How to Research Judicial Candidates on Your Ballot

Research Report

13 references across 6 domains
Last Checked: August 15, 2026Next Check: August 15, 2028

Government and agencies 1 Research and academic 2 Organizations and advocacy 10

Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Scroll far enough down almost any American ballot and you hit a stretch of names you have never seen, attached to offices you cannot quite picture, with no party label to grab onto. Judge of the Superior Court. Associate Justice. Retain: yes or no.

Plenty of people stop there and hand the ballot in.

In this article

Why the Judicial Section Feels Like a Wall
Step One: Figure Out How Your State Picks Judges
Where the Nonpartisan Information Actually Lives
Reading a Judge’s Record Without a Law Degree
When the Ads Get There Before You Do
What to Do When There Is Almost Nothing to Find
The Gap the Tools Cannot Close

That instinct is understandable, and it is also a problem, because these are the officials who decide how the law lands: on your lease, your custody case, your speeding ticket, the ballot rules in your county. The good news is that researching them is more doable than it looks. The trick is knowing that the right method depends entirely on how your state fills its courts, and knowing which handful of nonpartisan sources were built for exactly this moment.

Here is the short version. Find out whether your judges run in partisan races, nonpartisan races, or yes-or-no retention votes. Then go to your official voter guide, your state’s judicial performance evaluation report if it has one, and a nonpartisan database like Ballotpedia. You can start with Ballotpedia’s judicial elections hub, linked later in this piece, to compile a candidate’s biography, rulings, and endorsements in one place.

Read those before you read a single campaign ad. The rest of this piece walks that process step by step.

Why the Judicial Section Feels Like a Wall

Start with the scale of the thing. A 2026 Brennan Center for Justice analysis found that 38 states use some form of election when choosing their state high court justices, and roughly 39 states elect judges at some level of their court system. Most voters, in other words, live somewhere that puts at least a few judges on the ballot.

And these are not sleepy races anymore. In the 2023 to 2024 cycle, at least $157.3 million was spent on state supreme court elections, 35 percent more than the previous cycle, according to a Brennan Center summary.

Something new happened in that cycle, too. Interest groups outspent the candidates themselves for the first time, laying out $85 million against the candidates’ $70 million, per the same Brennan Center analysis. Groups backing liberal candidates spent $55 million; groups backing conservative candidates spent $30 million.

So the money is loud. The voter, meanwhile, is often quiet.

A paper by political scientist Matthew Thornburg and coauthors, prepared for an election science research conference, examined ballot roll-off in states that offer straight party voting, the option to select every candidate from one party with a single mark.

A one-mark shortcut carries you through the partisan races and then dumps you, unassisted, at the exact spot where the labels disappear.

That is the heart of the confusion. Most judicial elections strip away the two cues voters lean on hardest: the party label and the saturation news coverage. What is left is a name and, sometimes, a job title.

The confusion is real, and it is not your fault. This blankness is baked into how these offices are designed.

Step One: Figure Out How Your State Picks Judges

GovFacts tool

Judicial Selection Lookup

Pick a state on the map to see how its supreme court justices get the job and whether voters ever get a say, with a link to the official source for each state.

Open the full Judicial Selection Lookup

Question 1

Which state?

How to answer this

Pick a state on the map or from the list. The map shows how each state chooses its justices.

States pick the justices of their highest courts in three main ways: voters elect them, the governor appoints them and voters later decide whether to keep them, or the governor or legislature chooses them without a public vote. Several states mix them.

