Partisan supreme court elections are competitive but trial court elections are not.

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Partisan elections make supreme court races competitive but trial court races party-dominated — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 413; Nonpartisan judicial elections are seldom genuinely contested — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 412

Broader Connections

• Partisan elections make supreme court races competitive but trial court races party-dominated #corroborates (0.95) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 413