label pushes voters toward qualifications and experience. In practice, party endorsements, ad spending, and interest group money often fill the gap. Voters who haven’t researched the candidates frequently skip judicial contests altogether, and judicial races routinely draw fewer total votes than the other contests on the same ballot.
Retention Elections
Retention is the quietest form of judicial election. There’s no opponent. The sitting judge appears on the ballot with a single question: should this judge be retained? A majority “yes” keeps the seat. A “no” majority creates a vacancy that gets filled through the state’s appointment process.
About 20 states use retention elections for at least some courts, most often at the appellate level. Sixteen states held retention elections for supreme court seats in the most recent cycle. In nearly all of them, judges first reach the bench through gubernatorial appointment or a merit-selection process, then face voters after a set number of years.
Retention losses are rare but do happen, usually when organized opposition forms around a controversial ruling. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their retention votes in 2010 after the court’s decision on same-sex marriage.
Several states, including Colorado, run judicial performance evaluation commissions that publish reports on each judge before a retention vote. Reach is a persistent problem: many voters never see the reports, and retention can slide toward a name-recognition contest.
Merit Selection
Merit selection is the most common method for filling state supreme court seats, used by 21 states and the District of Columbia. Another 20 states use it for at least some lower courts. Often called the Missouri Plan after the state that pioneered it in 1940, the process runs through a nominating commission of lawyers and non-lawyers who screen candidates and forward a short list, usually three to five names, to the governor. The governor must pick from that list within a set timeframe, or the choice reverts to the commission or chief justice.
Most merit-selection states pair the appointment with a retention vote later on, which is why the appointment and election categories overlap. A smaller number treat the process as a closed loop, with reappointment handled internally and no public vote at all.
The Eight States Without Judicial Elections
In Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia, judges reach the bench through gubernatorial appointment, legislative vote, or a combination. Five states, California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, give the governor direct appointment power over supreme court justices without a nominating commission’s short list, subject to confirmation by a legislative body or executive council. (California allows a popular vote in some circumstances at the lower court level, which is why it doesn’t appear on the no-elections list.)
Two states, South Carolina and Virginia, hand judicial selection to their legislatures at every court level. In South Carolina, a Judicial Merit Selection Commission screens candidates and forwards three names to the General Assembly, which votes on the candidates or rejects the slate. In Virginia, legislative committees hold public hearings on nominees submitted by General Assembly members, and each chamber votes separately.
Why the Court Level Changes the Answer
A state’s selection method for its supreme court often differs from its method for trial courts. A state might use merit selection for the high court while running partisan elections for county-level judges, or use nonpartisan elections at trial and retention votes on appeal. Saying a state “elects” its judges is almost always true for some seats and false for others.
The practical consequence is that the same voter, in the same state, may cast a partisan judicial vote in one race, a nonpartisan vote in another, and a retention vote in a third, all on the same ballot.
How Vacancies Get Filled
When a judge leaves the bench mid-term, every state needs a fast way to fill the seat. In most states, the governor makes an interim appointment, either freely or from a commission’s list. Seventeen states fill supreme court vacancies through direct gubernatorial appointment; 29 use a commission-assisted process.
The interim judge then usually has to face voters or the legislature at the next available election cycle. Depending on when the vacancy opened relative to the election calendar, an appointed judge might serve several years before that first ballot appearance. That’s one reason many “elected” judges initially reach the bench without ever running a contested race.
South Carolina and Virginia handle vacancies through their legislatures. South Carolina lets the governor appoint only when less than a year remains in the term. In Virginia, a gubernatorial appointment made while the legislature is out of session lasts only until 30 days after the next session starts, at which point the General Assembly elects someone to the seat.
Terms, Retirement, and How Often Judges Face Voters
Forty-seven states set fixed terms for their supreme court justices rather than granting life tenure. Six years is the most common length, used in 15 states. Twelve states use eight-year terms; another 12 use ten-year terms. The District of Columbia’s 15-year term is the longest. Trial court terms tend to be shorter, with a median around six years and a range from four to 15.
About 32 states impose a mandatory retirement age, most commonly 70. Colorado sets it at 72 and Vermont at 90. Arkansas has no set age but strips retirement benefits from judges who seek reelection past 70.
Term length and selection method together determine how much electoral pressure a judge actually feels. A justice on a 10-year term facing an eventual retention vote operates in a very different environment than a trial judge running in a contested partisan race every four years.
Money in Judicial Elections
Spending in state judicial races has climbed sharply since the early 2000s, especially at the supreme court level, where outside groups see strategic value. Battles over issues like abortion rights and regulatory policy have made some judicial seats as politically charged as any legislative race.
The U.S. Supreme Court set a constitutional limit on the money-and-recusal problem in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. A coal company executive spent roughly $3 million supporting a West Virginia Supreme Court candidate while the company had a major case pending before the court. After the supported candidate won and refused to step aside, the Court held that due process required recusal when campaign support created a serious risk of actual bias.1Justia Law. Caperton v A T Massey Coal Co, 556 US 868 (2009)
Caperton established a floor, not a ceiling. Judicial candidates in states with contested elections still need to raise money, and much of it still comes from lawyers and organizations that appear before those same judges. Most states impose ethics rules restricting what candidates can say and do during a campaign, though whether those rules meaningfully insulate judges from political pressure remains actively debated.
The Federal Contrast
Federal judges are not elected. Article III of the Constitution provides for presidential nomination and Senate confirmation for Supreme Court justices, circuit judges, and district judges, all serving lifetime appointments removable only through impeachment.2United States Courts. Types of Federal Judges A state trial judge in Texas may have won a partisan race; the federal district judge down the hall was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The two systems can share a courthouse without sharing anything about how their judges got there.