States Where Voters Elect Justices

Alabama Supreme Court justices are elected statewide in partisan elections. Alabama’s justices and judges, except municipal judges, are elected for six-year terms, and the governor fills vacancies. Ala. Judicial System
Arkansas’ seven Supreme Court justices are elected statewide in nonpartisan races and serve eight-year terms. When a seat opens during a term, the governor appoints a replacement, who cannot be appointed or elected to succeed himself or herself. Ark. Judiciary
Georgia’s constitution provides that Supreme Court justices are elected on a nonpartisan basis for six-year terms and that the governor fills vacancies by appointment. Georgia’s constitution was amended in 1896 to provide that the justices and the chief justice would be elected by the people, and a 2016 law brought the court to nine justices. Supreme Court of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia
Idaho’s five Supreme Court justices are elected statewide on a nonpartisan ballot to staggered six-year terms. For a vacancy, the Idaho Judicial Council sends the governor three or four qualified names, and the governor appoints one of them. Idaho Supreme Court Idaho Legislature
Illinois Supreme Court judges are nominated at primary elections or by petition and elected at general or judicial elections, from judicial districts. Illinois Supreme Court terms are 10 years; an elected judge can then run for retention, which takes three-fifths of the votes cast. The General Assembly decides by law how a vacancy is filled, and without such a law the Supreme Court may appoint; the appointee serves until voters fill the seat at the next general or judicial election, or the second one if the appointment comes less than 60 days before the primary. Ill. Constitution
Kentucky’s justices are elected on a nonpartisan basis from seven Supreme Court districts and serve eight-year terms. The governor fills a vacancy from three names sent by the Judicial Nominating Commission, or the chief justice does if the governor waits more than 60 days; if at least three months remain before the next annual election for state or local offices, the appointee serves until that election, when voters fill the seat for the rest of the term. Ky. Court of Justice Ky. Legislative Research Commission
Louisiana’s Supreme Court has a chief justice and six associate justices, elected from supreme court districts, for 10-year terms. A vacancy is filled by a special election the governor calls within 12 months, unless it occurs in the last 12 months of a term. Until the seat is filled, the Supreme Court appoints someone, who cannot run in the election to fill the seat. La. Constitution
Michigan’s seven justices are elected at nonpartisan elections for eight-year terms. Political parties may nominate Supreme Court candidates at their fall state conventions. A sitting justice can instead run for another term by filing an affidavit of candidacy with the secretary of state at least 180 days before the term ends; the affidavit must state that the justice will not have turned 70 before the election. The governor fills a vacancy by appointment; the appointee serves until Jan. 1 after the first general election following the vacancy, when voters elect a successor for the rest of the term. Mich. Constitution Mich. Legislature Mich. Legislature Mich. Constitution
Under Minnesota’s constitution, judges serve six-year terms and are elected by the voters of the area they serve. The governor fills a vacancy until a successor is elected to a six-year term at the next general election held more than a year after the appointment. Minnesota law makes each Supreme Court seat a separate nonpartisan office. Minn. Constitution Minn. law
Mississippi’s nine Supreme Court justices are elected from three districts in staggered nonpartisan elections and serve eight-year terms. Miss. Judiciary
Montana’s constitution provides that Supreme Court justices are elected by the voters, and an incumbent with no opponent still appears on the general election ballot so voters can approve or reject the justice. For a vacancy, the governor appoints a replacement from nominees selected as the law provides, or the chief justice does if the governor does not act within 30 days; the appointment needs Senate confirmation, and the appointee serves until the election for the office. Mont. Constitution
