The maneuver paid off last week. The GOP flipped three U.S. House seats, a windfall in light of that chamber’s tiny overall margin.

This sequence of events, besides illustrating the potential ramifications of state judicial elections, also captures the predicament that progressive lawyers find themselves in after Donald Trump’s victory, which cements conservatives’ stronghold on federal courts for the foreseeable future. More than before, progressives working to protect people’s rights will need state supreme courts to be hospitable to lawsuits that are increasingly dead on arrival at the federal level. They’ll have a shrinking range of options in states where conservatives have locked in a right-wing court.

The outcome of dozens of supreme court races last week set the stage for how critical legal battles from abortion rights to gerrymandering could play out in state courts across the country. And the results were mixed, with plenty for both liberals and conservatives to celebrate.

On one side, Democrats expanded their majority on Michigan’s supreme court. In Kentucky, a candidate who ran with the backing of Democrats flipped a seat held by a retiring conservative justice. In Mississippi, a conservative justice endorsed by the state GOP suffered a shock defeat. Montanans maintained a liberal lean on their court, likely keeping it a thorn on the side of GOP leaders. And Governor Tim Walz’s appointees prevailed in Minnesota.

Republicans, meanwhile, expanded their majority on the supreme court in Ohio, leaving Democrats with just one seat, and they may do the same in North Carolina, pending final results. Conservative justices in Arizona survived a campaign to oust them over their decision to revive a long-buried abortion ban. Texas’ high courts jumped further to the right even if their partisan composition—all GOP judges—didn’t change. The elections are also likely to embolden conservatives in Arkansas and Oklahoma. 

Bolts walks you through each supreme court race that took place last week, state by state:

Alabama

Justice Sarah Stewart, a Republican, easily prevailed over her Democratic opponent to become Alabama’s chief justice. Her win keeps the state supreme court all-GOP, and largely unchanged from the court that ruled in February that frozen embryos are children, endangering IVF treatments; Stewart joined the majority in that decision. 

Chris McCool, a Republican appeals court judge, won the race to replace Stewart as an associate justice. (He faced no opponent.) McCool, like the rest of Alabama’s judicial candidates, dodged questions about the court’s IVF ruling during the campaign. 

Alaska

Voters retained Justices Dario Borghesan and Jennifer Henderson, a result well in line with the state’s political history: No Alaska justice has lost a retention race since 1962. There have been some conservative efforts to reshape the court over dissatisfaction with its rulings on abortion, but neither Borghesan or Henderson has ruled on the issue since joining the court.

Arizona

Progressives mounted an unusually vigorous effort to oust Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, two conservative justices who voted to revive a near-total abortion ban this spring. But no Arizona justice has ever lost one of these up-or-down retention elections, and voters kept up that record this fall: Bolick and King secured new terms with 58 and 59 percent of the vote, respectively. 

Meanwhile, Republicans failed in their effort to end judicial elections in the state. Prop 137 would have handed supreme court justices a permanent appointment until they hit the mandatory retirement age, effectively freezing the conservative court in place, but voters rejected it by an overwhelming majority of 77 to 23 percent.

Arkansas

When the Arkansas Supreme Court knocked an abortion rights measure off the ballot in August on a 4-3 vote, Justice Rhonda Wood wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Karen Baker dissented. “Why are the respondents and the majority determined to keep this particular vote from the people?” said Baker, a justice with a moderate reputation.

Three months later, on Election Day, Baker beat Wood in the race for chief justice. This promotion will give her more influence over the Arkansas judiciary since the chief justice supervises state courts and names court administrators. 

And yet it’s conservatives who stand to gain ground on the court after this election, despite moderate judges winning both seats in contention. This is due to the fact that several justices played an odd game of musical chairs this year, running for seats other than their own. Besides Baker and Wood, Justice Courtney Hudson successfully ran to change seats earlier this year to circumvent the state’s mandatory retirement rules by a few extra years. 

Baker and Hudson’s victories have now created two vacancies that GOP Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a staunch conservative, will get to fill. This is expected to increase the conservative bloc on this seven-member court from four to five justices. (Importantly, the state constitution bars an appointed justice from seeking a full term, so both of these seats will be on the ballot without an incumbent in 2026.)

Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court’s short-lived decision to bar Trump from the ballot grabbed international headlines last year. But it didn’t make waves at the ballot box this fall. Faced with a minor conservative effort to target her, Justice Monica Márquez, who sided with the majority in that decision, prevailed with 64 percent of the vote in an up-or-down retention vote. 

Two justices who dissented in that ruling prevailed with similar numbers: 67 percent for Maria Berkenkotter and 63 percent for Brian Boatright. And while there is some geographic variation in the results, it’s not very pronounced; Márquez did better in blue Denver than in El Paso and Weld counties, large conservative bastions, but she received a majority in the latter as well. 

Florida

No justice has ever lost a retention election in Florida, and no history was made in 2024. More than 62 percent of Floridians voted to keep Justices Renetha Francis and Meredith Sasso in an up-or-down vote. Francis and Sasso were appointed to the court by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis over the last two years, and they’ve quickly made their mark as conservatives even by the standards of this right-wing court. 

Idaho

Chief Justice Richard Bevan, a former Republican prosecutor who was appointed to the court by Governor Butch Otter, was unopposed as he ran for a new term. Anticipating his reelection, his colleagues this fall chose to keep him as their chief for an additional six years.  

Illinois

Democrats will retain a 5-to-2 majority on the Illinois Supreme Court after an uneventful general election.

Democratic Justice Joy Cunningham ran unopposed in the first district, which encompasses Cook County; Republican Justice Lisa Holder White ran unopposed in the fourth district, located in western Illinois.

Indiana

The three justices who faced up-or-down retention votes easily passed the test, each with roughly 70 percent of the vote.

Iowa

Justice David May was facing voters for the first time since his 2022 appointment by Republican Governor Kim Reynolds. This summer, he joined a narrow majority of the court to lift an injunction against the state’s abortion ban, but there was no organized effort to defeat him this fall. He prevailed 63 to 37 percent in an up-or-down retention election.

Kentucky

Liberals gained ground on the Kentucky supreme court. Pamela Goodwine, a state judge who ran with Democratic support, easily won a supreme court race over an opponent aligned with Republicans. She will replace a conservative justice who is retiring. 

With conservatives already frustrated that this court was too moderate, last week’s result comes on the heels of another defeat in the 2022 midterms, when an anti-abortion lawmaker failed in his effort to oust a Democratic-appointed justice. 

Goodwine will be the first Black woman on the Kentucky supreme court.  

“As we look to our state courts to protect certain civil liberties because our federal courts are becoming far less hospitable, we’re always happy to see this court at least remain an option for litigation, and are certainly pleased to see the Kentucky Supreme Court become more representative of the population it serves,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director at the ACLU of Kentucky. Shapiro also cautioned that this court tends to be less starkly polarized than those in some other states, making it tricky to predict how justices will come down on any one case.

Louisiana

The state this year drew a new map for its judicial districts, for the first time since 1997. The long-overdue redistricting created a second majority-Black district as many justices had demanded. Republican Justice Scott Crichton retired from the court, and he will be replaced by John Guidry, a Black Democrat who ran unopposed for this new district.

Maryland

Voters easily retained three justices in up-or-down retention votes. This fits Maryland voters’ usual approach to judicial elections: All of the court’s current members have won retention races with at least 75 percent of the vote.

Michigan

Democrats expanded their majority on this supreme court last week. They swept both seats on the ballot, and are now ahead 5 to 2. 

Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, who was appointed to the bench by Governor Gretchen Whitmer last year, won a full term. She will be joined by Kimberly Ann Thomas, a law professor who currently runs the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of Michigan and who was running for the seat held by a retiring Republican justice. They each won by more than 20 percentage points over GOP opponents.

In recent years, the court has issued party-line decisions on major cases that have upheld direct democracy and curtailed the harsh sentencing of minors, and last week’s results are likely to strengthen the court as a pathway for civil rights litigants. 

Minnesota

Two justices appointed by Democratic Governor Tim Walz easily prevailed against more conservative challengers. Justice Karl Procaccini, who joined the court last year after working as Walz’s general counsel, beat Matthew Hanson, a local attorney, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson beat Stephen Emery, a candidate who in the past has amplified false claims about voter fraud. 

As a result, all members of this court remain selected by Democratic governors.

Mississippi

Justice Dawn Beam ran for reelection with the full backing of the state Republican Party, which usually goes a long way in this red state, but she suffered a shock defeat at the hands of David Sullivan, a lawyer who has worked as a defense attorney and public defender and was labeled “a stealth candidate” by The Sun Herald. 

Beam has one of the most consistently conservative records on the Mississippi supreme court, while Sullivan, the son of a former justice, gave few indications of his judicial philosophy during the campaign and did not respond to a request for comment from Bolts. Sullivan faulted Beam during the campaign for receiving the GOP’s endorsement in this nonpartisan race. 

Whether the court’s overall balance of power shifts isn’t yet settled, however. Jim Kitchens, one of the more moderate justices on the court, will face a runoff on Nov. 26 against Jenifer Branning, a self-described “constitutional conservative” running with the support of the GOP. 

