To gather data on perceptions of judicial elections held by major participants in the recruitment process, survey questionnaires were mailed to about 2,000 registered voters in several jurisdictions in Oregon and Washington where contested judicial elections were being held. Responses were secured from 61 percent (n=508) of voters sampled in Washington and 51 percent (n=509) of those in Oregon. Similar questionnaires went to all judicial candidates in both States, including those engaged in uncontested elections. Eighty percent of those on the ballot in Oregon responded, while 71 percent of the Washington candidates responded. Information was obtained on perceptions of the importance of various sources of information on the qualifications of judicial candidates, the kinds of information voters desire, and perceived reasons for electing judges. Alternative reasons for judicial elections provided on the questionnaires were (1) the delegate function (instructing judges about what the people want so judges can follow voter dictates), (2) the stewardship function (informing the judges of the general feelings of the voters so they won't become isolated), (3) the sanctions function (removing incompetent judges), and (4) the trustee functions (supporting judges who act independently of public opinion). The stewardship and sanctions functions attracted a substantial proportion of both voters and judicial candidates in both States, and a significant number of both groups rejected the extremes represented by the delegate and trustee functions. Voters tend to want to know where candidates stand on significant legal and social issues, and personal expressions of opinion by the candidates were the most valuable source of information. Implications of the findings are discussed.