Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Partisan election of judges
| 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 |
The partisan election of judges is a selection method where judges are chosen through elections where they are listed on the ballot with an indication of their political affiliation.
As of April 2025, eight states used this method at the state supreme court level and 22 states used this selection method for at least one type of court below the supreme court level.
Other methods of judicial selection include: nonpartisan election, the Michigan method, assisted appointment, gubernatorial appointment, court appointment, municipal government selection, and legislative elections. To read more about how these selection methods are used across the country, click here.
How partisan elections work
Though the basic premise of partisan elections is the same from state to state, there is some variation in how the elections are conducted. Below are examples of how partisan elections were administered in different states, as of 2025.
- Alabama: Candidates compete in partisan primaries to earn their party's nomination for the general election.
- Louisiana: All candidates compete in one primary election and their partisan affiliation is listed on the ballot. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the top two vote-getters (regardless of party) advance to a general election.
- New Mexico: If no candidate files to run against the current incumbent, the next election will be a retention election. If more than one candidate files, then a partisan election will take place.
- New York: Voters election party convention delegates who choose the party's general election candidates.
States using this method
State supreme courts
At the state supreme court level, the following states use this selection method: Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
The map below highlights selection methods in state supreme courts across the country.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ States may use different selection methods for different courts in their state; in such cases, a state is listed for each selection method use for intermediate appellate and general jurisdiction courts.
- ↑ Choi, Stephen, Mitu Gulati, and Eric A. Posner. "Professionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather Than Appointed Judiciary." John M. Olin Law & Economics (2d series), Working Paper No. 357. (August 2007).
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Gordon, Sanford and Gregory Huber. "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior." Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2:107-138. (2007).
- ↑ The Federalist Society, "The Case for Judicial Appointments," January 1, 2003
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts," accessed June 7, 2021
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," accessed August 10, 2021
- ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Rethinking Judicial Selection in State Courts," accessed June 7, 2021
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 American Judicature Society, "History of Reform Efforts," archived October 2, 2014
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 DeGruyter Brill, "The Study of Judicial Elections," accessed April 21, 2025
- ↑ American Judicature Society, "Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General Jurisdiction Courts," 2013
| |||||||
