Jim Gibson has posted this draft on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

To what degree does the “new-style” of judicial campaigning undermine the legitimacy of state courts of last resort? Despite fears of catastrophic consequences from politicized campaigns, this paper finds that churlish campaign activities do not create a legitimacy deficit. Based on a panel survey of the residents of a state with politicized judicial elections, I find that objectionable campaign activities do diminish institutional legitimacy, but that the size of the negative effect of campaigns is smaller than the magnitude of the positive effect that flows from allowing the people to say who their judges will be. A second important finding of the analysis is that citizens vary in their normative expectations of judicial campaigns, and, consequently, a significant minority does not find politicized campaigning objectionable. Elections teach citizens many lessons; crucial to understanding their influence on legitimacy is calculating the net effect, not just the negative consequences of politicized campaigns.