How Are State Judges Selected?

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.

How are state lower court judges selected?

Many states have different judicial selection systems for their lower courts than for their supreme courts. Among other differences, contested elections are more commonly used to select lower court judges: 21 states use nonpartisan elections while 11 states use partisan elections as part of their system of choosing lower court judges. In three states — Arizona, Kansas, and Missouri — the judicial selection system varies by district or county.

How long do state judges hold their positions?

The term length of state judges varies substantially. In Alabama, for example, supreme court justices serve 6-year terms. In New York, judges on the state’s highest court serve 14-year terms. A majority of states have a mandatory retirement age for judges, typically in the range of ages 70–75. Vermont judges serve until the age of 90, the country’s highest mandatory retirement age. Rhode Island is the only state where justices enjoy life tenure without a mandatory retirement age, similar to the federal system.

Since 1970, state supreme court justices have served an average of 13 years, half as long as the 26-year average for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

District of Columbia courts, which include the DC Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of DC, function similarly to state courts, and their selection system is similar to many states’ processes. DC judges are appointed by the president, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, based on a list recommended by a judicial nominating commission. Judges serve 15-year terms, after which they may reapply to serve for subsequent terms. They face a mandatory retirement age of 74.

What role do political parties play in judicial elections?

Partisan judicial elections — where party labels appear on the ballot — are used in 8 states at the supreme court level and 11 states at the lower court level. In Michigan, judicial candidates are nominated through party conventions, but their party affiliation does not appear on the ballot.

States that use nonpartisan elections may still see political party participation, including contributions by political parties to judicial candidates and independent expenditures by political parties in support of judicial candidates. In 2022, for example, the Montana Republican Party spent nearly $500,000 to support attorney James Brown’s bid for the Montana Supreme Court, almost as much as Brown’s campaign spent on the race. In 2023, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin contributed $9 million to now-Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign, accounting for more than half of the money Protasiewicz’s campaign raised.

What role do special interest groups play in judicial elections?

Spending by interest groups, often through PACs or 501(c)(4) organizations, has become an increasingly significant part of judicial elections, particularly at the supreme court level. A Brennan Center report showed that the 2023–24 election cycle saw record breaking spending, with $157 million spent nationally. In total, interest groups spent $85 million on ads and other election activities, compared with $70 million spent by candidates — the first time in history that interest group spending in judicial races has outpaced spending by candidates. Sixty-four percent of that spending came from groups on the left.

National groups have become increasingly significant players in judicial races in recent years. For example, the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative spent more than $3 million across five states in the 2023–24 judicial election cycle; its website states that it has spent more than $29 million on judicial races in recent years. On the left, groups affiliated with a DC-based political organization called The Justice Project gave $8 million to groups that were major spenders in judicial elections in Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina.

A growing body of research suggests that donor preferences can impact judicial decision-making among elected judges, particularly when they must stand for reelection.

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 sheds light on racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in state high courts, as well as diversity of professional experience. This analysis reveals a striking discrepancy between the demographic makeup of state supreme courts and the communities they are meant to serve.

For example, in 18 states, no justices on the state’s highest court identify as a person of color, including in 12 states where people of color make up at least 20 percent of the population. Only 43 percent of justices are women. While women of color represent 19 percent of the total U.S. population, they make up only 11 percent of state high court benches.

There are also disparities regarding what professional backgrounds are well-represented on state high court benches. For example, 39 percent of sitting justices are former prosecutors, while only 10 percent are former public defenders.

A 2019 study by the Brennan Center looked at the relationship between a state’s method of judicial selection and racial and ethnic diversity on the bench. It found that historically, judicial elections have rarely been a path to the supreme court bench for people of color. In many states with judicial elections, people of color have often first reached the bench when a seat opened in the middle of a judicial term and a state’s governor made an interim appointment. The study identified a wide range of racial disparities in state supreme court elections, including in who wins, how frequently incumbent justices are challenged, how much money candidates raise, and who is supported by special interest groups.

Can state judges be removed from office?

State judges can be removed from office, with processes varying across states. Common methods of removal include impeachment, recall elections, and judicial disciplinary processes.

Every state but Oregon has an impeachment provision in their state constitution that outlines the grounds and process for the impeachment and removal of judges. In most states, impeachment requires a majority vote in the lower house in the state legislature, followed by a two-thirds vote in the state senate to convict and remove a judge. However, some states have different processes; for example, in Nebraska, the trial following impeachment is conducted by a court comprised of state judges.

Political leaders have increasingly threatened to impeach judges for rulings those leaders disagree with; however, these efforts have usually been unsuccessful. There is a longstanding norm that impeachment should be limited to instances of serious ethical misconduct or criminal violations.

Recall elections are a direct democracy process where voters can remove officials before the end of their terms. Ten states have provisions in their state constitutions authorizing recall elections for state judges. Recall supporters must first collect a required number signatures to put a recall on the ballot.

A prominent example of judicial recall was the removal of California Judge Aaron Persky in 2018. Persky was recalled following controversy over his sentencing of Brock Turner, a Stanford student convicted of sexual assault, to six months in county jail, a penalty 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 board to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct or ethical violations. In most states, removal from office is a potential sanction for serious misconduct. The exact processes and powers of these commissions vary from state to state; however, they are typically responsible for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct or ethical violations. In some states, a commission may take disciplinary actions against a judge subject to review by the state supreme court. In other states, the state supreme court imposes judicial discipline, based on recommendations by the discipline commission.

Zoe Merriman is the production coordinator for State Court Report.

Alicia Bannon is editor in chief for State Court Report. She is also director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Zoe Merriman & Alicia Bannon, How Are State Judges Selected?, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Apr. 21, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-are-state-judges-selected