A state’s judicial selection system can influence who ultimately becomes a judge and the pressures they face while in office. States have adopted different 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 judicial nominating commissions. The Brennan Center’s interactive map provides a detailed overview of each state’s judicial selection system.
The state’s method differs from the federal selection process, in which judges, including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed, federal judges retain their positions as long as they are on good behavior, meaning they generally enjoy lifetime appointments.
How are state supreme court justices chosen?
One of the distinctive factors in the selection of state judiciaries is the prevalence of judicial elections. Thirty-eight states use elections as part of their system for selecting state high court judges. In eight of these states, judges are elected through partisan elections, multiple candidates can compete for a judicial seat, and the ballot includes a party label. (This number includes New Mexico, which has a hybrid system that includes gubernatorial appointments, partisan elections, and retention elections.) In 14 states, judges are elected by voters in nonpartisan elections, with candidates listed on the ballot without party affiliation.
In the four states that use contested elections (Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi), state supreme court justices are elected through 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 facing retention elections can first come to the court by contested election (as in Illinois and Pennsylvania) or by appointment (as in 17 states, including New Mexico).
Fourteen states use a system known interchangeably as merit selection or the Missouri Plan. Under this system, an independent nominating commission reviews and evaluates judicial candidates and presents them to the governor, who must choose from the list. After their first term, judges run for periodic retention elections.
Of the states that do not use contested or retention elections, 10 provide for gubernatorial appointments. In 26 states, gubernatorial appointments require the opinion of the Judicial Nominating Commission, which vets judicial nominees. In the 14 states that use gubernatorial appointments, the governor’s judicial nominees are subject to approval by Congress or other bodies.
Two states, Virginia and South Carolina, provide for direct selection of judges by the state legislature.
In most states with appointment systems, judges must later go through a reappointment process involving the governor or the Legislature. In one state (Hawaii), judges are reappointed by the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission. In three states, judges either serve life sentences (Rhode Island) or serve until retirement age (Massachusetts and New Hampshire). These states are the only states in the country where judges do not go through some form of re-election process.
How are state lower court judges selected?
Many states have different judge selection systems for lower courts and the Supreme Court. Among other differences, contested elections are more commonly used to select lower court judges. Twenty-one states use nonpartisan elections as part of their lower court judge selection systems, while 11 states use partisan elections. In three states, Arizona, Kansas, and Missouri, the system for selecting judges varies by district or county.
How long do state judges hold office?
The terms of office for state judges vary widely. In Alabama, for example, the term of office for Supreme Court justices is six years. The term of office for New York State Supreme Court justices is 14 years. Most states have a mandatory retirement age for judges, usually in the 70 to 75 age range. Vermont judges serve until age 90, the country’s highest retirement age. Rhode Island is the only state in which judges enjoy lifetime tenure with no mandatory retirement age, similar to the federal system.
Since 1970, state supreme court justices have held office for an average of 13 years, half as long as U.S. Supreme Court justices, who average 26 years.
The District of Columbia courts, including the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court, function similarly to state courts, and their selection system is similar to the process in many states. Judges in Washington, D.C., are appointed by the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, from a list recommended by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Judges serve a 15-year term, after which they can reapply to serve another term. They will reach retirement age at 74 years old.
What role do political parties play in judicial elections?
Partisan judicial elections, in which party labels appear on the ballot, are used in eight states at the Supreme Court level and in 11 states at the lower court level. In Michigan, judicial candidates are nominated through party conventions, but their party affiliation is not listed on the ballot.
States with nonpartisan elections may still see political party participation, including contributions by political parties to judicial candidates and independent spending by political parties supporting judicial candidates. In 2022, for example, the Montana Republican Party spent nearly $500,000 to support attorney James Brown’s candidacy for the Montana Supreme Court, about the same amount Brown’s campaign spent on his campaign. In 2023, the Wisconsin Democratic Party donated $9 million to current Justice Janet Protasievic’s campaign, accounting for more than half of the money raised by Protasievic’s campaign.