Missouri

Voters adopted a constitutional amendment codifying a right to abortion access, overturning the state’s abortion ban. But the measure was almost knocked off the ballot just two months ago when the state supreme court rejected a challenge to the amendment by only a narrow 4-3 vote. 

Two of the justices who dissented in that decision and would have voided the abortion rights measure easily secured new terms on this supreme court last week: Justices Kelly Broniec and Ginger Gooch received 62 and 63 percent of the vote, respectively, in up-or-down retention elections. Broniec and Gooch also voted this fall to not intervene in the case of Marcellus Williams, who was executed by the state despite the paucity of evidence against him. 

Montana

The Montana supreme court has been a thorn on the side of the Republican politicians who are running the rest of the state government. The justices have struck down a series of GOP laws in recent years, including restrictions on abortion, trans rights, and voter registration. “It’s our last backstop,” Keaton Sunchild, director of civic engagement at the nonprofit Western Native Voice, told Bolts this summer about the sort of civil rights litigation his organization supports. 

Conservatives were hoping to make up a lot of ground this fall by winning both open seats on the ballot—these races are technically nonpartisan, but candidates often draw support from partisan officials and advocacy organizations—but they only secured one. Cory Swanson, who was backed by conservative interests, won the election for chief justice. But Katherine Bidegaray, who was endorsed by liberal interests, will join the court as an associate justice. She won by 8 percentage points in tough conditions, as the GOP swept all statewide partisan offices.

As a result, the court is likely to retain its liberal lean. The sitting justices have sometimes formed idiosyncratic alliances, making it difficult to neatly classify them into ideological camps. But Bidegaray’s victory means that the court would likely rule the same way if it had to reassess its recent election law or trans rights decisions, which came down in 5 to 2 rulings. 

“We are glad that for now the Supreme Court looks like it will protect freedoms enshrined in the Montana constitution,” Sunchild told Bolts after the results were announced.

Nebraska

Justice Stephanie Stacy faced an uneventful campaign as she ran in an up-or-down retention election. 76 percent of voters chose to keep her on the bench. 

New Mexico

Democratic Justice Briana Zamora easily prevailed in her first up-or-down retention election, with 71 percent of the vote. All five members of the state supreme court are Democrats. 

Nevada

Nevada holds regular judicial elections where candidates can challenge incumbents. But no one was running against Justices Elissa Cadish, Patricia Lee, and Lidia Stiglich this year.

North Carolina

A Democratic justice lost her reelection bid in North Carolina by just 401 votes four years ago, which paved the way for the GOP to take over the court two years later. Since then, Republican justices have promptly reversed decisions on gerrymandering, felony disenfranchisement, and voter ID, and changed gears in racial discrimination cases.

Democrats may be losing even more ground on the court this year. As of publication, Democratic Justice Allison Riggs trails Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by a tight margin of roughly 7,700 votes (that’s 0.14 percentage points). The race remains unresolved pending the final count of mail and provisional ballots. 

Should Griffin retain his lead, the GOP would expand its majority on the court to a commanding 6 to 1. Griffin explicitly ran on preserving the recent rulings that have given a political edge to the GOP, including the decision that greenlit the state’s new congressional map. He also celebrated the court blessing new voter ID requirements, telling voters at a campaign event this spring, “How cool was it to show your ID when you go vote this year? It was pretty awesome, right?” 

Ohio

Republicans swept all three supreme court seats on Ohio’s ballot, boosted by the state’s conservative lean. As a result, they will significantly increase their control over the court, from 4-3 to 6-1. 

Two Democratic justices, Melody Stewart and Michael Donnelly, were defeated by large margins by Joe Deters, a Republican who is already on the court, and Megan Shanahan, a local judge. Republican Dan Hawkins, another local judge, won the third, open race.

These results add to the conservative takeover of Ohio’s supreme court two years ago, when Maureen O’Connor, a moderate Republican who had joined Democrats to strike down GOP gerrymanders, retired and was replaced by a more conservative Republican. The new bloc of GOP justices has been more united on major cases; most recently, they blessed a controversial maneuver by Republican officials to undermine redistricting reform.

Oregon

The court will retain its left-leaning majority: Five of its seven members, all justices appointed to the bench by Democratic governors, won new terms this fall after running unopposed.

Oklahoma

Conservatives cheered a startling victory in Oklahoma: Yvonne Kauger became the first justice in the state’s history to be ousted after losing an up-or-down retention vote. Kauger, who has been on this court since 1984, was dragged down by heavy spending from groups looking to push the bench to the right and she ultimately lost by less than one percent.

Two other justices, James Edmonson and Norma Gurich, survived the onslaught by very narrow margins. They, like Kauger, were appointed to the court by Democratic governors, and conservatives made the case that they were too liberal for the state, pointing for instance to a 5–to-4 ruling last year that affirmed a narrow right for a woman to access abortion when necessary to save her life. (Edmonson, Gurich, and Kauger were all in the majority of that decision.)

The power to appoint Kauger’s replacement now falls to Republican Governor Kevin Stitt, though his choice is restricted to a short list supplied by a nominating commission. The supreme court in recent years has repeatedly struck down priorities of Stitt’s, for instance his plan to privatize Medicaid, and the governor helped fund the campaign to oust the justices this fall.

South Dakota

Justice Scott Myren easily survived his first up-or-down retention election, with 80 percent of voters choosing to keep him. An appointee of Republican Governor Kristi Noem, Myren was the only justice to dissent from a ruling that invalidated a 2020 ballot measure legalizing marijuana, and described initiatives as “this bold experiment in citizen-led direct democracy.”

Tennessee

Dwight Tarwater was nominated to the supreme court last year by Republican Governor Bill Lee, cementing the court’s rightward shift, and he easily prevailed in his first up-or-down retention election, with roughly 72 percent of voters choosing to keep him on the bench.

Texas

Republican nominees continued their decades-old streak of winning statewide elections in Texas, sweeping all six elections for seats on the state’s two high courts. Justices Jane Bland, John Devine, and Jimmy Blacklock all secured new terms on the Texas supreme court, which recently upheld the state’s near-total abortion ban. 

For the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the court that has the ultimate jurisdiction on criminal cases, three archconservative Republicans will join the court. They each ousted a GOP incumbent in the March primary, part of an effort by Attorney General Ken Paxton to seek revenge against the judges who limited his power to prosecute election crimes. “MAKE JUSTICE GREAT AGAIN!” Gina Parker, one of the winning judges who ran by touting Paxton and Trump’s support, posted on Facebook after her victory.

Utah

An overwhelming majority of Utahns voted to retain Chief Justice Matthew Durrant. This summer, Durrant and his colleagues angered Republican lawmakers when they issued a unanimous ruling curtailing the legislature’s ability to override citizen ballot initiatives. Lawmakers tried to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to override that decision, but the court then voided that amendment, ruling that it used deceptive language.

Washington

Democrats dominated state elections in this blue state, sweeping all partisan statewide offices by double-digits. But the open race for state supreme court turned out to be exceedingly close, with just 0.8 percent separating candidates Sal Mungia and Dave Larson as of publication. This is a nonpartisan race, but Democratic leaders largely endorsed Mungia, while Larson, a local judge, said the state’s court system is too progressive.

Regardless, the court will retain a left-leaning majority. Two progressive justices, Steven González and Sheryl Gordon McCloud, secured new terms without facing any opponent.

West Virginia

Charles Trump, a Republican state senator who voted in favor of the state’s near-total ban on abortion in 2022, won a seat on the court this year without facing any opponent. He will join Justice Haley Bunn, who ran for reelection unopposed.

Wyoming

Justices John Flenn and Kate Fox, each originally selected for the court by a Republican governor, easily secured new terms.

The post How Supreme Court Elections Set the Stage for Coming Battles, from Voting to Abortion appeared first on Bolts.

The block was lifted by the Nebraska Supreme Court, which ordered state officials to immediately comply with two related laws—one from 2005, and another passed this spring—that allow people to regain voting rights after completing their felony sentences. The court’s ruling on Wednesday reversed the actions of Nebraska’s Republican secretary of state, Bob Evnen, and attorney general, Mike Hilgers, who together in July abruptly declared both laws unconstitutional and blocked Nebraskans with past felony convictions from voting.

The court’s decision means that nearly 100,000 Nebraskans who’d already regained voting rights over the last two decades because of the 2005 reform law, only to see their rights thrown into question this summer, are once again unambiguously eligible to cast a ballot. It also allows approximately 7,000 Nebraskans who were enfranchised by the law adopted this year to finally register to vote.

Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman, who ruled with the majority, criticized Evnen and Hilgers for attempting such a massive rollback of voting rights right before a major election. “Why now?” she wrote. “Why not take the opportunity to challenge the laws long ago with available remedies, rather than creating uncertainty at this time?”

Voting rights advocates celebrated the court’s decision but they remain outraged at Evnen and Hilgers for the confusion and delays they created. The timing of the court’s decision gives advocates little opportunity to help people who might be confused about their voting rights because of Evnen and Hilgers: It came just two days before the Oct. 18 deadline to register to vote online. The cutoff for people to register in person is next week, Oct. 25. 