Under Nevada’s constitution, Supreme Court justices are elected by the voters at the general election for six-year terms. Nevada law makes judicial offices nonpartisan, and no party label may be printed next to a candidate’s name on the ballot. For a vacancy, the governor appoints one of three nominees chosen by the Commission on Judicial Selection, and the appointee’s term ends the first Monday in January after the next general election. Nev. Constitution Nev. law
New Mexico Supreme Court justices must first win a partisan election; after that, each justice faces a nonpartisan retention vote every eighth year and needs at least 57% of the vote to stay. When a seat opens, the governor appoints one of the people nominated by the appellate judges nominating commission, or the chief justice does if the governor does not act within 30 days; the appointee serves until the first general election more than a year later, when a successor is chosen. N.M. Constitution
North Carolina’s constitution provides that Supreme Court justices are elected by the voters for eight-year terms. The governor fills a vacancy by appointment until the next legislative election held more than 60 days later, when voters fill the seat. N.C. Constitution
North Dakota’s five Supreme Court justices are each elected to a 10-year term in a nonpartisan election. The governor fills a vacancy from the judicial nominating committee’s list, unless the governor calls a special election; the appointee serves at least two years and then until the next general election, when voters fill the seat. N.D. Courts N.D. Constitution
Ohio’s constitution provides that the chief justice and the justices of the Supreme Court are elected statewide for terms of at least six years. The governor fills a vacancy by appointment until a successor, elected at the first general election for the seat held more than 40 days after the vacancy, takes office; if the term ends within a year after that election, the appointee serves out the term. Ohio Constitution Ohio Constitution
Oregon’s constitution provides that Supreme Court judges are elected by the voters for six-year terms. Oregon election law lists the office of Supreme Court judge as a nonpartisan office. The governor fills a vacancy on any court by appointment until a successor is elected and qualified. Ore. Constitution Ore. Legislature
Pennsylvania voters elect Supreme Court justices to 10-year terms. Candidates for a first full term on the Supreme Court run as members of a political party. After a first 10-year term, a justice who seeks another term faces a yes-or-no retention vote with no party label. When a seat opens between elections, the governor appoints a replacement with the consent of two-thirds of the state Senate. The appointee serves until the first Monday of January after the next municipal election held more than 10 months after the vacancy, or until the unexpired term ends, if that is sooner. Pa. Constitution Pa. Courts
Texas’ constitution provides that Supreme Court justices are elected by the voters at a general election, three every two years, for six-year terms. Texas’ other high court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, has a presiding judge and eight judges, also elected by the voters at a general election for six-year terms. The governor fills a vacancy on the Supreme Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals until the next general election for state officers, when voters fill the seat for the rest of the term. Texas Constitution
Washington’s nine Supreme Court justices are elected to six-year terms, and the governor fills a vacancy by appointment until the next general election. State law makes the office nonpartisan, and candidates are nominated and elected without party labels. Wash. Courts Wash. law
West Virginia’s five Supreme Court justices are elected to 12-year terms in nonpartisan statewide elections. When a justice leaves early, the governor appoints a replacement, who, depending on how much of the term remains, either serves out the term or must run to complete it. W.Va. Judicial Branch
Wisconsin’s seven justices are elected to 10-year terms in statewide nonpartisan April elections, and a justice appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy must run for a full term at the next spring election in which no other justice is on the ballot. Wis. Court System

