This analysis focuses on the ties between publicly funded election systems and the reelection chances of state legislative incumbents. Proponents of these systems often argue that these systems can minimize the unsavory political influence of special interest money and wealth; make elections more competitive; and encourage challengers to run – elements that may be detrimental to incumbent lawmakers. This analysis finds that pursuing election reform and winning reelection need not be diametrically opposed. This research uses data compiled by the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research on state legislative election returns and controls for time, geographical region, Presidential election years, population per member in state legislative bodies, the number of opponents, political party, district type (single member district or otherwise), upper chamber seats, and professionalization. By examining election outcomes across the nation from 1990 through 2008, this study concludes that publicly funded election systems produce narrower margins of victory and increased challenger emergence. However, no statistical significance can be tied between publicly funded election systems and increased incumbency loss. Therefore, current lawmakers can enact these systems without resigning themselves to defeat.