There have been other proposals to reform judicial selection that focus on improving elections, rather than eliminating them. Such proposals include regional elections, campaign finance reform, nonpartisan elections. None of these proposed reforms comes close to solving the problems of money in judicial campaigns and the lack of emphasis on qualifications for serving as a judge.

Regional Elections

Proposals for regional elections, or dividing the state into judicial districts and electing appellate judges from each district, periodically arise. The goal of such proposals is to guarantee geographic diversity on the statewide courts. While such geographic diversity is desired, the regional elections would create many more problems than they would solve.

First, and most important, appellate judges are not supposed to represent a particular constituency. A regional system would identify certain judges, for example, as the western judge or the rural judge. Such labels are inconsistent with the ideal of a statewide independent, impartial judiciary. Second, there are likely to be complaints from various counties about the region in which they are placed. Third, population shifts and census results may force changes to the regions that would affect elections. Fourth, the change to regional elections not only would not solve, but likely would intensify, the problems with judicial elections today: the pressure to fundraise and the need to be well connected politically to have any chance of success. Fifth, the proposal likely would not foster the goal of achieving racial diversity on the Appellate Courts, and likely would further decrease the limited racial diversity that exists currently.

Limits on Contributions to Candidates

Setting campaign contribution limits would not diminish the unease that a litigant might feel when he or she is aware that the opposing party or opposing counsel contributed to the election campaign of the presiding judge. In fact, campaign contribution limits actually would expand this problem: because candidates still would need to raise large sums to fund their campaigns, the most likely result of contribution limits would be that candidates would work to raise money from a greater number of sources, creating even more potential conflicts of interest.

Limits on Campaign Expenditures

Other suggestions have included limits on campaign expenditures. Apart from the fact that the United States Supreme Court has held such limits unconstitutional, experience has shown that such limits are easily evaded, in particular by special interests that can raise unlimited amounts of “soft money” in support of their preferred candidate. Special interests already have identified judicial races as an important target for their monetary influence; increasing that influence would only intensify the acrimonious and divisive tone of the elections.

Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns

Periodically, proposals are made to institute a public financing system for judicial campaigns. Such a system also would be unable to change fundamentally judicial elections. First, such plans are not mandatory, and well-off candidates can reject public funds and then spend as much as they wish. Often, when one candidate does not accept the public funding, the other candidates, even those who have accepted the public funding, are not required to adhere to the spending limits, and the ugly cycle of spending wars returns. Second, to qualify to receive such funds in the first place, the candidates must achieve a certain level of private fundraising success. Thus, the pressure to raise funds is not removed. Third, it is very difficult to fund such programs.

Ballot Changes

Suggested election reforms, such as rotating ballot position so that outcomes are not determined by voters simply selecting the first name on the ballot, do nothing to make campaigns less expensive or less partisan or to inform the voters more fully about the candidates.

Nonpartisan Elections

Some states have "nonpartisan" judicial elections, in which candidates run for election but are not identified as being affiliated with a particular political party.  Nonpartisan elections succeed only in removing political party labels from the ballots on which judicial candidates appear. Such systems do not eliminate the need for judicial candidates to fundraise or campaign.  In fact, the pressures on candidates to raise funds and campaign may be intensifed because the removal of party affiliation makes individual name recognition even more important.  Moreover, to achieve such name recognition, candidates must vie for endorsements from various interest groups. Finally, even when party labels do not appear on the ballot,  the candidates' political affiliations generally become known.