Reply #6: Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

[cali]

Here's some contradicting it, from the site in my OP

Judicial races in Alabama became increasingly politicized in the 1980s and 1990s, in large part because of the controversy over tort reform. The size of jury verdicts began to increase during this time, to the extent that Alabama was dubbed "Tort Hell" by Forbes magazine. The legislature passed a tort reform package in 1987, but many of its provisions were declared unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court during the early 1990s. As judicial races took on heightened significance, campaign fundraising became more important. Between 1986 and 1996, expenditures by supreme court candidates grew by 776%. As campaigns became more expensive, they also became more contentious. The 1996 elections were dubbed "the year of the skunk" because of an ad run by an incumbent supreme court justice that alluded to his opponent and featured pictures of a skunk, accompanied by the caption "Some things you can smell a mile away."

And more evidence:

In 1980, Texas became the first state in which the cost of a judicial race exceeded $1 million. Between 1980 and 1986, campaign contributions to candidates in contested appellate court races increased by 250%. The 1988 supreme court elections were the most expensive in Texas history, with twelve candidates for six seats raising $12 million. Between 1992 and 1997, the seven winning candidates for the Texas Supreme Court raised nearly $9.2 million dollars. Of this $9.2 million, more than 40% was contributed by parties or lawyers with cases before the court or by contributors linked to those parties.

To address the perceived impropriety of judges soliciting and accepting large campaign contributions from attorneys and parties who appear before them, the Texas legislature passed the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act in 1995. Under the act, limits on individual contributions to candidates in statewide races range from $5,000 from individual donors to $30,000 from law firms. While some commentators believe the law has been successful in curbing the excesses of the late 1980s and early 1990s, others assert that the contribution limits are too generous to have a meaningful effect. For more information about the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, see Judicial Selection Reform: Examples from Six States.

More:

In recent years, both the legislature and the supreme court have enacted various reforms aimed at improving the tone and conduct of judicial elections. In 1999, the legislature imposed limits on contributions to judicial candidates and strengthened disclosure requirements, and it amended the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act to bar political parties from contributing to or endorsing judicial candidates. This provision of the legislation was struck down by a federal court in 2002 as a violation of the First Amendment. In 2002, the supreme court amended the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct to allow litigants to file a motion to recuse a judge when an opposing party or attorney is a major donor to the judge’s election campaign.

btw, it appears as if many states have an appointment process or a mixed process.