Click here for information on state supreme court elections.Click here for information on state intermediate appellate court elections.Click here for information on local trial court elections.
The table below contains a list of all candidates who are running for state supreme courts in 2026. The table is fully searchable bycandidate, party andcandidacy status. Depending on the size of your screen, you'll either see a menu to the left of the table or an arrow at the top right corner, which you can use to select a state.
Click the tabs below to view information about the elections this year. In this section, you will find:
A list of seats up for election
A list of candidates running
Ballotpedia's Sample Ballot Lookup Tool
Seats up for election
List of candidates
What's on your ballot?
The following states are holding elections for intermediate appellate court seats in 2026. This list is subject to change if judges retire or are appointed.
The table below contains a list of all candidates who are running for state intermediate appellate courts in 2026. The table is fully searchable bycandidate, party andcandidacy status. Depending on the size of your screen, you'll either see a menu to the left of the table or an arrow at the top right corner, which you can use to select a state.
Methods of judicial selection vary substantially across the United States.[1] Though each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they fill their state and local judiciaries, there arefive main methods. Two methods are primarily election-based; three methods are primarily appointment-based.
Election-based methods
Partisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballotwithout a label designating party affiliation.
Appointment-based methods
Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
Assisted appointment, also known asmerit selection or theMissouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list. After serving an initial term, judges typically run in a yes-noretention election to remain on the court.[2] At the state supreme court level, this selection method is further divided into three types.Click here to learn more.
States may apply more than one of the five methods across different levels of courts. For example, a state may choose its appellate court judges byassisted appointment while choosing its trial court judges inpartisan elections. Some states may even select judges of thesame court level differently depending on the population of an area or local opinion.[1][2] States may also modify any of the systems above in their own way. The assisted appointment method, in particular, comes in a variety of forms. For instance, some statesrequire the governor to choose from the commission's list of nominees, while in other states the list is only a suggestion.[1]
Types of courts
Depending on your state, judges from several different types of courts may appear on the ballot, each with different jurisdictions. There are four types of courts, listed here in ascending order of jurisdiction:
Limited jurisdiction is a term used to describe courts with legal authority restricted to specific subjects, cases, or persons. Examples of limited jurisdiction courts include family courts, traffic courts, probate courts, and military courts.[3] Forty-six states have limited jurisdiction courts.Washington, D.C., and four states (California,Illinois,Iowa, andMinnesota) do not have such courts.[4] Rather, theirgeneral jurisdiction courts are assigned cases that might normally have been given to a limited jurisdiction court.
General jurisdiction is a term used to describe courts that do not have limits on the type of cases they can hear. Cases typically originate in general jurisdiction courts, and their decisions can be appealed tointermediate appellate courts. All 50 states andWashington, D.C., have general jurisdiction courts. General jurisdiction courts are sometimes referred to as trial courts or district courts.
Intermediate appellate courts, as their name suggests, serve as an intermediate step between the trial courts and the courts of last resort in a state. Their jurisdiction varies from state to state.
Forty-two states have at least one intermediate appellate court. Some states have more than one of these types of courts. For example, Alabama has one intermediate appellate court forcivil matters and another forcriminal matters. Pennsylvania'ssuperior court andcommonwealth court are both appellate courts but have different jurisdictions. Other states, such asIllinois andCalifornia, have multiple divisions of intermediate appellate courts with varying degrees of independence from each other. Intermediate appellate courts are sometimes called courts of appeal.
A statecourt of last resort is the highest judicial body within a jurisdiction's court system. It is a court with the highest appellate authority, meaning that its rulings are not subject to review by any other court in the state. A court of last resort is often, but not always, referred to as asupreme court.[5]
All 50 states andWashington, D.C., have at least one court of last resort. Oklahoma and Texas both have two courts of last resort, one for civil appeals and one for criminal appeals.
Incumbent win rates
Click the tabs below to view information about incumbent win rates in state supreme court elections over time. In this section, you will find:
Win rates by year
Win rates in partisan elections
Win rates in nonpartisan elections
Win rates in retention elections
Win rates by state
Win rates by year
Win rates in partisan elections
Win rates in nonpartisan elections
Win rates in retention elections
Win rates by state
Across all types of state supreme court elections,incumbent justices running for re-election won92% of the time from 2008 to 2025. The year when the most incumbents lost was 2024, when eight incumbents did not win re-election. The year with the lowest re-election rate was 2015, when out of two justices, onlyone (50%) was re-elected. In years where more justices were running, the year with the lowest re-election rate was 2024, when85% of justices were re-elected..
