Sign up for the recapThe Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter providing readers with the most important Texas news.

Republicans swept Texas state appeals courts in Tuesday’s elections, with Republican judges eliminating Democrats in 25 of 26 contested races.

While the red tide sweeping through the state’s appellate courts reflected the GOP’s overall strength in races up and down the ballot, it was not immediately clear that the election results heralded a major divergence between the courts’ decisions.

Here’s what you need to know.

What do state appellate courts do?

There are 14 appellate courts in Texas, known as intermediate appellate courts, which have jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases appealed from district or district courts within their geographic area. (Texas also recently established a statewide 15th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears business disputes and any legal appeals involving the state government.)

Courts handle disputes ranging from real estate, oil and gas cases to entertainment law, criminal cases and more. All intermediate appellate courts serve more than one county, including the county in which they are located.

Judges serve for six years.

Tuesday’s red wave

In this election, Republican judges flipped 23 seats on the intermediate appeals courts, defeating some Democratic incumbents by narrow margins in some cases.

The GOP took all but one of the contested seats, and even there the Democrat won narrowly: On the Austin-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Maggie Ellis triumphed with just 50.9% of the vote.

Republicans won every seat on the Dallas-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, giving them a Republican majority on the previously all-Democratic bench. The GOP also took over the Houston-based 14th Circuit Court of Appeals. And Republicans swept other appeals courts based in Houston, San Antonio and Corpus Christi.

Judicial Fairness PACa conservative super PAC, pumped millions of dollars into low-profile races, running ads and supporting Republican judicial candidates who eventually won court seats based in Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Corpus Christi.

“We need judges who will keep violent criminals behind bars by releasing them on meaningful bail before trials, rather than allowing them to commit more violent crimes,” the PAC’s website reads.

PAC got more $18 million contributionThat includes $2 million from Elon Musk and major donations from energy companies, billionaire investors, oil moguls and real estate developers.

Still, Dallas-based appellate attorney Chad Ruback attributed Republicans’ victories on the bench to the GOP’s broader strength and Democrats’ disastrous performance statewide.

“A lot of people were moved by President Trump’s coattails,” Ruback said Wednesday, noting that the judiciary’s red tide is consistent with the wider margins of victory achieved by Trump and the Senator. Ted Cruz Compared to previous election cycles, this year was enjoyed in Texas. “I don’t believe the change we saw in the appeals races last night should be considered in a vacuum.”

He said Tuesday’s GOP appeals court takeover felt like the “deja vu” of 2018, “but in reverse.” Six years ago, Democrats prevailed on the state’s appellate bench. This year many of the same seats went red.

What do these results mean?

Ruback argued that Tuesday’s judicial election results will lead to a “noticeable change” in the way courts make decisions, but that the change will be limited.

“This will be a noticeable change, but in my experience it’s not likely to be a dramatic change,” he said, noting that benches where Democrats were heavily elected in 2018 did not result in huge differences in the courts’ decisions.

Ruback said Republican judges may be more open to arbitration and summary judgments than Democratic judges, leading to potential differences in how soon cases are decided. But he said appellate judges are bound by precedent and state law and that the “vast majority” of cases in the state’s appellate courts are not close calls.

“These are answers where there is a clear right or wrong answer, and it doesn’t matter whether someone has an R or a D in their name, the law is the law,” Ruback said.

He also argued that elected appellate judges are more likely to avoid the appearance of partisanship and interpret the law objectively because they face re-election and their decisions are subject to review by the state’s Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

“There’s a greater tendency to follow laws written by the Supreme Court or the legislature,” he said, “when a person on a bench has his papers routinely reviewed by voters every few years.”