Part of it is that most states have a fairly long list of things judicial candidates aren’t allowed to say in their campaign materials, to the point that candidates may be courting trouble if they run anything more than a name, a head shot, and maybe some vague pleasantries.
Oregon has a lot of those “minor” offices - I even held one for about ten years (water district commissioner). Non-partisan and generally non-controversial, and it paid the munificent sum of about $300/year. I was never opposed, never had to campaign, probably because nobody else wanted the job. WRT these mostly non-partisan offices I often find at voting time that I know nothing about the people running and not much about the office. In these cases, I tend to rely heavily on the various endorsements published in the voter’s info pamphlet. If an individual or group whose aims I generally support endorses the candidate I’ll usually vote according to their recommendation. Same for the various obscure ballot measures (of which Oregon always has a large number…we’re like California in that regard). If an organization of which I approve opposes the measure, I’ll usually vote against it…in the absence of additional information.
SS
Didn’t know that, but it explains the lack of mailers. Thanks.
Hell, in WV the county surveyor is an elected partisan office. Who gives a good hard fuck whether the surveyor is a Democrat, a Republican, or a Communist? Well, I guess if he didn’t agree with private property ownership, that would be bad. 
There’s an election coming up for the State Board of Education, here in Kansas. A candidate here in Topeka is running against the incumbent, because he opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools, and she is “pro-evolution” But before anyone makes any jokes about Kansas and it’s science standards, this joker is from California, and moved to Topeka because “he saw the light of the Westboro Baptist Church.”
I don’t think the incumbent will have any problems keeping her seat on the Board.