The analysis centers upon States' initial adoption of the merit plan for the selection of some or all of each State's judges. The data suggest that voter support or opposition reflects the extent to which the State's constitutional amending process demands the establishment of a prior legislative and public consensus about the desirability of a particular reform prior to qualifying the measure for the ballot in the first place. Where qualifying requirements are stringent and are met only when there is a substantial legislative consensus about the desirability of the change proposed, voters are more likely to approve the initiative. Voter responses to merit plans are also influenced by urban-rural divisions within the States, possibly by partisan cleavages in some cases, and political cultural differences. Understanding the relative importance of these factors, the conditions under which each operates, and their interrelationships remains for future research.