States That Appoint Justices, Then Hold Retention Votes

In Alaska, the Judicial Council nominates the most qualified applicants and the governor makes the appointment. A new Alaska justice faces a yes-or-no vote on a nonpartisan ballot at the first general election held more than three years after appointment, and every 10th year after that. Alaska Court System Alaska Constitution
In Arizona, a commission nominates at least three people for a Supreme Court vacancy, and the governor appoints one of them. A new appointee’s first term ends 60 days after the first regular general election held after two years in office. A justice who wants to stay files a declaration and appears on the general election ballot, without party designation, for a vote on whether to retain the justice. A full term on the Arizona Supreme Court is six years. Ariz. Constitution Ariz. Constitution Ariz. Constitution
In California, the governor nominates a Supreme Court justice, and the Commission on Judicial Appointments must confirm the nomination. A new justice faces a yes-or-no retention vote at the next governor’s election for the rest of the predecessor’s term, if any remains (four or eight years), and then at the end of each term. A full term is 12 years, and these offices are nonpartisan. Calif. Secretary of State
In Colorado, a judicial nominating commission recommends candidates and the governor appoints justices, who then face retention elections. A new Colorado justice serves a two-year provisional term, and if retained by voters, a 10-year term. Colo. Legislative Council
In Florida, the governor fills a Supreme Court vacancy by appointing one of three to six people nominated by the judicial nominating commission. A new Florida justice’s first term runs until after the first general election held at least a year after the appointment; to stay, a justice qualifies for a yes-or-no retention vote at the general election before the term ends, and a retained justice serves six years. Fla. Constitution
In Indiana, the Judicial Nominating Commission nominates the three applicants it considers most qualified, and the governor appoints one. An Indiana justice stands for a retention vote at the first statewide general election after two full years on the court and, if retained, every 10 years after that. Ind. Judicial Branch
In Iowa, the state judicial nominating commission nominates three people for a Supreme Court vacancy and the governor makes the final selection. A new Iowa justice serves one year and then stands for retention at the next judicial election; the constitution sets Supreme Court terms at no less than eight years. Iowa judges then face retention elections: a majority of yes votes means another full term, and a majority of no votes removes the judge at the end of the year. Iowa Judicial Branch Iowa Constitution
In Kansas, the Supreme Court Nominating Commission sends three nominees to the governor, who has 60 days to appoint one. After one year on the court, a new Kansas justice faces a retention vote at the next general election, and a retained justice serves a six-year term. On Aug. 4, 2026, Kansas voters were asked whether to amend the constitution so voters would elect Supreme Court justices; a no vote kept the system in which the nominating commission sends the governor three names and justices keep their seats by winning retention elections. The amendment failed: the secretary of state’s official totals show 387,951 votes against it and 243,915 for it. Kan. Judicial Branch Kan. Secretary of State Kan. Secretary of State
In Maryland, the governor fills a vacancy on the Supreme Court with the Senate’s advice and consent. A Maryland justice then goes on the ballot without opposition for a yes-or-no retention vote at the first general election held more than a year after the seat became vacant, and again every 10 years. Md. Constitution
In Missouri, the governor fills a Supreme Court vacancy by appointing one of three people nominated by a nonpartisan judicial commission; if the governor does not act in 60 days, the commission appoints. An appointed Missouri judge serves until after the first general election following 12 months in office, and to stay files a declaration of candidacy to succeed himself or herself before the election that precedes the term’s end. The judge’s name then goes before voters statewide on a separate judicial ballot, without party labels, asking whether the judge should be retained in office; if a majority vote no, the seat becomes vacant when the term ends. Mo. Constitution Mo. Constitution
Nebraska judges are appointed by the governor after a politically balanced, nine-member commission reviews applicants and holds public interviews. A Nebraska judge faces a retention vote at the first general election more than three years after appointment, and every six years after that. Neb. Judicial Branch
In Oklahoma, the Judicial Nominating Commission sends three nominees for a vacancy to the governor, who appoints one; if the governor does not act within 60 days, the chief justice appoints one of them. A justice who wants to stay files a declaration of candidacy, and voters decide on a separate ballot, without party labels, whether to retain the justice. A retained justice serves a six-year term; a new appointee first stands at the next general election if it comes at least 12 months after the appointment, and otherwise at the second. The same appointment and retention system covers the judges of Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals. Okla. Constitution
In South Dakota, the governor appoints Supreme Court justices from a list of nominees chosen by the Judicial Qualifications Commission. South Dakota justices face a nonpolitical retention election three years after appointment and every eight years after that. S.D. Unified Judicial System
Since a 2014 amendment to Tennessee’s constitution, the governor appoints Supreme Court justices, the Legislature confirms them and voters then decide whether to keep them in retention elections. A Tennessee Supreme Court term is eight years. An appointee is confirmed by default if the Legislature does not reject the appointment within 60 calendar days, counted from the appointment if it is made during the annual session, or from the start of the next annual session if it is made while the Legislature is out of session. Tenn. Attorney General
In Utah, the governor fills a vacancy from at least three nominees certified by a judicial nominating commission, and the appointment takes effect only when a majority of the state Senate approves it. An appointee faces an unopposed, nonpartisan retention election at the first general election more than three years after appointment, and Supreme Court justices every 10th year after that. Utah Constitution
In Wyoming, the Judicial Nominating Commission sends three names to the governor, who must choose one of them to fill a vacancy. A new Wyoming justice serves one year and then stands for retention at the next general election; a full term is eight years. Wyoming justices stand every eight years in nonpartisan yes-or-no retention elections. Wyo. Judicial Branch Wyo. Constitution

