The literature on judicial elections and judicial reform, as well as previous work
on voter participation in particular (Dubois 1979; Hall 1999), suggests several
straightforward hypotheses about the nature of citizen participation in state supreme court
elections, which we now test in this paper with contemporary data. Specifically, we posit
that ballot roll-off in state supreme court elections will vary significantly across states,
over time, in response the presence or absence of challengers, and according to the type
of constituency. Moreover, we expect that roll-off has declined significantly since 2002,
in response to the potentially increased controversy in judicial elections resulting from
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002) and the changing nature of campaigns
and expenditures.
Regarding recent elections, while many judicial elections in the past appeared to
be low-key events (e.g., Arrington 1996; Champagne and Thielemann 1991; Dubois
1979, 1984; Jackson and Riddlesperger 1991; Johnson, Schaefer, and McKnight 1978;
McKnight, Johnson, and Schaefer 1978; Moog 1992; Reid 1996; Schotland 1985), recent
increases in both contestation and campaign spending have raised the profile of judicial
elections (Hall, 2001; Bonneau 2004). Consequently, with more money being spent on
these races and challengers more likely to be taking on incumbents, we expect that roll-
off will decrease over time. Also contributing to this trend is the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, decided in June 2002. In this
landmark case, the Court effectively eliminated previous restrictions on campaign speech
Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Idaho and Louisiana (with one exception), elections
are determined in the primaries and votes are not reported for the general election. Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia hold multi-member elections for some seats, depending upon
vacancies and term rotations. Any elections reported for these states are single-member races
only. Finally, Tennessee holds elections in August (and also switched to retention elections after
1990), Wisconsin holds them in April, and Pennsylvania in odd-numbered years. Thus, according
to these criteria, no cases are eligible for inclusion from Idaho, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, or
Wisconsin.
5
Convention