Incumbent win rates in state supreme court elections (2008-2025)
Election year
Total incumbent elections
Incumbent elections won
Incumbent elections lost
Incumbent win rate
2025
3
3
0
100%
2024
72
64
8
85%
2023
0
—
—
—
2022
78
75
3
94%
2021
0
—
—
—
2020
70
65
5
92%
2019
0
—
—
—
2018
59
53
6
87%
2017
4
4
0
100%
2016
65
62
3
95%
2015
2
1
1
50%
2014
73
71
2
98%
2013
2
2
0
100%
2012
68
63
5
90%
2011
2
2
0
100%
2010
68
62
6
93%
2009
1
1
0
100%
2008
63
57
6
90%
TOTAL
630
585
45
92%
In partisan elections, incumbents running for re-election won78% of the time from 2008 to 2025. The number of seats incumbents lost in a single year was 2024, when five incumbents lost.West Virginia previously held partisan elections, which are counted here until they were discontinued in 2016.
Incumbent win rates in partisan state supreme court elections (2008-2025)
Election year
Total incumbent elections
Incumbent elections won
Incumbent elections lost
Incumbent win rate
2025
0
—
—
—
2024
15
10
5
67%
2023
0
—
—
—
2022
16
13
3
81%
2021
0
—
—
—
2020
14
12
2
86%
2019
0
—
—
—
2018
13
9
4
69%
2017
1
1
0
100%
2016
11
9
2
82%
2015
1
0
1
0%
2014
5
5
0
100%
2013
0
—
—
—
2012
15
12
3
80%
2011
0
—
—
—
2010
9
9
0
86%
2009
0
—
—
—
2008
9
8
1
100%
TOTAL
109
88
21
78%
In nonpartisan elections, incumbents running for re-election won94% of the time from 2008 to 2025. The most incumbents lost in 2008, when six did not win re-election.Michigan had partisan primaries but nonpartisan general elections and so are counted here as holding nonpartisan elections. Additionally,North Carolina andOhio previously held nonpartisan elections and are counted here up until they no longer hold them, which is 2016 and 2020, respectively.
Incumbent win rates in nonpartisan state supreme court elections (2008-2025)
Election year
Total incumbent elections
Incumbent elections won
Incumbent elections lost
Incumbent win rate
2025
0
—
—
—
2024
26
24
2
91%
2023
0
—
—
—
2022
21
21
0
100%
2021
0
—
—
—
2020
26
24
2
92%
2019
0
—
—
—
2018
23
21
2
91%
2017
1
1
0
100%
2016
20
19
1
95%
2015
1
1
0
100%
2014
35
33
2
94%
2013
1
1
0
100%
2012
23
2`
2
91%
2011
1
1
0
100%
2010
21
18
3
86%
2009
1
1
0
100%
2008
27
22
5
81%
TOTAL
227
208
19
94%
In retention elections, incumbents running for re-election won99% of the time from 2008 to 2025. The highest number of incumbents not retained in a single year was 2010, when three were not retained. The state that has the lowest retention rate is Iowa with a rate of85%. Since 2008, only Iowa and Oklahoma have ever voted against retaining a justice.
Incumbent win rates in state supreme court retention elections (2008-2025)
Election year
Total incumbent elections
Incumbent elections won
Incumbent elections lost
Incumbent win rate
2025
3
3
0
100%
2024
31
30
1
97%
2023
0
-
-
-
2022
41
41
0
100%
2021
0
-
-
-
2020
30
29
1
97%
2019
0
-
-
-
2018
23
23
0
100%
2017
2
2
0
100%
2016
34
34
0
100%
2015
0
-
-
-
2014
33
33
0
100%
2013
1
1
0
100%
2012
30
30
0
100%
2011
1
1
0
100%
2010
38
35
3
92%
2009
0
-
-
-
2008
27
27
0
100%
TOTAL
294
289
5
99%
Among the38 states that conduct elections for supreme court justices,15 have seen incumbents lose elections from 2008 to 2025. These were Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In the other23 states, incumbent supreme court justices won re-election 100% of the time from 2008 to 2025.