States Where the Governor or Legislature Chooses

In Connecticut, the Judicial Selection Commission lists qualified candidates, the governor nominates one and the General Assembly approves the nomination; voters do not elect justices. One exception: the governor may nominate a sitting associate justice to be chief justice without a commission investigation, interview or listing. Connecticut’s constitution provides that the governor nominates judges only from candidates submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission, that the General Assembly appoints them and that they serve eight-year terms. Connecticut justices are appointed for eight-year terms and must be renominated and reappointed to serve again. Conn. Office of Legislative Research Conn. Constitution
Delaware’s chief justice and four justices are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate for 12-year terms. Del. Courts
In Hawaii, the governor fills a Supreme Court vacancy, with the Senate’s consent, from four to six nominees chosen by the judicial selection commission. Hawaii justices serve 10-year terms; to stay, a justice petitions the judicial selection commission, which decides whether to renew the term. Voters do not vote on it. Hawaii Constitution
Maine’s judges and justices are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate for seven-year terms. Maine Judicial Branch
Massachusetts judges are nominated and appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Governor’s Council. Massachusetts judges must retire at age 70. Mass. Constitution
In New Jersey, the governor nominates Supreme Court justices and the state Senate votes whether to confirm them. New Jersey’s seven justices are appointed first to a seven-year term and, if reappointed, serve until age 70. N.J. Courts
In New York, the governor chooses the judges of the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, and may choose only from the nominees of the Commission on Judicial Nomination. The governor’s choice needs the advice and consent of the state Senate. Court of Appeals judges are appointed for 14-year terms and must retire at age 70. N.Y. Commission on Judicial Nomination N.Y. Constitution
In Rhode Island, the governor nominates a Supreme Court justice from a list submitted by an independent nonpartisan nominating commission, and both the state Senate and the House of Representatives must consent. Rhode Island’s Supreme Court justices hold office during good behavior, with no fixed term. R.I. Constitution
In South Carolina, the General Assembly elects Supreme Court justices by a joint public vote for 10-year terms, after the Judicial Merit Selection Commission screens candidates and finds them qualified. S.C. Judicial Branch
In Vermont, the governor fills a Supreme Court vacancy from a list of nominees presented by a judicial nominating body, with the advice and consent of the state Senate. Vermont justices serve six-year terms, and a justice who wants another term is continued unless a majority of the General Assembly members voting on the question vote against it; voters do not decide. Vt. Constitution
In Virginia, Supreme Court justices are chosen by a majority vote of the members of each house of the General Assembly for 12-year terms. If a seat opens while the General Assembly is out of session, the governor may appoint someone to serve until 30 days after the next session begins. Va. Constitution

Not Yet Checked

GovFacts has not yet checked against an official source how the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s justices are chosen, so the map shows it as not yet checked.

Before you research a single candidate, answer one question about your state: how do these judges get their jobs? The answer tells you what information even exists to find.

Ballotpedia sorts judicial elections into three main formats. In a partisan election, judges are elected by the people and appear on the ballot with a party label. In a nonpartisan election, they are elected by the people but with no party label. In a retention election, voters get a periodic yes-or-no question about whether an incumbent judge should stay on for another term, and the judge runs unopposed.

Each format changes the research job completely.

A partisan race hands you a party cue and usually a real campaign, complete with fundraising reports and ads to scrutinize. A nonpartisan race takes the party cue away and forces you toward biographies, endorsements, and ratings. A retention election has no opponent at all, which sounds easy until you realize there is nothing to compare the judge against except their own record.

