A judicial retention election (or retention referendum) is a periodic process in some jurisdictions where judges are elected whereby a judge is subject to a referendum held at the same time as a general election. A judge is removed from office if a majority of votes are cast against retention.

A judicial retention vote differs from a regular election in that voters are not asked to choose from a list of candidates — the judges on the ballot do not have opponents. Rather, the voter chooses between electing the incumbent judge to a further term in office (i.e. voting in favor of "retention") or voting against. In addition, the judge's party affiliation is not listed on the ballot.^[1] A judge is deemed to have been retained if ballots cast in favor of retention outnumber those against.

History [edit]

United States [edit]

California [edit]

In 1934, Judicial retention elections were first used by California's state court system to fill vacancies.^[2] (Text of the law may be seen below.) These retention elections served as an alternative to elections which were previously contested. After appointment by the governor and confirmation by the Commissioner on Judicial Appointments, an incumbent judge would appear on the ballot without an opponent and voters would vote for or against.^[3] If the judge received a majority of votes, he or she would be elected to serve.

California State Constitution: Article VI, Section 16 d.^[4]

(1) Within 30 days before August 16 preceding the expiration of the judge's term, a judge of the Supreme Court or a court of appeal may file a declaration of candidacy to succeed to the office presently held by the judge. If the declaration is not filed, the Governor before September 16 shall nominate a candidate. At the next general election, only the candidate so declared or nominated may appear on the ballot, which shall present the question whether the candidate shall be elected. The candidate shall be elected upon receiving a majority of the votes on the question.

In 1937, the American Bar Association endorsed retention elections for judges.

Missouri Plan [edit]

In 1940, the state of Missouri adopted the Missouri Plan, which contained a judicial retention process similar to that of California. Under the Missouri Plan, judges were to be nominated by a council of lawyers and laypersons. A list of candidates would then go to the governor, who would choose a candidate. After an election cycle had passed, the judicial candidate would be subject to periodic, public retention elections.

Usage [edit]

Retention elections are used in many U.S. state court systems to retain trial court and appellate court judges.

U.S. states with judicial retention elections^[5] [edit]

• Alaska^1,2
• Arizona¹
• California¹
• Colorado^1,2
• Florida¹
• Idaho²
• Illinois^1,2
• Indiana¹
• Iowa^1,2
• Kansas^1,2
• Maryland¹
• Missouri^1,2
• Nebraska^1,2
• New Mexico^1,2 (57% 'yes' votes needed for retention)
• Oklahoma¹
• Pennsylvania^1,2
• South Dakota¹
• Tennessee¹
• Utah^1,2
• Wyoming^1,2

¹ Appellate Court Retention Election

² Trial Court Retention Election

The Constitution of Japan, drafted by the U.S. authorities during the occupation of Japan following World War II, effected a similar arrangement for justices of the Supreme Court of Japan.

Sample ballot language [edit]

By way of example, judicial retention elections are used in the U.S. state of Illinois. In the 2008 general election, the voters of Cook County, Illinois were asked to vote on the following:^[6]

Shall each of the persons listed be retained in office as Judge of the Appellate Court, First Judicial District?

Michael J. Gallagher, Yes or No

Margaret Stanton McBride, Yes or No

Additional instructions on the ballot made clear that "no judge listed is running against any other judge" and that voters were able to vote "yes" on both, "no" on both or "yes" on one and "no" on the other.

References [edit]

• Iowa Judicial Branch, Judicial Retention Elections

See also [edit]

• Missouri Plan