This fall, judges are running in contestable elections in 32 states and standing in yes/no retention elections in 17 states. Judicial elections are typically low-information contests, where voters may cast their ballots based on party affiliation, name recognition, or ballot position rather than on qualifications and experience. But in a handful of states, voters will have the benefit of broad-based and objective evaluations of incumbent judges’ performance on the bench and, in one state, of the judicial potential of their challengers.

The state bar association launched a website to give voters more information about appellate judges standing for retention. The site explains the merit selection and retention system, provides bios and photos of judges on the ballot, and includes links to judges’ decisions. It was created in response to the judicial ratings issued by the state chamber-backed Oklahoma Civil Justice Council, based on judges’ rulings in civil liability cases.

All eight candidates for the state’s appellate courts qualified for public financing, with supreme court candidates receiving $240,100 each and court of appeals candidates receiving $164,400. At least two outside groups are raising and spending funds in support of the Republican supreme court candidate.

According to a recent poll, 70 percent of voters favor a proposed constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the authority to require that judges contribute more toward their pensions and benefits. Earlier this year, the state supreme court ruled that judges were exempt from a new law requiring public employees to pay more because it effectively reduced judges’ salaries in violation of the constitution.

Questions were raised as to whether an email from a state employee advocating the retention of the appellate judges on the November ballot violated an anti-electioneering ethics rule. The email was sent by the John Miley, general counsel to the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, whose wife is standing for retention to the supreme court.

A recent poll shows that 49 percent of voters plan to vote to retain Justice David Wiggins in November, while 41 percent will vote to remove him. In 2009, Wiggins joined a unanimous supreme court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

With North Carolina's election day looming near, The Charlotte Observer has featured two contrasting opinion pieces, each advocating for the appointment or election of North Carolina judges.

The Denver Bar Association's October edition of The Docket features a brief history of the American legal education system and mentions current efforts of Educating Tomorrow's Lawyers "to advance legal education and raise standards of competence and professionalism."

The Iowa Supreme Court finds itself battling to maintain a fair and independent judiciary as a group of Iowans, now backed by the state's Republican party, intensify their campaign for the removal of Justice David Wiggins. In an attempt to keep campaign politics out of Iowa's judicial merit selection system, Justice Wiggins, like his previously ousted colleagues, has refused to launch a retention campaign to fight his removal.

Based on Colorado’s Know Your Judge PSA, the North Carolina Bar Association has released a its own PSA that urges voters to take the initiative to become informed about their judicial candidates before they vote and not to skip the judicial portion of the ballot.

Professor Mary Lynch of Albany Law School recently reviewed IAALS’ three-day Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers (ETL) Conference on her Best Practices for Legal Education blog. She wrote that the "energy, ideas and information being shared and built upon at the . . . Conference [gave her] hope and optimism about the way out of the 'crisis' in legal education."

In Sanders County Republican Committee v. Bullock, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Montana law that restricted political parties from endorsing or contributing to judicial campaigns. The Atlantic reports their disfavor with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, maintaining the statute acted to “protect the integrity of [Montana’s] nonpartisan judicial elections” and “stood as a bulwark against the corroding effect of money's influence on judicial integrity.”