Judicial elections impact public legitimacy perceptions of state supreme courts in two ways. They increase support through accountability mechanisms, but campaign activities decrease these positive views. This study analyzes nationally representative survey data with specific metrics for election activity levels across states. We compare perceptions of elected versus appointed courts based on whether campaigns are highly active or minimal.
Survey results reveal that legitimacy is higher for elected courts in low-activity states than appointed ones. However, in high-campaign activity states, elected courts appear less legitimate than appointed courts. These findings highlight the complex trade-offs associated with judicial elections.
