Approximately 38 states elect some or all of their judges. Seven of those states elect some or all of their judges in partisan elections. The other 31 are non-partisan. States vary regarding exactly how they elect their judges.
Some (like Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas) treat them like every other elected office with Republicans running against Democrats (or vice versa) with an occasional third-party candidate joining the contest.
Some only make their judges run the first time in a partisan election (like Illinois and Pennsylvania). After that, they run in “retention” elections, meaning they either win (retain their position) or lose (do not retain their judgeship) with no other option on the ballot. Many other states (around 17) start with an appointment but then make judges seek reelection in a retention election.
Fourteen states have “nonpartisan” judicial elections including Georgia. The fact that the contests are “nonpartisan” does not preclude political parties from getting involved. It just means that no party affiliation appears on the ballot. But in many circumstances either candidates themselves or the political parties work hard to make sure that voters know who the Democrats are and who the Republicans are.
Most judicial elections, whether partisan or nonpartisan, occur at the same time as the general election. This year, the general election occurs on Nov. 8. The argument for holding judicial elections then is that the general election generates the highest voter turnout especially in years when the presidential election occurs.
When it comes to electing judges, there is no shortage of viewpoints ranging from the federal system (appointments for life with no elections) to simple partisan elections like every other elective office. For the most part, judicial elections are dull affairs with incumbents almost always getting re-elected or retained.
But, occasionally, something surprising happens. If the right hot button issue comes to the fore, or if a particular interest group or political party gets energized, then the balance of power on a court can change in a very short time. It happens, but not often.
Instead, more often than not, most voters appear at the polls with no idea of who any of the candidates are. Hence, most incumbents win. Frankly, if voters actually know a judge’s name when they show up to vote, it is pretty rare. So, with some exceptions, virtually all judicial elections are effectively retention elections.
In fact, the pattern of re-electing judges is so dominant that most judgeships are decided when qualifying closes because no one even shows up to challenge any of the incumbent judges.
For example, in Georgia, three appellate judges are on the ballot (one Supreme Court justice and two Court of Appeals judges) and none have opposition. Even though the nonpartisan judicial election date for those judgeships is not until May 24, the outcome has already been decided. All three are unopposed and will be re-elected.
To put it in context, 133 superior court judges in Georgia are running unopposed in 2016. In stark contrast, only 16 judicial elections for superior court will be contested in 2016.
Georgia’s nonpartisan judicial elections can be tricky business, however. First, instead of general election day, Georgia holds its nonpartisan judicial elections on the general primary election day.
That may seem odd since the primary and any primary runoff are the only elections where voters must select a political party. Yet, it is the day when voters cast their ballots in a nonpartisan judicial election.
Basically, elections officials give every voter – Democrat and Republican – a nonpartisan ballot along with the ballot for their political party’s candidates in partisan races. The nonpartisan judicial elections are almost like afterthought elections once the real voting is done.
And so, on an election day when the fewest voters show up, Georgians elect judges from a list of people whom they know the least about and without any party affiliation. It is no surprise that quite frequently the determining factor in candidates making or winning a runoff is whose name appears first on the alphabetical list.
Yet, judges wield enormous power in Georgia, deciding everything from title to property to matters of life and death. A single judge is much more likely to impact a Georgian over the course of their life than any single legislator. But, for those elected, they are often the folks voters know the least about. And when there is name recognition, they are often elected or defeated for all the wrong reasons.
Before going to vote on May 24, check to see if there is a contested judicial election on the ballot. Odds are there is not one (except Cobb County where there are plenty). But if there is, check out the candidates and make an informed choice. Someone’s life could depend on it.
