Two years ago, the talk about judicial elections was about the defeat of three members of the Iowa Supreme Court. There was fear that the results of Iowa might be a harbinger of bad things in other states. As Justice At Stake and the Brennan Center have reported, over the last several election cycles, there has been a lot of money spent on judicial elections. Some of the television ads have been very tough. To be sure, there are serious academics such as professor James Gibson who argue that how the public reacts to contested judicial elections is more nuanced than just saying “nothing good can come from them.” So here in part is what happened yesterday.

In Florida where the Republican Party (and others) sought to defeat three members of the Florida Supreme Court, the justices won handily. They got 67% of the vote. In Indiana, where a Supreme Court Justice became the foil of some Tea Party types for a decision of that state’s court last year, the retention was 68%. In Iowa, the fourth member of the Iowa Supreme Court who was targeted for the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage was retained with 54% of the vote.

In Michigan, Republican Brian Zahra defeated Democratic challenger Shelia Johnson in a contest to serve a partial term. In the combined race to win two full terms, the two top vote-getters in a close race were University of Michigan law professor Bridget McCormack, a Democrat, and incumbent Justice Stephen Markman, a Republican.  In North Carolina, incumbent Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, won a new eight-year term. He had faced a stiff challenge from appeals court judge Sam Ervin IV, a Democrat.  In Alabama, former Chief Justice Moore will be returning to the Supreme Court. In Louisiana, American Judges Association President Toni Higgginbotham ran a strong race for the Supreme Court, but not strong enough to make it to the runoff. Ballot measures to change the appointing process in Missouri and Arizona were soundly defeated. Others will no doubt have much more detailed analysis, but this much is clear: state courts in the United States still have to be concerned about the public’s perception of fairness and the legitimacy of our decisions; courts still have in many parts of the country enormous budget challenges, but there is a reservoir of goodwill toward the judiciary. The times dictate that judges seek to enhance that reservoir with ever more sustained commitment to fairness in our courts.