With North Carolina moving its Court of Appeals races from nonparti..., I thought I’d take a moment to examine what other states with nonpartisan appellate races have seen similar efforts in recent years.
Arkansas: The state had partisan elections until a 2000 constitutional amendment (Amendment 80) rewrote the state’s entire judiciary article. Section 18 of the new judiciary article requires nonpartisan elections.
Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges shall be elected on a nonpartisan basis by a majority of qualified electors voting for such office.
HJR 1015 of 2015 would have ended the mandated use of nonpartisan elections and allowed the General Assembly to use or either partisan or nonpartisan elections. It died without a hearing.
Georgia: The state in 1983 adopted an entirely new constitution that requires nonpartisan election of appellate judges (Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. I)
All Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Court of Appeals shall be elected on a nonpartisan basis for a term of six years.
HR 855 of 2005 would have ended the mandated use of nonpartisan elections and allowed the General Assembly to use or either partisan or nonpartisan elections. It died without a hearing.
Idaho: The state has made use of nonpartisan elections for the Supreme Court since at least 1970 (I.C. 34-905).
There shall be a single nonpartisan ballot for the election of justices of the supreme court and district judges.
There has been no attempt to alter this statute in the last two decades.
Kentucky: The state in 1975 adopted an entirely new constitution that requires nonpartisan election of appellate judges (Sec. 117)
Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Court of Appeals, Circuit and District Court shall be elected from their respective districts or circuits on a nonpartisan basis as provided by law.
There has been no attempt to alter this statute in the last two decades.
Minnesota: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s appellate courts run on a nonpartisan basis (Minn. Stat. 204B.06(6))
Each justice of the Supreme Court and each Court of Appeals and district court judge is deemed to hold a separate nonpartisan office.
There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan, although several bills were introduced to change the nonpartisan races to gubernatorial appointment from a judicial nominating commission list and yes/no retention elections.
Mississippi: The state made use of partisan elections until the adoption of the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act in 1994. MS Code 23-15-976 specifies that
A judicial office is a nonpartisan office and a candidate for election thereto is prohibited from campaigning or qualifying for such an office based on party affiliation.
Nearly 3 dozen attempts have been made to repeal the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act in its entirety or at least with respect to the appellate courts and revert the law back to what it was prior to 1994 bringing a return to partisan elections. None have advanced out of committee.
Montana: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s Supreme Court run on a nonpartisan basis (MT Code 13-14-111)
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, candidates for nonpartisan offices, including judicial offices, must be nominated and elected according to the provisions of this title.
SB 393 of 2005, D. 1760 of 2009, and HB 521 of 2011 would have made the races for Supreme Court partisan. The 2005 bill was killed in committee and the 2009 version only reached the drafting stage. The 2011 version was approved on a 12-6 vote of the House State Administration Committee but was killed by the full House on a 45-54 procedural vote not to advance the bill beyond the 2nd Reading calendar.
Nevada: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s Supreme Court or its new Court of Appeals run on a nonpartisan basis (N.R.S. 293.195)
Judicial offices…are hereby designated nonpartisan offices.
There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.
North Dakota: State law prohibits any reference to party on ballots for the state’s Supreme Court (N.D. Cent. Code 16.1-11-08)
No reference may be made to a party ballot or to the party affiliation of a candidate in a petition and affidavit filed by or on behalf of a candidate for nomination in the primary election to an elective county office, the office of judge of the supreme court, judge of the district court, or superintendent of public instruction.
There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.
Oregon: State law defines races for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals as nonpartisan (O.R.S. 254.005(8))
“Nonpartisan office” means the office of judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals….
There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.
Washington: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s Supreme Court run on a nonpartisan basis (RCW 29A.52.231)
The offices of superintendent of public instruction, justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of the superior court, and judge of the district court shall be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected as such.
Two bills to convert races for both appellate courts (HB 2661 of 2011) or just the Supreme Court (HB 1051 of 2015) were never hear in committee. A third proposal (HB 2150 of 2007) would have replaced nonpartisan elections with gubernatorial appointment from a judicial nominating commission list and yes/no retention elections.
Wisconsin: State law defines judicial races as occurring during the nonpartisan Spring Elections (Wis. Stat. 5.02(21))
“Spring election” means the election held on the first Tuesday in April to elect judicial, educational and municipal officers, nonpartisan county officers and sewerage commissioners and to express preferences for the person to be the presidential candidate for each party in a year in which electors for president and vice president are to be elected.
There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.