This study examines the low rate of dissent in state supreme courts and argues that this trend might be accounted for, in part, by certain institutional arrangements. Specifically, in state supreme courts where justices are subject to re-election, perceived constituent values may suppress the expression of dissent on highly salient issues for certain types of justices. Instead of voting in accordance with their personal preferences, justices who have very strong ambitions to retain their positions, who perceive themselves to have views inconsistent with those of their constituents, and who find themselves in the minority on issues of high public visibility, may utilize the strategy of not dissenting in order to avoid being singled out for possible electoral sanction. A case study of the Louisiana Supreme Court, combining personal interviews with voting data, supports this proposition.