Two states, Michigan and Ohio, elect state judges in partisan elections, but both states have election laws that say party labels should not be on the ballot for judicial candidates, even though the candidates were nominated by political parties. In Michigan, party conventions choose nominees for Supreme Court Justice, and voters elect them in November, but the November ballot carries no party labels for these races, and voters must do independent research to learn which party nominated which candidate.

Ohio is somewhat similar. Voters in partisan primaries nominate candidates for Judge, and the winners appear on the November ballot. But, as in Michigan, party labels are not printed on the November ballot in these races, and voters must do independent research to know which party put which candidate on the ballot.

Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice, Maureen O’Connor, told the State Bar that judicial partisan primaries should be eliminated, in favor of non-partisan primaries and elections. But Democratic Party state chair Chris Redfern, who apparently was at the same meeting, disagreed, saying the existing partisan primary system should be preserved, but that party labels should be placed on general election ballots. See this story.

In July 2010, the Ohio Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit, to force the state to print party labels on general election ballots for judicial candidates. On August 19, 2010, U.S. District Court Susan Dlott refused to grant injunctive relief, but she still hasn’t ruled on declaratory relief. The opinion could come at any time. The case is Ohio Council 8 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v Husted, southern district, 1:10cv-504. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.