“The rush to get this word out is going to be intense,” Aaron Pettes, a formerly incarcerated organizer in Nebraska, told Bolts. “The challenge now is to shout about it from the rooftops.”

Pettes, 44, has never voted and says he’s thrilled that he’ll now get to. But he is also concerned that time is running out to convince others to engage in a process of voting “that essentially booted them out” less than two months ago.

“Letting people know is one thing, but getting them to reinvest, to actually cast a ballot, will be hard, but not impossible,” he said. 

The Nebraska Voting Rights Restoration Coalition, which comprises many nonprofit groups in the state, vowed to try. “Our teams will soon be in the field, reaching out to Nebraskans so that they can restore their vote and reclaim their voice,” the coalition said in a statement shortly after the court made its ruling. 

Nebraska previously disenfranchised anyone convicted of any felony for life. But in 2005, the state passed Legislative Bill 53, which allowed Nebraskans to restore their right to vote two years after completing their sentence. The law instantly restored voting rights to some 59,000 people, according to the ACLU of Nebraska. In the nearly two decades since, the law has enabled another 38,000 people to regain their rights. 

Nebraska’s GOP-run legislature decided to go further this year. With broad, bipartisan support, it passed LB 20, which removed the two-year waiting period for rights restoration and made Nebraskans eligible to vote as soon as they complete their sentence, including any post-incarceration term of probation or parole.

With that law set to go into effect on July 19, the Voting Rights Restoration Coalition and its allies spent months preparing to contact the roughly 7,000 people affected by the 2024 reform—that is, those who completed felony sentences less than two years ago—to help facilitate registration.

But on July 17, less than 48 hours before this new law was to go into effect, Hilgers issued an advisory opinion in which he declared that both the new legislation and the 2005 law unconstitutional. Hilgers argued that only the state’s board of pardons—a three-person body comprising Hilgers, Evnen, and Republican Governor Jim Pillen—had the power to restore voting rights. 

Absent a direct pardon from this body, Hilgers said, the state constitution demands that Nebraskans with felony convictions be barred from voting for life. Only a couple of states in the U.S.—Virginia and Tennessee—enforce a system of disenfranchisement that’s comparably strict. 

Evnen, the secretary of state, promptly followed Hilgers’ guidance and directed county elections officials to cease all new registrations of Nebraskans with previous felonies. Their acts also threw into question the rights of many Nebraskans with past convictions who had already registered and voted in previous elections. 

The nonprofit Civic Nebraska and three disenfranchised plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, quickly sued, and the Nebraska Supreme Court heard the case in late August. 

On Wednesday, the court rebuffed Evnen and Hilgers and ordered state elections officials to follow the 2005 and 2024 laws. The ruling came on a 4 to 2 vote, with each of the justices writing a separate opinion; a seventh justice concurred with the majority only in part.

John Gale, a Republican who preceded Evnen in office and disagrees with his actions to undermine the reforms around rights restoration, told Bolts that Wednesday’s supreme court ruling was “a very clear victory.” 

“The fact that the legislature has passed two statutes over 20 years, in an effort to expand the franchise to people who have successfully completed the discharge of their sentences as felons, seems clear to me to be a true, solid expression that the majority of people in Nebraska believe this is appropriate,” Gale said. 

Chief Justice Michael Heavican, who joined Wednesday’s majority ruling, lamented in a concurring opinion that the court was presented this question only a few months before the November election. “Even under this expedited timeframe, there was relatively little time between the submission of the case to this court and the onset of deadlines related to the 2024 general election,” Heavican wrote.

Voting rights advocates alleged throughout this summer and fall that Hilgers and Evnen deliberately tried to suppress voter turnout. Some also faulted the court for taking so long to rule given the fast-approaching registration deadline and election. “The inaction from the Supreme Court on this issue is unacceptable,” state Senator Terrell McKinney, a Democrat, posted on X on Oct. 2, after the lawsuit had already languished for weeks. 

Those who just regained their voting rights are disproportionately people of color, as a result of profound racial disparities in the state’s criminal justice system. Nebraska’s Black imprisonment rate is almost 10 times higher than that of white residents; Latino and Native American people are also imprisoned in Nebraska at high rates. 

According to the Nebraska Voting Rights Restoration Coalition, a disproportionate share of the people who risked losing their right to vote live in the areas of Lincoln and Omaha, the state’s population centers and host to several pivotal elections this year. 

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are competing for an electoral vote in Nebraska’s swing 2nd Congressional District, which centers around Omaha; the district also features a competitive U.S. House race. Nebraskans statewide are deciding other high-stakes races, including measures on abortion rights and paid sick leave, and a heated U.S. Senate race.

Advocates had planned on spending the summer and fall spreading the word about the new state law giving back voting rights to thousands more Nebraskans. Now they only have days before the deadline for registering new voters, and they feel like Hilgers and Evnen got away with throwing people’s voting rights into turmoil ahead of a critical election.

They also worry that even Nebraskans who have already been registered since 2005 may now have second thoughts about voting, out of fear of violating state law.

“The voter suppression has worked,” Jason Witmer, a policy fellow at the ACLU of Nebraska who used to be incarcerated, said at a rally in Omaha held hours after the court ruling landed. “There are a lot of people who are not going to speak to us, who have no more interest in being a part of it this year. So, it has worked to suppress many, many people’s voices.”

Bolts has reported that some states have confusing rules about who has the right to vote, which creates a climate of fear that can discourage people from participating even if they are eligible. Several formerly incarcerated Nebraskans told Bolts over the summer that they would sit out this election regardless of how the court ruled.

“I’m that concerned about going back to prison,” Tommy Moore, who was released from prison in 2009 and who has been legally voting in Nebraska for a decade, told Bolts in August. “I never want to encounter that humiliation again, and I prefer not to vote than to take the risk.”

Reached by text this morning, Moore said that he was still digesting the ruling but that he’d changed his mind: “Right now, I think I will vote,” he wrote.

The post Nebraskans Rush to Undo Harm, After Court Rebuffs GOP Bid to Block Thousands of Voters appeared first on Bolts.

The Arizona GOP put Proposition 137 on the ballot in June, amid widespread outrage over the state supreme court’s April decision to uphold a Civil War-era abortion ban. Within weeks of that ruling, the progressive group Progress Arizona launched a campaign to unseat two of the justices who sided with the majority and are up for retention this fall, Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, providing an outlet for voters put off by the decision and the court’s ideological makeup.

Prop 137, if it passes on Nov. 5, would nullify Bolick and King’s retention races that are taking place on the same day, as well as cancel future elections. 

The proposal is “a power grab,” said Abigail Jackson, digital director of Progress Arizona. “This was responding to the energy and the anger we saw around that decision. The extremist legislators who pushed the proposal forward did it with the intention of protecting these judges.” 

She added, “It is designed to take away our voices.”

Jake Faleschini, program director for the Alliance for Justice, a national organization that works to build progressive strength in the judiciary, points to a string of changes the GOP has pushed nationwide to consolidate power in state courts. In Arizona, Republicans last decade expanded the state supreme court and secured a strong conservative majority. 

“At the end of the day, they want policy outcomes from the courts and they are willing to change the rules to achieve that,” Faleschini told Bolts.

“What we are seeing now is a bit of an awakening from the left around just how important these courts are for maintaining our rights,” he said. “As these rights have been taken away by the [U.S.] Supreme Court, some of the state supreme courts are no longer there as willing participants in proactively protecting their rights.”

Supporters of Prop 137 say it is designed to insulate judges from such blowback against their rulings so they don’t have to pander to win votes. Republican Senator David Gowan, one of the measure’s chief sponsors, says he’s worried about national groups flooding state elections.

“This proposition makes it difficult for nefarious outsiders to manipulate our judicial process,” Gowan told Bolts. “We see a lot of dollars pour in from out of state to unseat judges who can’t defend themselves because they aren’t politicians.” 

Gowan, a conservative who used to be state Speaker, has a history of proposals that would override election results. He proposed a bill in 2021 to allow lawmakers to attribute Arizona’s electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate they choose, regardless of how people vote. 

This year’s Prop 137 would cancel retention elections for supreme court justices, judges on the state’s court of Appeals, and superior court judges in counties above 250,000 residents.

Currently, all judges first make it on the court through an appointment by the governor, though the state has some guardrails for who governors can choose: They must select their nominee from a shortlist of candidates assembled by a 16-member panel, though that panel’s members are also chosen by the governor. 

Once judges are on the court, they face regular performance reviews, as well as retention elections every four to six years that give the public some say; these races are ‘up-or-down’ questions, in which Arizona judges never face an opponent. As long as they win these retention tests, judges can stay on the court—up until the mandatory retirement age of 70. 

The system was approved by Arizona voters in 1974, with support from Sandra Day O’Connor, who at the time was a Republican state senator. After she retired from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006, O’Connor worked to bring Arizona’s system to other states.

This year, the Arizona Judges Association, a professional organization that represents hundreds of judges, advocated for the measure to end retention elections. Jonathan Paton, a former GOP lawmaker who lobbies on their behalf, told lawmakers that scrapping retention elections would improve accountability because it’s too difficult for voters to make informed decisions on judges.

