Objectives. Using a multistage gender-focused analysis of candidates for trial court judgeships, we seek answers to these leading questions: (1) Are women as strategic as men in choosing the conditions under which they run for an open seat or against an incumbent and against a male opponent or against another female? (2) Are women winning at the same rates as men under the same conditions at the primary election stage and at the runoff stage? (3) Are women as likely as men to move into a vacant trial court judgeship via a gubernatorial appointment? (4) Are women more likely to be appointed than to win election to the bench? Methods. This research represents the first use of an "all-stage" analysis of the relative success of female versus male candidates for trial court judge in nonpartisan settings. The three stages analyzed are (1) candidacy, (2) the initial primary round (outright victory or progression to the runoff ), and (3) the end stage-victory in a runoff, if necessary. The study is based on longitudinal data from Florida and Georgia-two of the nation's 10 largest states, each with higher contestation rates than the national average for nonpartisan trial court judicial racesand gubernatorial appointments to new or vacant judgeships. Results. Women behave strategically, more often seeking open seats than challenging incumbents and more often competing against men than women. Women participated in the candidate pools for most seats having contested primaries and when women run, they win more often than they lose, usually by defeating men. While women fare less well in runoffs than initial primaries, they win more runoffs than they lose. Women more often come to the bench by winning an election than securing a gubernatorial appointment, with female appointees disproportionately serving in newly created judgeships. Conclusions. Women frequently compete for trial court judgeships and when they run, they usually succeed. Open seats rather than challenging incumbents