The wrinkle is that most states mix these methods across court levels. The Brennan Center’s tally shows that among the 38 states using elections for their high courts, 8 use contested partisan elections, 14 use contested nonpartisan elections, and 19 use retention elections, categories that overlap since retention states often fill first terms by appointment or election. New Mexico runs a hybrid that stacks appointment, a partisan election, and later retention.

Go down to the trial courts and the picture shifts again. The same Brennan Center research reports that of the 32 states electing trial judges, 21 use nonpartisan elections and the rest use partisan ones. Facing a partisan primary for one court and a bare retention question for another on the same ballot is entirely normal.

The table below is your orientation map. Find your state’s high court method, and it tells you which tools in the next section matter most.

How states select high court judges, and what that means for your research
Selection method	States (high courts)	What it means for your research
Contested partisan election	8	Party labels appear; review campaign finance data and endorsements, and weigh interest group messaging
Contested nonpartisan election	14	No party label; lean on biographies, endorsements, bar ratings, and local coverage
Appointment plus retention election	19	No opponent; judicial performance evaluations and bar ratings become your main tools
Pure gubernatorial appointment (no high court election)	a small number of states plus DC	You do not vote on these judges directly; your influence runs through governor and legislative races

Source: Brennan Center for Justice and Ballotpedia. New Mexico appears in the partisan group but uses a hybrid of appointment, partisan election, and retention.

One more structural detail worth knowing, because it explains why so many “elected” judges first reach the bench without an election. Most states use gubernatorial appointment to fill judicial vacancies that open mid-term, and in the states selecting high court judges through contested elections, those interim seats are generally filled by non-elective processes.

In practice: the judge you are asked to retain may have been appointed, then vetted by a commission, long before you ever saw the name.

That vetting trail is something you can read.

Where the Nonpartisan Information Actually Lives

Now the part you came for. When there is no party label and no news coverage, where do you go?

Your first stop is the official voter guide. Many states mail one or post it online through the secretary of state. These guides are produced by election officials, not campaigns, and they often carry candidate-written statements plus the plain mechanics of what each office does.

The most underused source is your state’s judicial performance evaluation.

17 states and several territories run judicial performance evaluation commissions. These bodies survey the lawyers, jurors, court staff, and litigants who appeared before a judge, then rate that judge on things like legal knowledge, impartiality, communication, and temperament.

If you live in one of those states, this is close to a cheat code, especially for retention elections where there is no opponent to compare against.

Your third stop is bar association ratings. Lawyers’ groups evaluate candidates and often rate them “qualified,” “well qualified,” or “not qualified.” The American Bar Association keeps a hub on judicial performance evaluation resources, and many local and state bars run their own reviews.

Finally, a nonpartisan database ties it together. Sites like Ballotpedia compile candidate biographies, prior rulings, endorsements, and campaign finance in one place, which is often the fastest way to build a profile of a trial judge that local news never covered.

Read those four sources first. That sequence, official guide, performance evaluation, bar ratings, nonpartisan database, is the whole method. Everything else is interpretation.

Reading a Judge’s Record Without a Law Degree

You do not need to parse case law to evaluate a judge. You need to know what the nonpartisan sources are measuring and how to weight it.

Performance evaluations are built around conduct, not ideology. They ask whether a judge is prepared, treats people fairly, explains decisions clearly, and keeps a courtroom running. That framing is deliberate: it lets you assess whether someone does the job well without demanding that you agree with every ruling they have ever made.

Bar ratings work similarly, screening for competence and integrity rather than which way a judge leans.

So when you see a “not qualified,” treat it as a flare. It usually reflects concerns that the people inside the courthouse flagged something serious.

Endorsements deserve a second look, not a first one. A judge endorsed by a bar association’s evaluation committee is a different thing from a judge endorsed by a group with a direct stake in future cases. Note who is doing the endorsing before you let it move you.

