Partisan elections make supreme court races competitive but trial court races party-dominated

Evidence

Partisan elections for the state supreme court promote greater competition. Far fewer justices reach the state high court by appointment; appointed justices who run for election are almost always opposed, and almost 20 percent of incumbent justices were defeated from 1980 to 1995. The margin of victory and the frequency of incumbent defeat are comparable to the figures for incumbent members of the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the greater competitiveness of partisan elections usually does not extend to elections for the trial court bench. These elections instead follow the pattern for other local elections, which is generally one of domination by a single party. For trial court judges, therefore, nomination by the majority party is tantamount to election, and incumbent judges are rarely defeated unless they lose their party support. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 413

Partisan elections for the state supreme court promote greater competition. Far fewer justices reach the state high court by appointment; appointed justices who run for election are almost always opposed, and about 20 percent of incumbent justices are defeated. … But the greater competitiveness of partisan elections does not extend to elections for the trial court bench. These elections tend to follow the pattern for other local elections, namely, domination by a single party. For trial court judges, therefore, nomination by the majority party is tantamount to election, and incumbent judges are rarely defeated unless they lose their party support. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 571

Categorization

• XREF: Supports the earlier chapter observation that where a case is heard shapes who can win it, by showing single-party dominance at the trial level. — connects to: No judicial selection system fully eliminates political influence — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 498; Partisan supreme court elections are competitive but trial court elections are not.; Low-information voters fall back on party, name recognition, endorsements, or incumbency in judicial races — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 575 (+2 more)
• QUESTION: If party nomination equals election at trial level, what accountability mechanism remains for error or misconduct?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 413; G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 571

Broader Connections

• Low-information voters fall back on party, name recognition, endorsements, or incumbency in judicial races #expands (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 575