For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.
Skip to main content
New

Retention Election

Elections & DemocracyUpdated May 23, 2026

An up-or-down vote in which the electorate decides whether to keep an incumbent official—typically a judge—in office for another term, with no opposing candidate on the ballot.

A retention election is a periodic ballot question in which voters decide whether a sitting official—almost always a judge—should remain in office for another term. Unlike a contested election, no challenger appears on the ballot; voters simply mark "yes" or "no" on whether to retain the incumbent. If the "no" votes prevail (typically by simple majority, though some jurisdictions require a higher threshold), a vacancy is created and filled through the jurisdiction's appointment process.

Retention elections are the defining feature of the Missouri Plan (also called merit selection), first adopted by Missouri in 1940. Under this model, a nonpartisan commission screens candidates and submits names to the governor, who appoints a judge; after an initial period on the bench, the judge faces voters in a retention election and, if retained, periodically thereafter. The system is intended to balance judicial independence against democratic accountability by removing partisan campaigns and direct opponents from the process.

Variants of retention elections are used for some or all judges in roughly twenty U.S. states, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee. Term lengths vary widely—six years is common for trial courts, while appellate and supreme court terms often run eight, ten, or twelve years.

Historically, retention votes were sleepy affairs with very high retention rates (often above 99%). That changed as interest groups began targeting individual judges over specific rulings. A frequently cited example is the 2010 Iowa Supreme Court retention election, in which three justices—Marsha Ternus, David Baker, and Michael Streit—were not retained after joining the unanimous Varnum v. Brien (2009) decision recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. The episode is widely studied in debates over whether retention elections still insulate judges from political pressure.

Critics argue retention votes give voters too little information and have become vehicles for issue-based campaigns; defenders note that contested judicial elections invite even more partisanship and campaign spending.

Example

In November 2010, Iowa voters declined to retain three state Supreme Court justices—Marsha Ternus, David Baker, and Michael Streit—following their joining the 2009 Varnum v. Brien ruling on same-sex marriage.

Frequently asked questions

Primarily state judges in the roughly twenty U.S. states using merit selection, though a few jurisdictions apply retention votes to other appointed officials. They are rarely used outside the judiciary.
Talk to founder