How state supreme court justices are selected depends on the state. Unlike federal judges, state justices do not enter office through one national process. Some run in partisan elections. Others appear on nonpartisan ballots, receive appointments from a governor or legislature, or face voters later in a retention election.
The method matters because state supreme courts often have the final word on state constitutional rights, election rules, civil liability, criminal law, reproductive freedom, consumer protection, and the authority of state officials. The process used to choose a justice can shape who reaches the bench, how candidates fund campaigns, and what political pressures they face while serving.
American Justice Watch supports judicial selection systems that protect independence, require meaningful transparency, and give the public reliable information. Learn more about our mission for fair judicial selection.
There Is No Single State Judicial Selection System
Each state establishes its own courts through its constitution and laws. Even within one state, the selection process may differ between the supreme court, intermediate appellate courts, trial courts, and local courts. Rules for filling an unexpected vacancy may also differ from the process used at the end of a full judicial term.
According to State Court Report, 38 states use elections as some part of the process for choosing or retaining state high court justices. That does not mean all 38 use the same kind of election. The categories overlap because many states combine appointments, contested elections, and retention votes.
How State Supreme Court Justices Are Selected
Most state systems use one or more of five broad methods.
1. Partisan Elections
In a partisan judicial election, candidates compete for a seat with their political party identified on the ballot. State Court Report counted eight states using contested partisan elections for high court justices in 2026, including New Mexico’s hybrid process.
Supporters argue that partisan labels give voters useful information and make judges directly accountable to the public. Critics point to campaign fundraising, party pressure, attack advertising, and the risk that judges may be viewed as political representatives instead of impartial decision-makers.
Texas is a clear example. Texas Supreme Court justices run in partisan elections for six-year terms. If a vacancy occurs between elections, the governor appoints a replacement, subject to state senate confirmation, until the next applicable election.
2. Nonpartisan Elections
In a nonpartisan election, multiple candidates may compete, but party labels do not appear next to their names on the ballot. State Court Report identified 14 states using this method for state high court justices in 2026.
Removing party labels may reduce overt partisanship, but it does not remove politics, campaign spending, or outside-group advertising. Voters may need to do more research because the ballot provides less information about each candidate.
In Washington, supreme court justices are chosen in nonpartisan elections for six-year terms. The governor can appoint someone to fill a midterm vacancy, but the appointed justice later faces voters under the state’s election rules.
3. Gubernatorial Appointment
Some states allow the governor to select a justice. The appointment may require confirmation by a legislative body or another public commission. In other states, a judicial nominating commission evaluates applicants and gives the governor a limited list of qualified candidates.
Appointment systems can reduce the need for judges to raise campaign money before joining the court. Their fairness still depends on transparent criteria, the composition of nominating bodies, public access to the process, and rules that limit favoritism.
New Jersey uses gubernatorial nomination followed by state senate confirmation. A justice initially serves a seven-year term and may later be considered for reappointment under the state constitution.
4. Legislative Selection
In a small number of states, the legislature elects or confirms high court justices through a process controlled primarily by lawmakers. This makes the selection process public and places responsibility with elected representatives, but it can also concentrate influence inside the legislature and turn judicial appointments into bargaining over political priorities.
The details matter. A public hearing, clear qualification standards, recorded votes, and meaningful disclosure requirements provide more accountability than a closed process with little explanation.
5. Merit Selection and Retention Elections
Merit selection usually begins with a nominating commission that reviews applicants and recommends a group of candidates. The governor appoints one candidate from that group. After serving for a set period, the justice may appear alone on the ballot in a retention election, where voters choose yes or no on another term.
State Court Report identified 19 states using retention elections for state high court justices in 2026. Some of those justices originally reached the bench through appointment, while others first won a contested election.
California uses a hybrid appointment and retention process. The governor nominates a candidate to the Supreme Court of California, and the Commission on Judicial Appointments decides whether to confirm the nominee. The justice later appears in an unopposed retention vote.
Why the Selection Method Matters
No selection method automatically guarantees an independent or accountable court. Every system creates different incentives and risks.
- Campaign pressure: Contested elections can require substantial fundraising and may attract spending from groups that regularly have interests before the courts.
- Political influence: Appointment systems can reduce campaign pressure, but governors, legislators, and nominating commissions may still act for partisan or ideological reasons.
- Public information: Voters need accessible records about candidates, donors, endorsements, professional qualifications, ethics, and disciplinary history.
- Judicial independence: Short terms or frequent elections can make judges more aware of political reactions to unpopular rulings.
- Diversity and access: Recruitment rules, professional networks, and commission membership can affect whether qualified candidates from different backgrounds receive serious consideration.
- Accountability: Every system needs enforceable ethics rules, financial disclosure, meaningful recusal standards, and a credible process for reviewing misconduct.
The Brennan Center’s judicial selection map provides a state-by-state overview of initial selection, additional terms, and interim vacancies. It is useful because a label such as “election state” or “appointment state” rarely tells the entire story.
How State Courts Differ From Federal Courts
State supreme court justices are not selected through the same process as United States Supreme Court justices or federal district and appellate judges. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Article III judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. They generally serve during good behavior, which is commonly described as a lifetime appointment.
State justices usually serve defined terms and may need to win another election, receive reappointment, or survive a retention vote to remain in office. Many states also impose mandatory retirement ages. These differences can create forms of political and financial pressure that do not operate in exactly the same way at the federal level.
How to Research Judicial Selection in Your State
Start with the official website for your state’s highest court and the judicial article of your state constitution. Then confirm how the system works in practice.
- Identify the official name of the state’s highest court. In some states, it is not called the supreme court.
- Find the rules for initial selection, full terms, and unexpected vacancies.
- Check whether candidates run with party labels, without party labels, or alone in retention elections.
- Review the secretary of state’s voter guide and official campaign-finance database.
- Look for judicial performance evaluations, bar ratings, ethics disclosures, and disciplinary records where available.
- Research who paid for campaign advertisements and whether major supporters have cases or policy interests before the court.
- Compare official records with reliable nonpartisan reporting before making a decision.
Do not rely on a campaign advertisement, social media post, or party mailer by itself. Judicial races often receive less routine coverage than other elections, which makes verification especially important.
What a Fair Judicial Selection System Should Deliver
People can reasonably disagree about whether elections or appointments are the better starting point. A credible system should still meet several basic standards: qualified candidates, transparent decision-making, public access to relevant records, strong ethics enforcement, workable recusal rules, and protection against retaliation for legally correct but politically unpopular decisions.
The public should also be able to see who is trying to influence the selection process. Hidden campaign spending, undisclosed conflicts, and closed appointment procedures weaken trust even when no direct misconduct can be proven. Read more about corporate and special-interest pressure on the courts.
Understanding the Process Is the First Step
How a justice reaches the bench affects the pressures surrounding that justice, but the selection method is only part of the picture. Voters and advocates should also examine campaign funding, professional qualifications, ethics rules, judicial performance, and the transparency of the institutions making the decision.
American Justice Watch will continue explaining state judicial systems in plain language and tracking reforms that can protect fair courts. Sign up for fair courts updates and advocacy alerts to follow this work.