Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Presidents have appointed Supreme Court justices in election years. This chart proves it.

Following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Republicans are arguing that President Barack Obama should not appoint someone to the Supreme Court during an election year — largely out of fear that Obama will use his last year in office to appoint a liberal judge to replace the conservative Scalia.

But Obama said he’s moving forward with a nominee anyway. And it turns out that nominating a justice during an election year is not totally unprecedented, as this chart by graphics designer David Mendoza shows:

"N" means someone was nominated. "C" means a nominee was confirmed. "W" means a nominee withdrew. Republican nominees are in red, and Democrat nominees are in blue.

Mendoza explained that the norm in the past several decades was to avoid nominating someone to the Court in the six months before a presidential election, so nominating a replacement for Scalia would fall within recent norms. Mendoza wrote:

In June 1968, President Lyndon Johnson nominated two people to the Supreme Court. Even though the Senate was controlled by members of the president’s party, Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans like Strom Thurmond stopped both those nominees from being confirmed. Johnson withdrew both nominations just a month before the election of 1968.

Since then, there has been an informal and vague rule known as the Thurmond Rule that states no judicial nominee would be considered that close to a presidential election. However, senators dispute exactly when the Thurmond Rule goes into effect or how strictly it should be followed. Generally, six months before a presidential election is considered the standard. This would mean that the current vacancy on the court falls outside this time frame.

Of course, norms can change. American politics have become more polarized during Obama’s time in office, so Supreme Court nominations are more contentious.

There’s also one caveat to Mendoza’s chart: It includes a broader definition of election year. Some people use the term election year to mean the year of an election — so 2016 is an election year, but not any period in 2015. Others may use the term to mean the year preceding an election — so November 2015 to November 2016.

In Mendoza’s chart, the nominees dated after John Paul Stevens meet the narrower definition of election year.

By the narrower standard, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s nomination — the most recent on the chart above — might not count as an election year nomination, especially in the broader context of the political battles of the time. Vox’s Timothy Lee explained:

Here, conservatives will have a strong retort: Not only was Anthony Kennedy nominated in 1987 — not 1988 — but the only reason he was nominated at all was because Democrats had rejected the nomination of Robert Bork a year earlier. All told, President Reagan had more than 18 months to fill the vacancy created by Justice Lewis Powell’s retirement, compared with about 11 months for Obama.

Suffice it to say, then, there are enough complicating factors in this debate that no one chart will settle it. But it does provide some interesting context.


VIDEO: President Obama on the passing of Justice Scalia

“N” means someone was nominated. “C” means a nominee was confirmed. “W” means a nominee withdrew. Republican nominees are in red, and Democrat nominees are in blue.

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters