There is no single national system for choosing state supreme court justices. Each state establishes its own process, and many combine elections, appointments, nominating commissions, confirmation votes, and retention elections.
That structure matters. State high courts usually have the final word on state constitutional questions and state law, including disputes involving elections, civil rights, education, consumer protection, criminal justice, and access to the courts. The way justices reach and remain on the bench can influence who becomes a candidate, who participates in the decision, and what political pressures surround the court.
Contested partisan elections
In a partisan judicial election, candidates compete for a seat and their political-party affiliations appear on the ballot. According to the Brennan Center for Justice’s 2026 overview, eight states use contested partisan elections as part of the process for selecting high-court justices. That count includes New Mexico, which uses a hybrid system involving gubernatorial appointments, partisan elections, and retention elections.
Party labels may give voters a familiar point of reference, but partisan campaigns can also make a court race look like a contest for a legislative or executive office. Fundraising, party involvement, and independent spending can intensify the pressure on candidates who are expected to decide future cases impartially.
Contested nonpartisan elections
Fourteen states elect high-court justices in contested nonpartisan elections, where candidates appear on the ballot without a party designation. “Nonpartisan” describes the ballot format; it does not guarantee that parties, interest groups, or major donors will remain uninvolved.
Voters in these races may need to rely more heavily on judicial biographies, professional qualifications, endorsements, campaign advertising, and independent research. That makes accurate public information and transparent campaign-finance reporting especially important.
Gubernatorial appointments and nominating commissions
Appointment systems give the governor a central role. Judicial nominating commissions may recruit applicants, evaluate qualifications, conduct interviews, and recommend a short list. The governor may be required to choose from that list, or the commission’s recommendation may be advisory.
The Brennan Center reports that gubernatorial appointments receive input from a judicial nominating commission in 26 states. In 14 states that use gubernatorial appointments, the nominee must also be confirmed by a legislature or another public body. Commission membership, transparency, evaluation standards, and the authority of the appointing official differ substantially from state to state.
Merit selection and retention elections
Fourteen states use a model commonly called merit selection or the Missouri Plan. An independent nominating commission evaluates candidates and provides a slate to the governor, who appoints one of them. After an initial period on the bench, the justice normally appears in an uncontested retention election.
In a retention election, voters answer “yes” or “no” on whether a sitting justice should serve another term. No opposing candidate appears on the ballot. Nineteen states use retention elections for high-court justices, including states where judges initially reach the bench through appointment and some where they first win a contested election.
Legislative selection
Virginia and South Carolina provide for direct legislative selection of judges. Legislators, rather than voters or the governor, make the final choice. Legislative appointment can concentrate accountability in an elected body, but it also raises questions about political bargaining, the transparency of candidate screening, and judicial independence.
Interim vacancies can change the practical system
A justice may retire, resign, die, or leave office before a term ends. Even states that ordinarily elect high-court justices use appointments to fill interim vacancies. An appointee may then run as an incumbent in a later election, so the temporary appointment process can have long-term consequences for the composition of a court.
Questions voters should ask
- Who has authority to nominate, appoint, confirm, or elect a justice?
- Is a judicial nominating commission involved, and how are its members chosen?
- Are candidate evaluations, interviews, and commission votes public?
- Must the justice later face a contested election, retention vote, or reappointment?
- What campaign-finance, ethics, and recusal rules apply?
- How are unexpected vacancies filled?
No label tells the whole story
An elected system can include appointments. A merit-selection system can still include a public vote. A nonpartisan election can still attract partisan and special-interest spending. Evaluating a state’s judiciary therefore requires looking beyond the label to the complete process, the transparency safeguards, and the pressures justices face when seeking another term.
American Justice Watch supports transparent, accountable judicial-selection systems that protect fair and independent courts. Read more about our mission for fair judicial selection.