Nonpartisan judicial elections are seldom genuinely contested

Evidence

Studies of nonpartisan elections confirm many of the critics’ charges. Melinda Gann Hall found that from 1980 to 1995, in states with nonpartisan judicial elections, more than half the supreme court justices running for reelection ran unopposed in their first election, and less than 10 percent were defeated. Nonpartisan elections for trial courts were even less competitive. “Judges on the major trial courts of Ohio were opposed only 27 percent of the time, those of Michigan 26 percent of the time, and those of California only 7 percent.” For incumbent judges who were challenged, close races were rare and defeat even rarer. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 412

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the broader course theme of judicial accountability versus independence, and the debate over how judges are selected. — connects to: Partisan supreme court elections are competitive but trial court elections are not.; 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 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Partisan elections make supreme court races competitive but trial court races party-dominated #qualifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 413
• Retention elections rarely remove judges because voters lack information about them #corroborates (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 436
• Partisan supreme court elections are competitive but trial court elections are not. #complicates (0.73)
• Dalit candidates rarely win from non-reserved constituencies because non-Dalit votes do not transfer #exemplifies (0.72)