“I represent the Judges Association, and I don’t know who most of these people are that appear on the ballot,” Paton testified in the legislature. “So, do we think that the average voter knows?”

Paton is married to Court of Appeals Judge Angela Paton, who is also up for retention this fall and has been targeted by a progressive group. If Prop 137 passes, it would also nullify the results of her election. 

But many Arizona jurists don’t want the public to be cut out of the process of deciding who runs the courts, and the debate over Prop 137 created large rifts within the legal community. 

Retired Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, a former president of the Arizona Judges Association, spoke against Prop 137 at the launch event of Keep Courts Accountable, a political action committee formed in August to convince voters to reject the amendment. Former Chief Justice Scott Bales and former Justice John Pelander spoke at the event as well. 

Reached for comment, Paton would not say whether the Arizona Judges Association still backs the reform. The association’s website was taken offline in the last month. Paton also told Bolts that, as a lobbyist for judges, he cannot reply to questions about an active ballot measure.

“Without the vote of the people, the judges would have no accountability,” Felicia Rotellini, who chairs the Keep Courts Accountable PAC, told Bolts. “If there is no accountability to the people, then there is a motivation to lean towards their own ideological preferences, their personal preferences, their political preferences.”

“We will lose part of our democracy,” said Rotellini, who is also a former head of the state Democratic Party.

Arizona is among the 31 states that hold elections for their justices. Ending that practice would make it an outlier in the West, where many states adopted judicial elections during the Progressive Era as part of a broader wave to end corruption and cronyism. The 19 states that have no judicial elections are heavily concentrated in the northeast of the country.

In Arizona, a commission of laypeople and legal experts periodically reviews judges’ performance to determine if they meet the standards for the bench, based on surveys collected from attorneys, fellow judges and people who have appeared before them in court. The scores are shared with voters before each election to help voters decide whether to keep them based on standards of merit, such as legal ability and integrity, rather than political issues.

If Prop 137 is approved, judges would only go before the voters if they fail their performance review, a rarity in Arizona, or if they are convicted of certain crimes, declare bankruptcy, or foreclose upon a mortgage. Gowan is making the case that this reform would help voters make decisions that are a lot more informed.

“The judicial retention portion of the ballot, that’s two pages long,” he said. “If we take the high performing judges off the ballot, it allows the people to see the low-performing judges, and they are no longer able to hide in the crowd, because those are the ones we want to knock out.”

But Prop 137 would also modify the performance review process by injecting legislators into it: The majority party in each chamber would appoint a member to the otherwise nonpartisan commission charged with assessing judges for impartiality, temperament and expertise. 

According to Bales, the former chief justice who spoke at the launch of the PAC that opposes Prop 137, the change would “make judges more susceptible to criticisms from the legislature, and perhaps a little less susceptible to the kind of public input you get through the [election process].” 

Prop 137 would also give legislators authority to order investigations against judges suspected of “a pattern of malfeasance,” though the proposal does not define what activities would warrant such an inquiry. 

Bates worries this would empower legislators to attack judges they disagree with. “What I think this really is, is a blank check for any individual legislator who has a grievance against a judge or wants to get some political milage out of asserting a grievance against a judge,” he said.

The effort to end judicial terms in Arizona comes as reformers at the federal level are pushing for the inverse change of rolling back lifetime judicial appointments. Following revelations that U.S. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alitto accepted millions of dollars in undisclosed gifts from individuals with cases before the court, groups like Alliance for Justice are making the case that federal judges are not accountable enough and that the federal system needs stronger guardrails, such as term limits and an enforceable code of ethics.  

If Prop 137 passes, Arizona judges would look a lot more like the federal bench, Falschini said. They “would have zero accountability to the people, just like federal judges.” 

Bolick, one of the two justices up for retention this fall, published an opinion article in May in the Arizona Republic, arguing that it’s the campaign to oust him that’s responsible for politicizing the judiciary and diluting the state’s emphasis on merit.

Progressives, he wrote, are “weaponizing judicial retention” and “cynically harnessing anger over our recent abortion decision to replace us with justices who will rubber-stamp their ideological agenda.”

The latest efforts over Bolick’s reelection and Prop 137 are an escalation of fights that took off last decade, though. Republicans, led by former Governor Doug Ducey, changed the norms around court appointments, helping ensure courts would lean conservative. Their maneuvers allowed Ducey to appoint five of the seven justices currently sitting on the all-Republican court.

In 2016, Republicans expanded the state supreme court by adding two seats, enabling Ducey to appoint two new judges despite unanimous opposition from sitting justices.

Then, in 2019, Ducey upended the nominating commission to ensure he’d be able to nominate his preferred candidate. Earlier that year, the commission had refused to include Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County’s conservative prosecutor, on its shortlist for a judicial vacancy. Ducey then replaced some of the commission’s members, paving the way for the new panel to recommend Montgomery and for the governor to place him on the supreme court. 

Although no Arizona justice has ever lost a retention race, progressives in 2022 mounted an unusually solid effort to oust Montgomery, questioning his ideology and ethics. The justice also received relatively low performance scores in his evaluations, but was ultimately retained. 

But in Maricopa County, the largest county in the state, voters chose to not to retain three local judges, an unusual result. One of the ousted judges, Stephen Hopkins, was the only judge that year to fail to meet the performance standards of the review process. 

In March of this year, GOP lawmakers passed a resolution to end judicial elections through the state Senate; that was right before the supreme court’s decision on abortion. The House took up the bill months later, amid the surge of pro-choice activism against Bolick and King. The vote to advance the measure was strictly along party lines in both chambers, with all Republicans supporting it. 

State Senator Shawnna Bolick, a Republican who is married to Clint Bolick, voted in favor of the resolution that would end her spouse’s future elections. 

Democrats in 2022 also flipped the governor’s mansion, and this November they have a shot at gaining the legislature and controlling the state’s government for the first time since the 1960s. 

Republicans have reacted with frustration as they’ve lost their advantage in the state, and have pursued other steps to use this year’s ballot to limit the will of voters, including a measure to make it prohibitively difficult to qualify a citizen’s initiative. In Maricopa County, GOP candidates who have spread conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen are trying to win control over the elections systems. 

And if voters pass Prop 137 this fall, it would void the results of the concurrent retention races, including Bolick and King’s. 

But if they reject the amendment while ousting one or both of Bolick or King, Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs would have the power to nominate their replacements. 

Regardless, Hobbs will soon get her first appointment to the court. Justice Robert Brutinel, who was appointed to the court by Republican Governor Jan Brewer in 2010 and who dissented in the court’s decision to revive the abortion ban, announced on Tuesday that he is retiring.

For Faleschini, Prop 137 is about freezing the court’s conservative majority in place. “It’s not that they are looking for a change to the system to make it more fair and impartial,” he said. “They are seeking changes to make sure that the types of political justices they want on courts can stay.”

He added, “Republicans are concerned they will not win a statewide election again in a very long time. They think the only power they can hold onto is through the supreme court.”

The post Arizona GOP Asks Voters to Nullify the Judicial Elections They’ll Be Voting On appeared first on Bolts.

Montana Republicans have been trying to make voting harder, but they’ve hit a wall at the state supreme court. 

This high court leans liberal in a state that has otherwise grown quite conservative, and so it’s been a regular thorn in the side of GOP politicians as they’ve tried to advance their agenda. That’s been true on voting issues, but also on guns, abortion, trans rights, and more. 

This year, two justices who have drawn Democratic support in the past—including the chief justice, who authored a decision national liberals cheered a decade ago for its defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling—have chosen to retire rather than seek a new term. And conservatives see this as a major opportunity to reshape the court in their favor. 

The court is ostensibly nonpartisan and the retiring justices have not always aligned, including on voting rights matters, but conservative victories in the contests to fill their two seats could boost the right’s interests in a venue that has long frustrated them. Under the shadow of Democratic U.S. Senator Jon Tester’s difficult reelection bid, these races test whether Montanans, who’ve voted in Republicans to run the legislative and executive branches, and are likely to do so again this fall, maintain any appetite for counterbalance. 

The stakes for election administration are especially high, with Montana Republicans having already aimed for a string of restrictions that, but for the court, would be in law today. 

In 2021, the first year since 2004 in which the GOP fully controlled the state government, lawmakers moved quickly to limit ballot access, passing a string of bills to end same-day voter registration; limit voting opportunities for people who turn 18 close to an Election Day; make voter ID standards stricter; and ban people from being paid to collect ballots on behalf of people who cannot file them on their own or who prefer not to. 

Voting rights advocates could expect no relief from the governor, Republican Greg Gianforte, nor from Montana’s top elections official, Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, who backed these reforms from the start. Gianforte and Jacobsen both endorsed the changes in the name of fighting voter fraud, a conservative refrain in the wake of the 2020 election.

That left only the Montana Supreme Court. “It’s our last backstop,” Keaton Sunchild, director of civic engagement at the nonprofit Western Native Voice, told Bolts recently. 

Sunchild’s organization was part of a coalition, including the state Democratic Party and various Native American groups, that sued over the 2021 voting restrictions. In March of this year, the state supreme court struck down each of the four laws that the GOP passed in 2021 in a decision that made clear the court’s investment in keeping elections accessible and in fending off attempts to curtail voters’ rights. 

