---

Judicial Elections: Partisan vs Nonpartisan | Apr 8, 2026

Published: April 08, 2026
Network: Vicki McKenna Show
Analysis: Conservative Caucus President Jim Pfaff

---

Topics Covered

• The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections
• Wisconsin’s Judicial Election Failures
• Why Judicial Candidates Must Take Clear Stands
• How Courts Have Transformed America
• Republican Party Disarray and Its Consequences

The Case for Partisan Elections for Judges

The American judicial system was never designed to operate in a political vacuum. While the Founders established the Supreme Court through the Constitution, they deliberately left the creation of lower courts to Congress—a recognition that the judiciary would inevitably intersect with political realities. Yet somewhere along the way, many states adopted nonpartisan judicial elections under the misguided belief that removing party labels would somehow elevate the process above politics. Jim Pfaff dismantles this notion with characteristic directness:

“These are political. By their nature, elections are political. And by their nature, elections are partisan. Period.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

This fundamental truth cuts through decades of institutional pretense. Elections—all elections—involve competing visions for governance, different interpretations of law, and opposing philosophies about the role of government in citizens’ lives. Pretending otherwise doesn’t eliminate partisanship; it merely obscures it from voters who deserve to make informed choices. The case for partisan elections for judges rests on a simple principle: transparency. When voters enter the ballot box, they should understand what they’re getting. The current system of nonpartisan judicial elections creates confusion, allows candidates to hide their judicial philosophies behind vague platitudes, and ultimately disserves the democratic process.

“The nice thing about a partisan election is that you know who you’re dealing with.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

Pfaff’s argument extends beyond mere convenience. Partisan elections for judges create accountability structures that nonpartisan contests lack. When a judicial candidate runs under a party banner, they become subject to the expectations of the coalition that supports them. Voters gain a shorthand for understanding a candidate’s likely approach to constitutional interpretation, criminal justice, property rights, and the countless other issues that come before the courts. Newt Gingrich has long advocated for congressional reform of the federal judiciary, recognizing that while the Supreme Court is constitutionally protected, the lower courts remain within Congress’s purview to restructure. This same reformist spirit should animate state-level efforts to bring transparency and accountability to judicial selection. The objection that partisan elections would “politicize” the judiciary ignores the reality that courts are already deeply political institutions. The difference is whether that political nature operates in the open, where voters can see and respond to it, or behind closed doors, where only insiders understand the true stakes.

Wisconsin’s Judicial Election Failures

Wisconsin provides a cautionary tale for conservatives nationwide. The state’s nonpartisan judicial election system has produced a string of devastating losses for constitutionalist candidates, not because conservative judicial philosophy is unpopular, but because the structural framework advantages Democrats who refuse to play by nonpartisan rules. The numbers tell a stark story: three court elections lost by Republicans in succession. In the last three judicial elections, the Democrats have wiped the floor with us. This isn’t a matter of candidate quality or messaging nuance—it’s a systemic failure that demands systemic solutions. The problem, as Pfaff explains, is asymmetric behavior. Democrats treat these supposedly nonpartisan contests as the partisan battles they actually are. They mobilize their base, raise substantial funds, and communicate clearly about what their candidates will do on the bench. Republicans, meanwhile, hamstring themselves by actually behaving as if the elections were nonpartisan. Consider the case of Marie Lazar, the Republican judicial candidate whose campaign became a study in the perils of excessive caution. Her messaging about abortion cases—attempting to thread a needle of nonpartisan positioning—backfired spectacularly. Voters, confused by the carefully hedged communications, actually thought she was the liberal candidate. The campaign’s determination to appear nonpartisan rendered its message incomprehensible. This confusion is the inevitable result of partisan elections for judges being conducted under a nonpartisan facade. When one side communicates clearly and the other speaks in deliberately vague terms, voters will naturally gravitate toward the message they can actually understand. The timing of Wisconsin’s judicial elections compounds these problems. Spring elections, often scheduled around holidays when voter attention is minimal, favor the party with more motivated activists and better institutional infrastructure for low-turnout contests. Democrats have built exactly this kind of machinery, while Republicans continue treating judicial elections as afterthoughts. The solution isn’t to become better at playing a rigged game—it’s to change the game entirely. Moving judicial elections to fall, making them explicitly partisan, and integrating them into the broader electoral calendar would level a playing field that currently tilts decisively toward the left.

Why Judicial Candidates Must Take Clear Stands

The conventional wisdom about judicial campaigns holds that candidates should avoid taking positions on issues that might come before them, speak only in generalities about “the rule of law,” and present themselves as blank slates who will simply “call balls and strikes.” This approach is both intellectually dishonest and politically suicidal.

“When you’re running an election, they want to know what you want to do. They want to know what you want to do. Not this fuzzy stuff about principles and all of this.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

Voters are outcome-oriented. They want to understand how a judicial candidate will approach the cases that matter to their lives—questions of constitutional rights, criminal justice, property, and the limits of government power. Candidates who refuse to provide this clarity aren’t being principled; they’re being evasive, and voters recognize evasion when they see it. The notion that judges shouldn’t have publicly expressed judicial philosophies is contradicted by the example of the greatest constitutionalist jurists in American history. Antonin Scalia was taking a stand all the time publicly and elsewhere. His commitment to originalism and textualism wasn’t a secret he revealed only after confirmation—it was the foundation of his entire judicial career, articulated clearly and defended vigorously in public forums. Scalia understood that judges must interpret the Constitution and laws as written, not as they might wish them to be. This isn’t a position that should be hidden from voters; it’s precisely the kind of clarity that voters deserve when selecting those who will wield judicial power. Pfaff offers a template for effective judicial campaign messaging:

