How Easy Is It to Become a Judge in Washington?

Most people think judges get elected. And technically, that's true. But it leaves out a very important part of the story. In Washington, many judges first reach the bench without winning an election at all. They are appointed. And that appointment can create a significant advantage when the next election arrives. Let's talk about how it works.

The Path Most People Don't Know About

Imagine a judge retires, resigns, or accepts another position. A vacancy is created. At that point, the Governor has the power to appoint a replacement. The new judge takes office immediately. No election. No campaign. No debate. No voters.

The appointment is perfectly lawful. In fact, it is specifically contemplated by the Washington Constitution. The purpose is practical: courts cannot simply stop functioning while waiting for the next election cycle. Cases must continue moving. The public still needs access to justice. The Governor's appointment power solves that problem. But it also creates something else — an incumbent.

The Power of Incumbency

Once appointed, the new judge is no longer simply a lawyer. They are now Judge Smith, Judge Jones, Judge Johnson. They wear the robe. They preside over trials. They sign court orders. They become the incumbent. And incumbency matters. A lot.

Historically, incumbent judges are difficult to defeat. Many run unopposed. Some never face a challenger at all. In larger counties, where judicial elections attract less public attention than legislative races, incumbency can be an enormous advantage. That does not mean incumbents are unqualified — many are highly qualified. The point is simply that incumbency itself carries tremendous political value.

Why Larger Counties Are Different

This dynamic tends to be most visible in larger jurisdictions. In counties with dozens of judges, many voters know very little about the individual candidates. Judicial races receive less media coverage. Fewer public debates occur. Campaign fundraising is often limited. As a result, name recognition becomes extremely important — and incumbents begin with the greatest name recognition of all. They're already judges.

By contrast, smaller counties often operate differently. When there are only a handful of judges, voters are more likely to know the candidates personally. Local newspapers devote more attention to the races. Community familiarity is higher. The election may become more competitive because voters feel a stronger connection to the individuals involved.

The Incumbent Advantage

Once appointed, a judge receives several advantages unavailable to challengers. They may accurately identify themselves as a judge. They may appear in campaign materials wearing judicial robes. They may highlight their judicial experience. And all of those statements are entirely truthful. After all, they are judges.

But there is an interesting question about voter perception. Most voters are accustomed to legislative elections. Governors are elected. State senators are elected. State representatives are elected. Members of Congress are elected. Because of that, many voters instinctively associate incumbency with prior electoral success. When voters hear that someone is the incumbent, they often assume that person previously won an election. In judicial races, that assumption is not always correct. Sometimes the incumbent first reached office through appointment.

The Word "Retain"

This creates another interesting feature of judicial campaigns. Incumbent judges frequently ask voters to "retain" them. Again, there is nothing inaccurate about that phrase. The judge currently holds office. A vote in favor of the judge allows the judge to remain in office. That is literally retention.

But some voters may hear the word differently. Many associate retention with keeping someone who has already been selected by the public. In reality, some judges are appearing before voters for the very first time after receiving a gubernatorial appointment. That distinction is often lost in public discussion.

The Bigger Constitutional Question

The real issue is not whether appointments are good or bad. Reasonable people can disagree. The real issue is transparency. How much should voters know about the path a judge took to the bench? Should voters know whether a candidate was appointed or elected? Should appointment status be more prominently disclosed? Should judicial elections function differently than they do today? Those are policy questions worth debating.

The Real Lesson

Most people think judges become judges by winning elections. In Washington, the reality is more complicated. Many judges first reach the bench through appointment. Those appointments create incumbents. Incumbency creates advantages. And those advantages often shape future elections. Whether that system works well is a question for the voters.

Before voters can answer it, they need to understand it — because the first step in evaluating any system is knowing how it actually works.