“The legislature’s responsibility” to shape the state election system “must be carefully scrutinized against our most basic right to vote,” that decision stated. 

The court denounced the reforms for their potential to significantly suppress turnout and called out Jacobsen for alleging significant voter fraud but never offering proof. Jacobsen, who is running for reelection this fall, told local media she was “devastated” by the decision.

“In this particular moment, the court appears to be the only government actor that is interested in ensuring that there is robust ballot access, consistent with the constitution, and that has the ability to do something about it,” University of Montana assistant law professor Constance Van Kley told Bolts.  (Jacobsen has since appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that a state supreme court lacks the authority to review election laws. The federal justices already rebuffed that notion, known as the independent legislature doctrine, in 2023.)

Today, justices who ran with conservative backing claim just two of the court’s seven seats, and neither of them is on the ballot this year. There’s no partisan affiliation in Montana’s judicial elections, but partisan groups often take sides in their races. 

So if the right sweeps the two seats that are up this fall, it would mean that justices with past conservative backing have secured a majority on the court.

But in practice, the lines on this court are much blurrier, and the justices have often formed peculiar alliances. For example, one of the two justices with past conservative support, Laurie McKinnon, sided with liberal justices earlier this year when she voted to strike down the GOP’s four 2021 restrictions on voting rights. 

One of two justices who dissented in the overturning of those laws is Dirk Sandefur, whom Republicans aggressively tried to unseat in his last reelection bid. Sandefur, who is retiring this year, wrote in his dissent that courts should not act as a “super-legislature” and second guess lawmakers who “merely regulate” voting, though he did side with the majority in striking down one of the four GOP laws.

Said Van Kley, of Sandefur’s dissent and of the court generally, “Judges haven’t always been exactly who people thought they’d be when they voted them in. As much as you have people out there who are trying to tell voters that you’re going to get specific things from specific candidates, I don’t think history suggests that is going to be the case.”

The court this year unanimously struck down a law requiring parental consent for people under 18 who are seeking abortions, and it voted 6-1 to allow a ballot measure enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution to proceed to the ballot this year. Also earlier this year, the court struck down new restrictions on transgender athletes—here, too, on a vote that defied expectations based on partisan support the justices had received in their campaigns. 

Liberals have also experienced losses at the court. In February, for one, justices disappointed environmental advocates when they voted 5-2 to bless a controversial mining plan, with several judges who’ve received Democratic support in the past voting in the majority.

But overall, it’s conservatives who have been more frustrated by the court’s record. Shortly after they took control of the state government in 2021, the GOP proposed changing the rules around judicial appointments and elections, and they adopted a law that eliminated the state’s independent nominating commission. 

They’ve also introduced bills to elect justices through gerrymandered districts rather than statewide, and to make future supreme court races partisan, though neither policy has passed. Statehouse Republicans are considering trying again next year. 

In 2022, they endured a high-profile setback, when a former Republican operative ran against a Democratic-appointed justice, and wound up losing despite the support of Governor Gianforte. 

This fall brings yet another opportunity for conservatives. The first of the two supreme court elections will decide who replaces retiring Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who served as the state’s Democratic attorney general from 2000 to 2008 before joining the state supreme court. McGrath wrote the majority opinion this spring striking down the 2021 voting restrictions. 

In the race to fill his seat, Cory Swanson, the county attorney in Broadwater County, faces Jerry Lynch, a former federal magistrate judge. Swanson is a self-proclaimed “judicial conservative” and he’s running with the support of conservative groups, including pro-gun advocates and business interests. Lynch, who has said he supports reproductive rights and that “we need to ensure” they’re available to “future generations,” counts among his endorsers major trade unions and environmental groups.

The second race is to replace Sandefur. His seat will be filled by one of two trial judges, Katherine Bidegaray or Dan Wilson. The contours of this race are similar to the first: liberal interests are backing Bidegaray, and Wilson has drawn support from the state’s GOP leaders. 

On the campaign trail, these four supreme court candidates have stressed their commitments to judicial independence and typically distanced themselves from the organizations and partisan actors who are backing them, the Montana Free Press reports. And they appear to be saying little on the hot-button issues that they may be asked to weigh in on. 

Still, Bidegaray and Lynch have both aligned with the liberal majority on the court when it comes to the recent debates around election administration. 

They each said in an ACLU candidate survey that they agreed with the court’s recent rulings striking down the 2021 voter restrictions. Each also said they believe the state constitution protects rights to abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage. 

In that survey, Wilson declined to respond at all and Swanson said he could not comment on these matters because he expects he might have to rule on them.

In a separate survey conducted by the Free Press, Swanson was more open about his judicial philosophy, calling himself a “textualist,” an approach associated with conservative jurists, and citing U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as an inspiration. 

Lynch, his opponent in the chief justice race, told the Free Press, “The stakes could not be higher in this election. Montanans of all political stripes face assaults on their constitutional rights.”

None of the candidates responded to Bolts’ questions on election law.

As conservatives look to gain ground this year, more crucial elections loom: Two liberal-aligned justices are on the ballot in 2026 and 2028. 

Voting advocates, meanwhile, hope that electing two new justices who agree with the overturning of the 2021 laws—and replacing Sandefur, who dissented, with Bidegaray—would cement a strong majority on the state supreme court to block future voting restrictions. 

Sunchild said his organization, Western Native Voice, is endorsing Lynch and Bidegaray. Sunchild says he is nervous that Republicans will bring back efforts to end same-day voter registration and harshen voter ID if they feel like they can get away with it in court. 

“It’s hard to tap into that Republican supermajority, so you kind of cross that off as a way to get things done,” Sunchild said. “It’s the supreme court we view as the last resort, and the best play. It is our last, best shot to make sure that bad policy isn’t put into law in Montana.”

The election’s stakes are also not lost on organizations with deep pockets. 

The ACLU of Montana, which does not endorse candidates, says it is planning to spend $1.3 million to inform voters about some of the candidates’ positions. “The Montana Supreme Court races that are up in November are enormously consequential and will have real-life impacts on all Montanans,” Alex Rate, the ACLU of Montana’s interim deputy director, told Bolts, adding that these are particularly vital to elections policy. “The right to vote is that right from which almost all of our other rights flow,” he said. “It’s the foundation for our house of democracy.” 

Montanans for a Fair Judiciary, a PAC affiliated with the Montana Republican Party, began spending on behalf of Wilson and Swanson during the springtime primaries.The Judicial Fairness Initiative, an arm of the national Republican State Legislative Committee devoted to promoting conservative judicial candidates, has said it will include Montana in a multi-state, “seven-figure” investment this cycle. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes committed months ago to include Montana in their own seven-figure multi-state campaign. Another state PAC, Montanans for Fair and Impartial Courts, is already spending more than $400,000 on supporting Lynch, according to the Free Press. 

The four candidates’ official campaigns face strict contribution limits, but still have combined to raise over half a million dollars. 

Much more money, both to the official campaigns and from outside groups, is sure to flow in the coming weeks.

It’s ironic: among the many ways this court has leaned left, even as the state otherwise zipped right, was in a 2012 decision that upheld the state’s limits on corporate campaign contributions—a startling act of defiance toward the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling, which had struck down campaign finance rules like Montana’s in 2010.

McGrath wrote the majority decision in that 2012 case, calling for the state to stand up to the “multi-front attack on both contribution restrictions and the transparency that accompanies campaign disclosure requirements.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court promptly shot down McGrath, in a two-paragraph ruling that reopened the floodgates to immense amounts of outside campaign spending. 

Now, more than a decade later, as McGrath steps away, the race to replace him and his retiring colleague is on track to smash the judicial spending records Montana set just two years ago.

The post “It’s Our Last Backstop”: How Voting Access in Montana Rides on Supreme Court Races appeared first on Bolts.

Mara Dolan, a public defender in Massachusetts, wants to shake that up. Attorneys who have represented indigent defendants, she says, bring a critical perspective to the court system since they’ve experienced the ways it fails people, and the ways it compounds social inequalities. Had she lived in some other states, Dolan could have run for the bench herself. But Massachusetts does not elect its judges and justices. Instead, they’re nominated by the governor and then confirmed by an obscure eight-person elected body, the Massachusetts Governor’s Council.

So Dolan ran for a seat on the governor’s council, and last week she prevailed, ousting a 25-year incumbent, Marilyn P. Devaney. 

Dolan won 52 to 48 percent over Devaney in the Democratic primary in the state’s third district, which covers parts of the Boston region. After narrowly losing in a first run in 2022, Dolan piled up endorsements this year in her rematch against Devaney, who has courted controversy and tense relationships with her colleagues since joining the council in 1999. 

There is no other candidate running in the general election, so Dolan is now virtually guaranteed to win in November.

I talked to Dolan on Wednesday about why she is pushing for more professional diversity on the bench, and what she thinks she can do as a councilor. She stressed that Massachusetts judges have discretion over a broad swath of decisions—how long a sentence to impose, whether to incarcerate people with addiction issues who relapse, whether to discipline prosecutors who break the rules. And she made the case that judges too often make decisions that focus on punishment and exacerbate the state’s high racial disparities in incarceration. 