Campaign finance rounds out the picture, and it is public. In partisan and nonpartisan races, candidates file disclosure reports; a nonpartisan database will often summarize them. You are not looking for a smoking gun so much as a pattern: who is funding this race, and do they have business before this court?

That question matters more than it used to. Consider the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where spending on the 2023 contest reached about $51 million and then surpassed $100 million in the 2025 race for the same court. When that much outside money floods a single court’s races, the disclosure reports stop being trivia and start being the story.

When the Ads Get There Before You Do

Here is the trap the money sets.

The Brennan Center’s long-running “New Politics of Judicial Elections” series has documented that television advertising in judicial races leans heavily on crime, sentencing, and a small number of high-profile rulings, especially when the ads come from outside interest groups, and that these spots frequently distort the underlying cases.

The favorite labels are compact and sticky: “soft on crime,” “anti-business.” Each one usually rests on a single decision, stripped of its facts, its record, and the law the judge was actually applying.

Think about what a judge’s job requires. A ruling that looks “soft on crime” in a fifteen-second spot might be a judge correctly applying a sentencing statute, or suppressing evidence from an unlawful search because the Constitution required it. The ad cannot tell you which, because telling you which would defeat the ad.

This is precisely why the sequence in the last two sections matters. If your first exposure to a candidate is a mailer, the mailer sets your frame, and everything you read afterward gets measured against it.

Flip the order. Read the performance evaluation and the bar rating first, form a baseline, and let the ads arrive second, where you can weigh them against something solid. An ad is evidence of what a campaign wants you to feel. It is not evidence of how a judge does the work.

What to Do When There Is Almost Nothing to Find

Not every voter gets a performance evaluation booklet. Trial court races in particular can be near-invisible, with candidates unknown outside legal circles and local media doing little more than printing the names.

So what do you do when the well is dry?

Start by widening the net beyond a single search. Check whether your county or regional bar association ran an evaluation even if the state did not; local bars often review trial judges that no one else touches. Look for a nonpartisan voter guide from a civic group in your area. Pull the candidate’s own materials, a campaign site or a filed statement, and read them for what they reveal about experience and priorities.

Ballotpedia’s judicial elections hub is again useful here, because it aggregates the scraps—prior positions, professional background, any endorsements on record—into one profile faster than you could assemble them yourself.

When you have exhausted the sources and still cannot form a judgment, you have a real choice to make, and it is worth making on purpose rather than by default.

Leaving a race blank is a legitimate decision; an undervote does not spoil the rest of your ballot. But recognize the trade. When large numbers of voters roll off, the outcome shifts toward the smaller, more organized set of people, often those closest to legal or partisan networks, who did vote.

The honest framing is this: a blank line is a decision to let others decide. Sometimes, with genuinely no information, that is the responsible call. Make that choice knowingly.

The Gap the Tools Cannot Close

There is a limit to all of this, and it is worth naming plainly.

The strongest tools cluster in the states that arguably need them least. 17 states and several territories run judicial performance evaluation commissions. The states with the fiercest, best-funded contested elections do not all offer an official report card to match.

That leaves a mismatch. The louder and more expensive a judicial race, the more a voter needs a neutral anchor, and the less likely a state-run evaluation is to be waiting for them.

The experience is universal enough to be measured and, apparently, too ordinary to record.

Which puts more weight on the infrastructure that does exist. Whether performance evaluation commissions expand into more states, whether bar groups keep publishing blunt “not qualified” findings, whether civic organizations keep filling the coverage gap for invisible trial races: that machinery is what stands between an informed judicial vote and a guess.

And with interest group money now outrunning the candidates themselves, the next few election cycles will test whether that quiet, unglamorous infrastructure can keep pace with the ad buys. Before your next ballot, it is worth finding out which of these tools your own state actually offers. The answer varies more than almost anything else in American elections, and it decides how much guessing you will have to do.

How to Research Judicial Candidates on Your Ballot

Why the Judicial Section Feels Like a Wall