What role do special interest groups play in judicial elections?
Spending by interest groups, often through PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations, is becoming an increasingly important part of judicial elections, particularly at the Supreme Court level. The 2023-24 election cycle saw record spending, with $157 million spent nationally, according to the Brennan Center report. Interest groups spent a total of $85 million on advertising and other campaign activities, while candidates spent $70 million, marking the first time in history that interest group spending in a judicial election exceeded spending by candidates. Sixty-four percent of that spending came from left-wing groups.
In recent years, national bodies have played an increasingly important role in judicial elections. For example, the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Equity Initiative has spent more than $3 million in five states in the 2023-2024 judicial election cycle. The company’s website says it has spent more than $29 million on judicial elections in recent years. On the left, a group affiliated with a Washington, D.C.-based political organization called the Justice Project donated $8 million to groups that were major spenders in judicial races in Michigan, Montana and North Carolina.
A growing body of research suggests that donor preferences can influence the judicial decision-making of elected judges, especially when they have to run for re-election.
Do state courts reflect the diversity of the communities they serve or the diversity of the legal profession?
A 2025 study by the Brennan Center reveals racial, ethnic and gender diversity in state high courts, as well as diversity in professional experience. This analysis reveals a striking discrepancy between the demographics of state supreme courts and the communities they are supposed to serve.
For example, 18 states do not allow people of color to serve on their state supreme courts, including 12 states where people of color make up at least 20 percent of the population. Only 43% of judges are women. Although women of color make up 19 percent of the total U.S. population, women of color make up only 11 percent of state high court juries.
There are also disparities in what professional backgrounds are well represented among state high court judges. For example, 39% of current judges are former prosecutors, while only 10% are former public defenders.
A 2019 study by the Brennan Center examined the relationship between how states select judges and the racial and ethnic diversity of their judges. Historically, judicial elections have rarely provided a pathway to the Supreme Court for people of color, according to the study. In many states with judicial elections, seats become vacant midway through a judicial term, and people of color often take the seats for the first time when governors make interim appointments. The study revealed wide racial disparities in state supreme court elections, including who wins, how often sitting justices are challenged, how much money candidates raise and who is supported by special interest groups.
Can a state judge be removed from office?
State judges can be removed from office, and the process varies by state. Common methods of removal include impeachment, recall elections, and judicial disciplinary proceedings.
All states except Oregon have impeachment clauses in their state constitutions that outline the grounds and process for impeaching and removing judges. In most states, impeachment requires a majority vote in the state House of Representatives, followed by a two-thirds vote in the state Senate to convict and remove a judge. However, some states have a different process. For example, in Nebraska, post-impeachment trials are held in courts made up of state judges.
Political leaders are increasingly threatening to impeach judges for rulings with which they disagree. However, these efforts usually end in failure. There is a long-standing norm that impeachment should be limited to cases of serious ethical misconduct or criminal violations.
Recall elections are a direct democratic process in which voters can remove officials before their terms expire. Ten states have provisions in their state constitutions that allow recall elections for state judges. Recall supporters must first collect the required number of signatures to put the recall on the ballot.
A prominent example of a judicial recall is the removal of California Judge Aaron Persky in 2018. Judge Persky was recalled following controversy over his sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexual assault, to six months in county jail, a sentence that critics said was too lenient. This marked the first successful recall of a judge in California since 1932.
All 50 states have some form of judicial discipline commission or commission to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or ethics violations. In most states, removal can be a sanction for serious misconduct. The exact process and powers of these committees vary by state. However, they are typically responsible for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct or ethical violations. In some states, the commission may take disciplinary action against judges after review by the state supreme court. In other states, state supreme courts impose judicial discipline based on the recommendations of disciplinary commissions.
Zoe Merriman is the production coordinator. State Court Report.
Alicia Bannon is the editor-in-chief State Court Report. She is also the director of justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended Citation: Zoe Merriman and Alicia Bannon; How are state judges selected?Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (April 21, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-are-state-judges-selected