Dolan will be just one of eight councilors but she hopes to use her leverage to change these mores. “The governor’s council is the gateway to the entire judicial branch,” she said. 

The council has several other roles, including confirming parole board members and reviewing pardons and commutations. Dolan says she wants to use her new bully pulpit to push Governor Maura Healey, a first-term Democrat, to commute more sentences, and advocate for reforms in the legislature such as increasing the size of the parole board to process more applications. 

As an institution, the governor’s council has long been decried for a lack of transparency. It has met with judicial nominees behind closed doors, and resisted streaming its meetings online, a change that Devaney pushed for. Dolan says she’s in favor of open meetings and online streaming.

The council has also drawn criticism for failing to apply any real scrutiny to nominees. During Republican Governor Charlie Baker’s eight-year tenure, the governor’s council was controlled by Democrats, yet it confirmed all but one of Baker’s 350 nominees, according to research published in The Shoestring. 

In a Q&A with Bolts, Dolan said that she wants the state judiciary to offer a strong counterpoint to the staunch conservatism of federal courts, a goal that’s become common in progressive legal circles. “In a time when our federal courts are taking away our rights,” she said, “we have to make sure that our state courts uphold them.” 

Your campaign centered on the case that the governor’s council needs a public defender. That’s not a common campaign slogan. Why was this an important message for you?

In Massachusetts, we do not elect our judges, but we elect the people who approve them: That’s the governor’s council. The governor’s council is the gateway to the entire judicial branch. 

And we have never had a public defender in the governor’s council. That’s a perspective that is badly needed and badly overdue, particularly in light of the fact that the ratio of former prosecutors to former public defenders who are judges in our trial courts is two to one. We really need a public defender being part of the approval process for judges in order to help bring more balance.

What is it about the background of a public defender that you think should be at the table in this context?

As a public defender, my clients are among our most vulnerable, and therefore the most impacted by the decisions of the governor’s council. Because I’m a public defender, I’m on the front lines. I see what’s happening in our criminal courts every day. 

I know that judges are incarcerating people for relapse all the time. I see it all the time, and whether it’s my client or somebody else’s client, it’s heartbreaking every time. The science is clear that addiction is a chronic, recurring disorder of the brain that does not respond to negative consequences. Yet that’s what we do to people in relapse. That’s what judges are doing in courts in Massachusetts and, I assume, all across the country. 

Science is also very clear that incarcerating someone for a relapse is the most harmful thing that we can do. It isolates them. It takes them away from their homes, their families, their communities, jobs and homes that they’ve worked very hard to get. It takes them away from existing treatment that they’re getting. We also know that people are most likely to overdose after they’ve been released from prison, so we are doing the single most harmful thing that we could do for someone in relapse. We’ve simply got to stop doing this. Instead of punishing people for relapse, we need to figure out where there was a break in their lines of defense, against their addiction, against their substance use disorder, and make it stronger.

You mentioned the disparity between prosecutors and public defenders among criminal court trial judges. Another recent report found an even larger gap looking at superior and appellate court judges in the state. What do you think the effects of this are?

If you are a prosecutor, you never have a conversation with a defendant. You have no way of understanding who they are, what their lives are like, what their circumstances are. As a defense attorney, I have those conversations with my clients, so I have a really good understanding of where they’re coming from. That’s why, I think, you see a very punitive attitude.

We often see sentences that are overly harsh. There are certainly instances where people need to be sent to jail; there are people who pose a danger and they should be behind bars. But we often see folks who are given overly harsh sentences which cause more problems than they solve. Someone who has been a public defender understands that in a way that a prosecutor or corporate attorney never can.

I do want to say that there are prosecutors who become wonderful judges. So I’m not anti-prosecutor. I’m simply saying that someone has to have cultural competencies, someone has to understand the issues that the people who appear before them are dealing with. We need to make sure that our judiciary really understands people, and that it really is about justice and not just about punishment. 

Incarceration in Massachusetts has one of the highest racial disparities in the nation. What responsibility do you think Massachusetts judges bear in this?

Judges play an enormous role. When people see racial disparities in our courts, they say, “Oh, look at that systemic racism, it’s terrible.” It’s like this abstract concept, systemic racism. But except for the decision on what crime someone is charged with, which is a decision that’s made by district attorneys, every other decision that contributes to our racial disparities is made by judges. It’s bail, whether someone is held on bail, whether they’re released on personal recognizance, whether there are conditions associated with their release. It’s sentencing, it’s terms of probation, it’s whether they’re found in violation. 

All of those decisions are made by judges, and in Massachusetts, in all of those instances, if you are a person of color, you anticipate a worse outcome. We’ve got to make sure that we have judges who are ready, willing and able to tackle systemic racism with every tool that the law allows. (Editor’s note: A study commissioned by the state supreme court in 2020 showed that white defendants receive shorter prison sentences in Massachusetts; other studies have shown disparities at other stages of the system, such as gaps in the rates at which white applicants and Black applicants receive medical parole.)

What is your response to people who might say this is not what judges are supposed to be thinking about, that they’re only meant to call balls and strikes?

The ‘balls and strikes’ line was famously coined by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who turned out to do something very different from what he said that he would do. It is important for judges to follow the law, but judges interpret the law, and the interpretation of the law comes from who they are and what their values are. 

For example, we’ve got to make sure that we have judges who have a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment so that we can enact, uphold and enforce sensible gun safety laws. Someone can say, it’s just going to be balls and strikes and I’m just going to follow the law, but at some point, they are going to have to make a decision based on their values. 

Their values will impact how they interpret the law, and their experience, or their lack of experience, will have a profound impact on their ability to understand the person who appears before them and how insightful they are. This is critically important.

I’d like to turn to the role of the governor’s council specifically: The body does not have the power to choose judges; it can only review the governor’s nominations, and it does that on an individual basis. What authority does that give you to push this agenda? 

It has to do with the conversation that you have with nominees and what they say on the record during their confirmation hearings. Governor’s councilors don’t just vote yes or no. They also talk with nominees. So I can share with them what I know and, because the hearings are public, get the nominees on the record as to these positions and then hold them accountable if they fail to uphold the standard that they said they would.

For example, I’m very concerned about the failure of prosecutors to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence. There was just a big decision handed down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Graham, which found that the Hampton County DA breached its duty to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to defendants. My question is, where were the judges while these breaches of duty were taking place? Why were judges not ordering prosecutors to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence?

Do you also think you could shape nominations before nominees get to the council?

Yes, I do. I think that when you raise standards, you are signaling to potential nominees that they need to reach that standard. And that does have a powerful influence.

In Massachusetts, the governor appoints a judicial nominating commission to review applications, and this commission then recommends people to the governor. By the time they get to the governor’s council, the vetting process has been pretty thorough. So it’s about making sure that those nominees are upholding the high standards that the people of my district want them to.

We’ve talked a lot about the governor council’s role in reviewing judicial nominees. One other important role is that it reviews pardons and commutations issued by the governor. Those have been rare in Massachusetts. Are you hoping to see or push for shifts on how these matters are handled?

Governor Healy has recommended more people for pardons than any governor in the modern era, and is to be commended for that. But in the last 14 years, we’ve had a total of four commutations, only four, and we haven’t seen any recommendations for commutation from the current governor. I would absolutely push for more commutations: Commutations can correct an unduly harsh sentence. There may be someone who has already served a number of years, is rehabilitated, does not pose a danger, is ready and willing and able to be released and to lead a good life. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post The Public Defender Who Just Won Power Over Confirming Massachusetts Judges appeared first on Bolts.

Utah lawmakers responded by rewriting if not gutting the three propositions. 

On redistricting, the GOP-led legislature repealed the measure’s centerpiece, a requirement that new maps be drawn by an independent commission. Freed from that constraint, lawmakers then proceeded in late 2021 to design a congressional map that eliminated the state’s only competitive district, “cracking” Salt Lake City into four to establish four reliably Republican seats. 

The Utah Supreme Court pushed back on Thursday, issuing a landmark and unanimous ruling that affirmed a vital right to direct democracy and restricted lawmakers’ ability to ignore that power. 

“We hold that when Utahns exercise their right to reform the government through a citizen initiative, their exercise of these rights is protected from government infringement,” Justice Paige Petersen wrote in her opinion.

The ruling comes with many limitations and caveats. It does not by itself strike down the GOP’s gerrymandered maps, which remain in use for now. It does not shield initiatives from all rollback. It doesn’t even apply to all ballot measures, just those that “reform the government.” Still, it gave Utahns a new tool to challenge legislators who disregard their initiatives. 

Until now, the legislature could do virtually whatever it wanted in response to citizen measures. Lawmakers will now face a tougher test when they try to modify measures that deal with government rules and structures, and organizers may feel greater confidence that the statutes they jumpstart have at least some protection.

“This is a historic ruling,” said Ben Phillips, a lawyer with Campaign Legal Center who took part in the case on behalf of plaintiffs. “The legislature cannot, in any way it wants, just repeal any initiative that the people pass.” This is the first time the court addressed whether Utahns have a basic right to change their government, Phillips explained, and it held that giving lawmakers carte blanche to override ballot measures “would render that fundamental right meaningless.”

