How do partisan judicial elections differ from nonpartisan judicial elections?

In the United States, judicial selection methods vary by state, reflecting different approaches to balancing democratic accountability and judicial independence.1

The primary difference between these two types of elections lies in the role of political parties:

• Partisan judicial elections: These contests function similarly to other political elections. Candidates are identified by their political party affiliation on the ballot, and the campaigns often involve the traditional trappings of political contests, such as party support and ideological messaging.1
• Nonpartisan judicial elections: In these systems, candidates run for office without a party label attached to their name on the ballot. This approach is intended to minimize the influence of partisan politics on the judiciary, though it does not necessarily eliminate the role of ideology or political considerations in the selection process.1

These methods represent two distinct ways states attempt to manage the selection of judges, contrasting with other systems like the Missouri Plan, which uses a nominating commission to screen candidates, or purely appointive systems.1