The average win percentage of state supreme court justices was 93%.13 states fell below this average, while25 had a higher win rate. Of the 13 states, seven use partisan elections, five use nonpartisan elections, and one uses retention elections.
Incumbent win rates by state in state supreme court elections (2008-2025)
State
Total incumbent elections
Incumbent elections won
Incumbent elections lost
Incumbent win rate
Alabama
21
18
3
86%
Alaska
9
9
0
100%
Arizona
16
16
0
100%
Arkansas
8
8
0
100%
California
12
12
0
100%
Colorado
15
15
0
100%
Florida
20
20
0
100%
Georgia
23
23
0
100%
Idaho
14
14
0
100%
Illinois
14
12
2
86%
Indiana
12
12
0
100%
Iowa
20
17
3
85%
Kansas
21
21
0
100%
Kentucky
12
11
1
92%
Louisiana
5
5
0
100%
Maryland
18
18
0
100%
Michigan
16
13
3
81%
Minnesota
21
21
0
100%
Mississippi
20
15
5
75%
Missouri
13
13
0
100%
Montana
17
17
0
100%
Nebraska
19
19
0
100%
Nevada
16
16
0
100%
New Mexico
16
14
2
88%
North Carolina
12
7
5
58%
North Dakota
9
9
0
100%
Ohio
21
12
9
57%
Oklahoma
44
43
1
97%
Oregon
21
21
0
100%
Pennsylvania
9
8
1
89%
South Dakota
9
9
0
100%
Tennessee
15
15
0
100%
Texas
50
45
5
90%
Utah
7
7
0
100%
Washington
27
26
1
96%
West Virginia
8
6
2
75%
Wisconsin
8
6
2
75%
Wyoming
12
12
0
100%
TOTAL
630
585
45
93%
Historical election data
There were 1,610 state judicial elections held from 2016 to 2024.
State judicial elections, 2016-2024
Year
Court of last resort seats
Intermediate appellate court seats
Total
2024
83
221
304
2023
2
13
15
2022
84
298
384
2021
1
14
15
2020
78
201
279
2019
3
14
17
2018
68
244
312
2017
4
17
21
2016
76
189
265
Total
399
1,211
1,610
Courts of last resort
Retention
From 2016 to 2024, retention elections took place for 53 judicial seats on courts of last resort. All but two of those judges were retained.
Non-retention
There were 246 non-retention elections held from 2016 to 2024, with 153 races contested (62.2%). Incumbents ran for re-election 74.7% of the time. Of the incumbents who ran for re-election, 87.4% won re-election.
The table below is organized by year and includes the total number of seats up for election, the number of contested seats, the number and percentage of incumbents who sought re-election, the number and percentage of incumbents who faced opposition, and the number and percentage of incumbents who won another term.
Court of last resort elections, 2016-2024
Year
Total seats
Seats contested
Incumbents who sought re-election
% incumbents who sought re-election
Incumbents who faced opposition
% incumbents who faced opposition
Incumbents who were re-elected
% incumbents who were re-elected
2024
54
26
42
77.8%
17
40.5%
35
83.3%
2023
2
2
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2022
48
30
34
70.8%
21
61.8%
32
94.1%
2021
1
1
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2020
49
37
41
83.7%
29
70.7%
36
87.8%
2019
3
3
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2018
45
25
34
75.6%
19
55.9%
28
82.4%
2017
2
1
2
100%
1
50.0%
2
100%
2016
42
28
31
73.8%
17
54.8%
28
90.3%
Total
246
153
184
74.8%
104
56.5%
161
87.5%
Intermediate appellate courts
Retention
From 2016 to 2024, retention elections took place for 510 judicial seats on intermediate appellate courts. All were retained.
Non-retention
There were 701 non-retention elections from 2016 to 2024, with 297 races contested (42.4%). Incumbents ran for re-election 81.7% of the time. Of the incumbents who ran for re-election, 84.0% won re-election.
The table below is organized by year and includes the total number of seats up for election, the number of contested seats, the number and percentage of incumbents who sought re-election, the number and percentage of incumbents who faced opposition, and the number and percentage of incumbents who won another term.
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection
