Vacancies on the Bench: Open-Seat Elections for State Supreme Courts

Abstract

This article examines the dynamics of state supreme court elections in which no incumbent is present; that is, open-seat contests. Although incumbent judges generally are able to win whenever they seek reelection, what factors affect elections when no incumbent is present? Do both candidates have an equal chance of winning the seat? Do candidate-specific factors, such as quality and campaign spending, have more of an effect on the level of electoral support in these races compared with incumbent-challenger contests? Finally, how do institutional arrangements condition these other factors? In open-seat elections to state supreme courts from 1990 to 2000 in all states that have partisan or nonpartisan elections, winning candidates almost invariably have prior judicial experience, and if they do not, they have run against opponents who also lack such experience. Losing candidates also could have improved their chances of winning simply by spending more money. Finally, institutional arrangements, such as the nature of the electoral constituency and the term of office, also matter. In sum, the outcomes of open-seat elections are determined by characteristics of the candidates, the electoral context, the value of the seat, and institutional arrangements.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.