“Say things bluntly and directly. Our court is not fair. I will make it fair. Our court is rigged. I will unrig it. You actually have to say what you’re going to do.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

This approach recognizes that judicial elections, like all elections, are about choices and consequences. Voters who feel that courts have been weaponized against their values and interests want candidates who will fight back—not candidates who hide behind procedural niceties while the other side transforms the judiciary into an engine of progressive policy implementation. The argument for judicial restraint and constitutional fidelity is a winning argument when made clearly. The problem isn’t the message; it’s the failure to deliver it with conviction and specificity. Partisan elections for judges would create the framework for this kind of honest communication, replacing the current system’s incentives for obfuscation with incentives for clarity.

How Courts Have Transformed America

Understanding why judicial elections matter requires understanding what courts have become in American political life. The judiciary is no longer merely an arbiter of disputes—it has become a primary vehicle for policy transformation, often implementing changes that could never survive the democratic process.

“Every Democrat policy, almost every Democrat policy that has advanced in this country was done so in a court of law.”
— Jim Pfaff, President, The Conservative Caucus

This observation illuminates why the left invests so heavily in judicial contests while conservatives have historically treated them as secondary concerns. Democrats understand that courts offer a path to policy victories that bypass the messy business of winning elections and building legislative majorities. From social policy to environmental regulation to the administrative state’s expansion, courts have been the tip of the progressive spear. Consider Obamacare—legislation that passed through Congress during a brief moment of Democratic dominance, but which survived only because the Supreme Court chose to rewrite its provisions to save it from constitutional challenge. The courts didn’t merely interpret the law; they preserved a policy that might otherwise have collapsed under its own constitutional infirmities. This pattern repeats across policy domains. When progressives cannot win at the ballot box, they turn to sympathetic judges who will discover new rights, reinterpret existing statutes, and constrain the actions of elected officials who threaten progressive priorities. The courts have become, in effect, a super-legislature with lifetime tenure and no accountability to voters. The transformation extends beyond federal courts to state judiciaries, where decisions about election law, redistricting, criminal justice, and countless other issues shape the political landscape. State supreme courts have become battlegrounds precisely because both sides now recognize their power to determine policy outcomes. This reality makes the case for partisan elections for judges not merely a procedural preference but a democratic imperative. If courts are going to function as policy-making institutions—and they clearly are—then voters deserve the same transparency about judicial candidates that they expect from legislative and executive candidates.

Republican Party Disarray and Its Consequences

The structural problems with nonpartisan judicial elections are compounded by organizational dysfunction within the Republican Party itself. Even where the rules permit effective partisan mobilization, internal conflicts and institutional weakness have prevented conservatives from competing effectively. Party organizations across the country struggle to raise money, coordinate messaging, and resolve internal disputes. The infighting that has characterized recent years has real consequences: it diverts resources from electoral competition, confuses voters about what the party stands for, and provides ammunition for hostile media coverage. Pfaff notes that if Republicans were “firing on all cylinders like we’re at the well-oiled machine that turned out in 2024,” the current political headwinds would be far less damaging. Instead, organizational disarray amplifies every challenge, turning manageable problems into potential catastrophes. This dysfunction is particularly damaging in judicial elections, which require sustained institutional commitment to candidate recruitment, fundraising, and voter education. Individual candidates cannot build the infrastructure needed to compete in these contests; they depend on party organizations that too often fail to deliver. The media environment makes party strength even more critical. Hostile coverage is a given for conservative judicial candidates; the only question is whether party infrastructure can provide alternative channels for reaching voters. When parties are weak and divided, candidates are left to face a hostile press with minimal support. The solution requires both structural reform—moving toward partisan elections for judges conducted in fall alongside other partisan contests—and organizational renewal within the Republican Party. Neither alone is sufficient; both are necessary for conservatives to compete effectively for judicial seats. The stakes extend beyond individual elections to the fundamental character of American governance. Courts that reflect progressive judicial philosophy will continue transforming American society regardless of what happens in legislative and executive elections. Only by taking judicial elections seriously—and reforming the systems that currently disadvantage conservatives—can this trajectory be altered.

Key Takeaways

1. Partisan elections for judges provide transparency that nonpartisan systems deliberately obscure, allowing voters to make informed choices about judicial philosophy and approach.
2. Wisconsin’s three consecutive judicial losses demonstrate the structural disadvantages Republicans face when they follow nonpartisan rules that Democrats ignore.
3. Judicial candidates must communicate clearly about their philosophy and intentions, following the example of Antonin Scalia rather than hiding behind vague platitudes about “the rule of law.”
4. Courts have become primary vehicles for progressive policy implementation, making judicial elections as consequential as legislative and executive contests.
5. Republican Party organizational dysfunction compounds structural disadvantages, requiring both systemic reform and internal renewal to compete effectively.
6. Moving judicial elections to fall and making them explicitly partisan would create a level playing field and increase voter participation in these critical contests.
7. The transformation of American society through the courts will continue unless conservatives treat judicial elections with the seriousness they deserve and reform the systems that currently favor the left.

---

Share This Analysis

About The Conservative Caucus:
The Conservative Caucus is a grassroots public policy action organization, formed in 1974. Headed by President Jim Pfaff, the Caucus is committed to advancing free enterprise, limited government, and traditional values.

Originally broadcast April 08, 2026 on Vicki McKenna Show.