Texas uses a system of judicial elections to select judges, including those of its appellate courts, district courts, and county courts at law. This differs from the federal system, in which the president appoints federal judges, subject to confirmation by the senate.
Other states select judges based on appointments by the governor or legislature. Governors in about 20 states rely on a nominating commission that sends a shortlist to the governor for consideration, restricting him to select a candidate from that list. By contrast, the Texas governor can only appoint judges to fill vacancies.
The Texas system treats judicial elections little differently from elections for legislative and executive positions. One noteworthy exception, however, are municipal court judges. They are almost always appointed by the city council in the city in which they serve, though in a handful of cities they are elected, depending on the city charter.
Terms of Office
Appellate court judges in Texas serve six-year terms whereas trial court judges serve four-year terms. In other words, justices of the Texas Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, and Courts of Appeals are elected to a six-year term, while District Court judges, County Court judges, and Justice of the Peace are elected to a four-year-term.
This means that three places on the Supreme Court and three places on the Court of Criminal Appeals are up for election every two years. The number of seats on the Courts of Appeals on the ballot varies by year.
Judges must step down at the end of the term during which they reach the mandatory retirement age of seventy-five.
Primary Judicial Elections
Texas is one of about eight states where judges run as partisan candidates, which means that judicial candidates are listed on ballots as either Republicans, Democrats, or some other party. Because partisan affiliation dominates the ballot, many judicial races in heavily Republican or Democratic regions are effectively decided in the primary stage rather than the general election.
Judicial candidates therefore must compete in primary elections for a place on the general election ballot, a process that often limits viable competition to the state’s two major parties, excluding judicial candidates who are independent or belong to third parties.
Campaign Finance in Judicial Elections
Candidates for judicial offices in Texas must adhere to the state’s campaign finance laws. Candidates for statewide judicial office may not accept a political contribution exceeding more than $5,000, while candidates for judge of a district court and courts of appeals may not accept contributions larger than $2,500.
The donation limit for candidates for statutory county courts depends on the population of the county. The Texas Ethics Commission has published a guide for judicial candidates that offers more detailed information about judicial campaign finance in Texas.
Controversies and Criticism Beyond Campaign Finance
Beyond concerns about campaign contributions, Texas’s system of electing judges has faced wider criticism for compromising judicial independence and public confidence. Legal scholars and civic organizations have pointed to the inherently partisan nature of judicial campaigns, noting that judges must often make political appeals that are at odds with the expectation of impartiality on the bench. The perception that judicial decisions may be colored by partisan loyalty has raised questions about the credibility of court rulings, especially in politically sensitive cases.
Controversies have also arisen from the election of judges with little courtroom experience or limited professional qualifications, elected largely on the strength of their party label. In high-turnout election years, candidates with minimal name recognition have occasionally unseated seasoned incumbents, prompting debate about whether voters are adequately equipped to evaluate judicial competence. Such instances have reinforced calls for a merit-based system that would place greater emphasis on professional background and judicial temperament.
Publicized judicial decisions have further fueled the debate. Cases involving the death penalty, corporate liability, or political redistricting have sometimes been viewed through a partisan lens, with critics alleging that electoral pressures discourage judges from issuing unpopular but legally sound rulings. Collectively, these concerns highlight the tension between democratic accountability and the judiciary’s role as a neutral arbiter, a tension that continues to drive reform discussions in Texas.
Ballot Dynamics and Straight-Ticket Voting
Judicial elections in Texas have long been shaped by the broader political climate, with down-ballot races often decided less on judicial philosophy than on party affiliation. Voters historically encountered lengthy ballots in general elections, which included numerous judicial positions alongside legislative, executive, and local offices. In such settings, judicial contests tended to receive minimal voter attention, leading to outcomes determined primarily by partisan alignment rather than candidate qualifications or campaign messaging.
Until 2020, Texas permitted straight-ticket voting, allowing voters to select all candidates of one party with a single mark. This system made judicial races particularly sensitive to partisan waves, as many voters would not evaluate individual judges but instead rely on the straight-ticket option. The practice resulted in frequent turnover in judicial offices when one party performed strongly in a given election cycle, regardless of incumbents’ performance or experience. Critics argued that this undermined judicial continuity and rewarded party strength more than judicial competence.
The legislature’s abolition of straight-ticket voting in 2020 altered this dynamic, forcing voters to make individual selections for each race. While some anticipated this would encourage more scrutiny of judicial candidates, early analyses suggest many Texans still lack familiarity with judicial contenders, leading to undervotes in judicial races. As a result, partisan affiliation remains a dominant factor, though the mechanics of how that influence plays out have shifted.
Judicial Selection Reform
Texas’ system of financing judicial elections has come under criticism for decades, including a groundbreaking 60 Minutes investigation in 1987, “Justice for Sale?” and a PBS Frontline investigation in 1999 by the same name.
Such criticisms prompted some reforms, including the 1995 Judicial Fairness Act, which limited contributions to judicial candidates and limited the time frame during which they could accept political contributions.
Other critics have focused on the partisan nature of Texas’s judicial elections, highlighting races in which unqualified candidates won office on the basis of partisan affiliation.
Leading Texas judges have called for judicial selection reform, including Chief Justice Nathan Hecht, who advocated a hybrid system of merit selection and retention elections. The Texas Legislature, however, has failed to act on these recommendations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Judges in Texas are not term-limited, but they must retire at age 75.
All nine members of the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans. There hasn’t been a Democrat elected to the court since 1994.
All nine members of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals are Republicans. The last time a Democrat served on the court was in 2013-2016 when Lawrence Meyers, a justice elected as a Republican, switched parties. He lost his reelection bid.
Yes, Democrats hold majorities on several of the state’s 14 intermediate appellate courts.
When a judge resigns, retires, or dies in office, the governor may appoint a replacement who serves until the next general election, at which point the seat is filled by the voters.
