A state’s judicial selection system can affect who ultimately becomes a judge, as well as the pressures judges face while serving. States have adopted a wide variety of systems. Common state judicial selection methods include contested elections, gubernatorial appointment systems with retention elections, and gubernatorial and legislative appointment systems. Many states with appointment systems also require candidates to be vetted by a judicial nominating commission. The Brennan Center’s interactive map provides a detailed overview of every state’s judicial selection system.
State methods differ from the federal selection process, in which judges — including U.S. Supreme Court justices — are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed, federal judges hold their positions during good behavior, generally meaning they enjoy lifetime appointments.
How are state supreme court justices selected?
One distinctive element of state judicial selection is the prevalence of judicial elections. Thirty-eight states use elections as part of their system for choosing state high court justices. In 8 of these states, judges are chosen through contested partisan elections, where multiple candidates can vie for a judicial seat and party labels appear on the ballot. (This count includes New Mexico, which uses a hybrid system involving gubernatorial appointments, partisan elections, and retention elections.) In 14 states, judges are elected by voters in nonpartisan elections where the candidates are listed on the ballot without a party affiliation.
In 4 of the states that use contested elections — Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi — state supreme court justices are elected via judicial districts, rather than statewide.
Nineteen states use retention elections, which are unopposed “yes” or “no” elections, that determine whether sitting judges should retain their seats for additional terms. Judges who face retention elections may first come to the bench via contested elections (as is the case in Illinois and Pennsylvania) or appointments (as is the case in 17 states, including New Mexico).
Fourteen states use a system that’s known, interchangeably, as merit selection or the Missouri Plan. Under this system, an independent nominating commission screens and evaluates prospective judges and then presents a slate to the governor, who must choose from that list. Judges stand for periodic retention elections after their initial terms.
Among states that do not use contested or retention elections, 10 provide for appointment by the governor. In 26 states, gubernatorial appointments require the input of a judicial nominating commission, which vets judicial candidates. In 14 states that use gubernatorial appointments, the governor’s judicial nominee is subject to confirmation by the legislature or another body.
Two states, Virginia and South Carolina, provide for the direct selection of judges by the state legislature.
In most states that use appointment systems, judges must later go through a reappointment process involving the governor or legislature. In one state (Hawaii), judges are reappointed by the state’s judicial nominating commission. In three states, judges either serve life terms (Rhode Island) or serve until a mandatory retirement age (Massachusetts and New Hampshire). These are the only states in the country where judges do not go through some form of reselection process.