The ruling comes as some GOP-led states like Arkansas and Idaho have pursued aggressive efforts to narrow the scope of direct democracy. New laws have made it harder to get initiatives on the ballot. Statewide officials have resisted routine steps to stall the process. And lawmakers have tried to raise the threshold for passage, while circumventing some successful measures.

In response, some proponents of the initiative process have turned to state constitutions to protect direct democracy. Many constitutions contain provisions that pertain to access to ballot initiatives, but many state courts have taken a narrow view of them. Mississippi justices even struck down the initiative process altogether in 2021. Idaho’s supreme court took a different path the same year, striking down a new Republican law that had restricted ballot measures in a decision that affirmed “the people’s fundamental right to legislate directly.”

As a result, organizations like Reclaim Idaho, whose success in pushing progressive measures like Medicaid expansion has angered GOP lawmakers in the state, have been able to place new measures on the ballot. Idahoans in November will decide on an initiative, again supported by Reclaim Idaho, that would move the state to a ranked-choice voting system. 

In Utah, voting rights groups reacted with anger to lawmakers’ ignoring Proposition 4, the 2018 initiative on redistricting. “When the Legislature did indeed do what they wanted anyway, they confirmed the beliefs of the discouraged, the cynical, all the people who believe their votes and their opinions don’t matter,” Catherine Weller, then president of the League of Women Voters of Utah, said in early 2022.

Several groups, including the League of Women Voters, filed a lawsuit that year against the new map. They argued that the new districts were an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander; other state supreme courts have recognized partisan-gerrymandering claims, even as the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to. But these groups also raised another claim: that it was unconstitutional for lawmakers to just gut the 2018 redistricting initiative.

They rooted their claim in Article I, Section 2, of the Utah Constitution, which states that “the people” have “the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.” The lawsuit argued that, in passing a statute to set up a new redistricting process, voters exercised their power to “alter or reform their government,” and that the legislature violated that right when it repealed the powers of the independent redistricting commission.

The state supreme court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that Utahns have a right to “alter or reform their government.” Peterson wrote that “government-reform initiatives are constitutionally protected from unfettered legislative amendment, repeal, or replacement.”

While the ruling was immediately celebrated by voting rights groups, it also left much unresolved.

For one, the decision doesn’t protect all initiatives, only those that concern “government reform.” What exactly falls under that purview will likely be the subject of future litigation. Even then, the court said that lawmakers retain the power to change citizen initiatives; but changes cannot “impair the reforms” unless that impairment is “narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.” 

This test, known as “strict scrutiny,” is generally difficult to meet. Still, whether changes are “narrowly tailored,” and whether lawmakers’ interest is “compelling,” is left to courts to decide.

The court did not even say whether Senate Bill 200—the specific legislation at issue in this case, with which lawmakers gutted Prop 4 and ended independent redistricting reform—crossed that line. It affirmed the people’s protected right to reform their government, but it did not provide any answer as to whether the GOP’s decision to gut the redistricting initiative violated that right.

Instead, they sent the case back to the trial court to hear arguments on that point, a process that will take a lot of additional time. (They also did not address whether the Utah Constitution bans partisan gerrymandering.)

The court has already drawn scrutiny for how long this case has dragged on: It heard arguments in July 2023 and waited roughly a year to issue a ruling. 

The delay, and their decision to send the case back to a district court, guarantees that the state will again elect its members of Congress this year under the same maps as in 2022, despite the allegation that they were unconstitutionally drawn. 

Still, if the lower court finds that Utah lawmakers lacked a “compelling government interest” in gutting the 2018 redistricting reform, it may end up reinstating that proposition, and the state’s maps would have to be redrawn in advance of the 2026 elections. 

There’d need to be plenty of additional litigation before any new districts are ordered. But on Thursday at least, advocates were hopeful that the court’s ruling would bring back redistricting reform and lead to fairer maps. 

Phillips, the Campaign Legal Center attorney, thinks the plaintiffs will win again in district court. He believes that a judge will find that GOP lawmakers’ law gutting Prop 4 fails strict scrutiny and reinstate the independent commission. “No matter what compelling interest [lawmakers] assert, it’s hard to imagine that completely gutting Prop 4 would be narrowly tailored,” he said. “The ruling is an important step in ensuring that Prop 4 is back in effect, with all of its provisions for independent redistricting.”

He added, “The bottom line is that we overcame an important hurdle on the way to fair maps.”

The post Utah’s Highest Court Safeguards the People’s Right to Direct Democracy appeared first on Bolts.

The Texas supreme court closed out 2023 by blocking an abortion during a medical emergency, forcing a woman to flee the state. Just days before Christmas, Wisconsin justices struck down the state’s GOP-drawn gerrymanders. So far this year, Montana’s supreme court has stepped in to protect voting rights, while a decision in Alabama threatened in vitro fertilization treatments. 

In each of these states, unlike at the federal level, voters chose who sits on the bench and which judges get to dictate such profound consequences. And the 2024 elections may now reshape who holds power on supreme courts across the country.

Thirty-three states have elections for their high courts this year; some have as many as five or six seats on the ballot. In total, 82 seats are up for voters to decide. 

These races may potentially shift the outcome in high-stakes cases that are already in the legal pipeline on everything from the rules of direct democracy to the fate of reproductive rights.

Michigan and Ohio are the two states where a supreme court’s partisan majority could flip outright. Democrats are defending a narrow edge in Michigan; the GOP is doing the same in Ohio. 

But the 2024 elections may also affect the ideological balance of other supreme courts, starting with Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, and Texas. Some of these states hold nonpartisan races where judicial candidates are not affiliated to political parties; but those courts still tend to have liberal, moderate, and conservative wings, and parties and other groups often get involved in their elections, sometimes pouring in huge amounts of money.

Eighteen states are holding regular elections for their supreme courts, namely races where candidates can challenge incumbent judges or run for an open seat. There are 51 such elections in 2024, but importantly, about a third of them are effectively already over; in most cases, that’s because only one candidate filed to run.

The procedure is markedly different in 15 other states, where incumbent judges who want a new term run in so-called retention elections—simple up-or-down votes, with no challengers, that decide if a judge should stay in office. It is exceedingly rare for justices to be ousted in retention elections—in some states this has never happened—but some do get heated.

You can explore the rules in the state that interests you in our state-by-state guide to each court. 

Note that the exact landscape of this year’s elections may still change; if a judge up for retention were to resign early, for instance, it would cancel the election altogether.

The 2024 cycle is already well underway. Three incumbents in Texas were voted out in March in the GOP primary after facing attacks by far-right politicians. An Illinois justice survived a primary. And an Arkansas justice hopped to another seat on the bench to evade retirement rules.

The stakes only escalate from here. Conservatives hope to gain ground on Montana’s liberal-leaning court thanks to the retirement of two justices long targeted by the right. In Kentucky, the retirement of a conservative-leaning justice may have the opposite effect. Democrats risk falling even further behind on North Carolina’s court, while the prospect of Michigan and Ohio’s courts flipping carries important ramifications for sentencing and democracy. 

Across Arizona and Florida, four justices who voted to uphold abortion bans this month are up for retention—two in each state. Three justices who took part in the Colorado supreme court’s decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot also face retention tests. A justice who voted against the erosion of direct democracy faces reelection in Mississippi. 

Bolts today guides you through each of the 33 states with elections for their high courts.

States with regular supreme court elections 

Alabama

When this supreme court ruled 8-1 in February that frozen embryos are children, endangering IVF treatments, it also brought into full view conservative plans to press for more restrictions on reproductive rights. Five of the court’s nine seats are on the ballot in 2024, but three of the justices who joined that ruling—William Sellers, Jay Mitchell, and Tommy Bryan, all Republicans—are running for reelection unopposed. 

The election for chief justice is contested, though. Chief Justice Tom Parker, a far-right jurist whose opinion in the IVF decision drew heavily from the Bible, is retiring. Sarah Stewart, an associate justice on the supreme court who also joined the majority in that ruling, won the GOP primary to succeed Parker and now faces Democrat Greg Griffin in November. Griffin is a lower-court judge who blocked new restrictions on birth centers last year in a victory for reproductive rights groups. No Democrat has won a seat on this court since 2006; last week, the first legislative race since the February ruling swung toward the party.

Stewart’s bid for chief justice means she is not running for reelection for her current seat. Chris McCool, a Republican lower-court judge, is running unopposed and is certain to join the court. 

Arkansas

Justice Shawn Womack secured another term without facing any opposition in this state’s March election. But in the two other seats on the ballot, neither incumbent sought reelection. That set up an odd game of musical chairs: Four of the six candidates running for these two open seats were already sitting justices hoping to move to different seats on the court. 

As Bolts reported, the perplexing situation is poised to shift Arkansas’ high court further right.

One of these races has already ended: Justice Courtney Hudson, who wanted to change seats to circumvent retirement rules by a few extra years, prevailed over an outsider in March by receiving more than 50 percent of the vote. Hudson now has to resign from her current seat, triggering a vacancy to be filled by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the state’s conservative governor.

