Retention defeats require organized opposition campaigns against judges

Evidence

Incumbents have been defeated in retention elections only when confronted by organized opposition from the legal profession, the media, interest groups, or elements of the general public. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 609

Incumbents have been defeated in retention elections only when confronted by organized opposition from the legal profession, the media, or elements of the general public. In some instances, judges have violated the law or professional norms, prompting campaigns to unseat them. One judge, for example, was defeated after consistently appearing on the bench drunk; another, after repeatedly patronizing or insulting female lawyers and witnesses in his courtroom; and a third, after using his power to assign cases to ensure that the judges deciding politically sensitive cases would be responsive to the Democratic Party. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 437

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 609; G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 437
• XREF: connects to: Retention elections rarely remove judges because voters lack information about them — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 436; Interest groups increasingly influence federal appeals court nominations — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 514; Attack ads in judicial elections routinely distort candidates’ actual records — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 590 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Electoral incentives can push judges toward racially disparate sentencing #complicates (0.75) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 792