In Nevada, voters decisively rejected Question 1, which would have replaced judicial elections with an appointment/retention system in which the Governor would be limited to choosing judges from a short list appointed by a commission.  As noted previously, it is that commission feature that makes the proposal unacceptable, in my view.

In Iowa, which has a yes/no retention election, three justices of the Supreme Court were ousted in a campaign over their gay marriage decision.  Todd Zywicki has this post at VC.  CJLF takes no position on the gay marriage issue, but for courts to usurp that decision from the democratic process is the kind of judicial activism that we have long fought against in the criminal law arena.  As Californians did with the death penalty issue in 1986, Iowans have demonstrated that yes/no retention elections are the least bad of the available methods, striking a balance between judicial independence and judicial responsibility.  Under this system, judges have almost life tenure, but they can be yanked for a particularly egregious act of judicial activism.

In Washington, where they have named opponents on the ballot, The Heckler won reelection, alas.