Low-information voters fall back on party, name recognition, endorsements, or incumbency in judicial races

Evidence

In partisan elections, voters typically take their cues from the party affiliation of the candidates; thus, the vote for judges tends to reflect the partisan division in the state. In nonpartisan elections, where voters lack even that cue, voting patterns tend to be more diffuse as voters look for something—a familiar name, a newspaper endorsement, or incumbency—to differentiate among the candidates. … When judicial elections are not concurrent with elections for national or statewide offices, many potential voters do not bother to turn out. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 575

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Retention elections rarely remove judges because voters lack information about them — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 436; Partisan elections make supreme court races competitive but trial court races party-dominated — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 413; Incumbency-oriented voting results from risk asymmetry, not merely punishment. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2440 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Incumbency-oriented voting results from risk asymmetry, not merely punishment. #expands (0.75) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2440