The second race, for the chief justice seat, remains unresolved, but we already know there will be a similar outcome: The only candidate who was not already on the court lost in March. Two sitting justices—Karen Baker and the more conservative Rhonda Wood—grabbed the only spots for the November runoff. Whoever wins that runoff will need to resign from their current seat, handing Huckabee Sanders a second supreme court appointment. 

Georgia

Three justices on this supreme court are running for reelection unopposed this year—Michael Boggs, John Ellington, and Nels Peterson. The fourth incumbent seeking reelection this year, Andrew Pinson, faces a challenger: That is itself noteworthy in a state that held 12 consecutive uncontested races for its state supreme court between 2012 and 2018.

Then, in 2020, Democrat John Barrow ended that long streak of uncontested elections by announcing a run to join the court—only to have GOP officials exploit a loophole that wound up outright canceling the election. Barrow sued to make the state hold supreme court elections that year, but his lawsuit was rejected by the very court he hoped to join. In an interview with Bolts two years later, Barrow said the threat that an election may be canceled had a chilling effect on outsiders’ willingness to run for the court. “Anybody who is thinking about running has to run the risk that they pull out the rug from under you,” he said.

Barrow decided to jump back in after all this year. He is challenging Pinson, a former state solicitor general appointed to the court by Republican Governor Brian Kemp in 2022.

Update (Sept. 2024): Pinson prevailed over Barrow in the May election.

Idaho

Chief Justice G. Richard Bevan is certain to secure a new six-year term this year after no one filed to run against him by the March deadline.

Illinois

While Republicans had a real shot at flipping this supreme court just two years ago, Democrats have instead expanded their majority to 5-2. This year, there’s no such suspense: Both justices on the ballot are running unopposed in the general election. 

Democratic Justice Joy Cunningham is sure to prevail in the first district, which encompasses Cook County (Chicago). Republican Justice Lisa Holder White, a Republican, is sure to prevail in the fourth district in western Illinois.

Kentucky

In 2022, a lawmaker with a zealously anti-abortion record failed to win a seat on this court; the result added to Kentucky conservatives’ long standing frustrations, with their effort to secure a reliable conservative majority repeatedly faltering. While Kentucky is now staunchly red, its judicial elections are nonpartisan, and the court’s politics can be difficult to decipher.

This year, conservatives are the ones on the defensive, with Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter—a Republican even if he ran for judge without a party label—retiring and leaving an open seat on the ballot. The race to replace him could shift the court one step to the left. The election won’t be waged statewide; it will only take place within the fifth judicial district, a swing region in central Kentucky. (The district, which includes Lexington and Fayette County, narrowly voted for Trump in 2020 and then for Democrats by a large margin in the 2023 governor’s race.)

The candidates running to replace VanMeter have contrasting political histories. Pamela Goodwine, currently chief judge on the Court of Appeals, has appeared at Democratic events and enjoyed union support; Erin Izzo, an attorney, has spoken at GOP events and is boosted by local conservatives. Abortion is among the issues that may shape the race after a divided supreme court rejected a challenge to Kentucky’s abortion ban last year. VanMeter sided with the majority in that case, which was decided on procedural grounds, and abortion is likely to return to the court in the future.

Louisiana

Scott Crichton, a Republican justice, is retiring, and the contours of the race to replace him are uncertain. The state’s filing deadline is not until this summer, the last in the country. In addition, the state legislature is currently considering options to redraw the state’s judicial map, in part to add a second majority-Black district as many justices have demanded. 

Update (Sept. 2024): The state drew a new map, making Crichton’s second district a lot more Democratic. John Guidry, a Democrat, is running for the seat unopposed.

Michigan

This is one of the few supreme courts whose partisan majority could flip this year. Democrats currently have a 4-3 majority, an edge that’s come into play in recent cases that touch on sentencing and democracy, and each party is defending one seat this fall. 

Democratic Justice Kyra Harris Bolden is seeking to stay on the court, one year after Governor Gretchen Whitmer appointed her. If she wins, it will be enough for Democrats to retain a majority.

Republican Justice David Viviano, meanwhile, is retiring. That gives Democrats a golden opportunity to flip a seat and expand their majority, since they won’t need to oust an incumbent. (Sitting judges typically enjoy a large advantage; in Michigan, while the general election ballot does not list candidates’ party labels, it does mention that they’re incumbents.)

Michigan has a unique system in which the parties nominate supreme court candidates during a summer convention, rather than in primaries. In August, the GOP nominated Patrick O’Grady, a local judge, to face Harris Bolden. For the open seat, Democrats nominated Kimberly Thomas, a law professor who runs the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, and Republicans nominated Andrew Fink, a state lawmaker.

Editor’s note: This item has been updated after the August conventions decided the general election candidates.

Minnesota

Three justices, all of whom were first appointed to the bench by Democratic governors, are running for reelection this year. Anne McKeig, an appointee of Governor Mark Dayton, is unopposed.

Natalie Hudson, who was promoted to chief justice last year by Governor Tim Walz, faces a challenge by Stephen Emery, a self-described conservative who in the past has amplified false claims about widespread voter fraud. Emery won a race for county attorney in western Minnesota in 2022, but resigned within days of the election; his current website features essays against private corporations, the press and the courts and criticizes the judicial branch for imposing “criminal-friendly rules.”

Karl Procaccini was appointed to the court last year by Walz after serving as the governor’s general counsel. He now faces Matthew Hanson, a local attorney who says he is running because judicial races are too often uncontested, and who has criticized Walz and Procaccini for the lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hanson has expressed conservative positions on social media. “I support Donald Trump because he ended abortion and racism”, Hanson posted on X last year in reply to a post by Kamala Harris about the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in college admissions. He has also posted in defense of ending Roe’s federal protections for abortion, and mused that the state “allow(s) more gun crimes to justify banning law abiding Minnesotans from owning guns.”

The state could have held other races this year. Justice Barry Anderson, who was set to hit the mandatory retirement age in October, said he is resigning in May. Democratic Governor Tim Waltz appointed a new justice, who won’t face voters until 2026. Meanwhile, Justice Margaret Chutich’s seat was scheduled to be on the ballot this fall; her current term ends in January. But she too announced she is retiring this spring. If she had finished her term and retired as scheduled, the state would have held an open race for her seat this year. Instead, her decision to retire months early means there will be no election for her seat in 2024; Walz appointed another new justice who also won’t face voters until 2026.

Editor’s note (Sept. 2024): This item has been updated after the summer filing deadline and primaries settled who will be on the November ballot.

Mississippi

The Mississippi Supreme Court struck down the state’s ballot initiative process in 2021 on a 6-3 vote. All the justices who dissented that day—Robert Chamberlin, Jimmy Maxwell, and James Kitchens—are up for reelection, though Chamberlin and Maxwell are unopposed and already sure to keep their seats on the bench.

But Kitchens, who won his last election with support from state Democrats, faces a crowded field of four challengers, including Republican lawmaker Jenifer Branning, who is running as a conservative with the support of her state party.

This race is taking place within the first district, which leans slightly Democratic.

The fourth and final incumbent on the ballot this year is Justice Dawn Beam, who voted with the majority to void the direct democracy process; she’ll face lawyer David Sullivan in the second district. 

 
Montana

Republicans have consolidated power in Montana, but this supreme court has been a hurdle for their priorities. The court has recently struck down GOP laws that restricted access to voting, expanded gun rights, and imposed parental notification requirements for an abortion. 

Looking to gain power on the court, conservatives have unsuccessfully tried to change the rules of how justices are elected; two years ago, they failed to oust a Democratic-appointed justice.

They have a new shot to grow their influence this year with the retirements of Chief Justice Mike McGrath and Justice Dirk Sandefur, Bolts reports. McGrath and Sandefur have both benefited from Democratic support in the past, though their records have diverged.

Republican donors and their allies have coalesced around local prosecutor Cory Swanson and federal district court judge Dan Wilson in the two races to replace McGrath and Sandefur. Liberal interests are backing federal magistrate court judge Jerry Lynch and district court judge Katherine Bidegaray, two candidates who have signaled some support for reproductive rights.

Editor’s note: This item has been updated after the June 4 primary decided the runoff spots.

Nevada

Nothing to see in Nevada this year: Justices Elissa Cadish, Patricia Lee, and Lidia Stiglich are all certain to win reelection since no one filed to challenge them by the January deadline.

North Carolina

North Carolina is the poster child for what can happen when a supreme court flips. The GOP won control in 2022, and its new majority promptly reversed decisions on gerrymandering and felony disenfranchisement, and changed gears in racial discrimination cases. 

Democrats now hold just two of seven seats, and they’re in danger of slipping further in November since the only seat on the ballot is that of Democratic Justice Allison Riggs. A former civil rights attorney appointed last year by Governor Ray Cooper, Riggs faces Republican Jefferson Griffin, a lower-court judge. Democrats need to defend Riggs’ seat to have a realistic chance of flipping the court back later this decade.

Ohio

The GOP’s majority on this court is just a narrow 4-3, but it became more conservative last year with the retirement of a moderate Republican and the appointment of a conservative prosecutor to the seat. Three seats are on the ballot this year, with two held by Democrats and one by the GOP, so the court could shift in either direction. 

Democrats will flip the court if they sweep all three seats, but the GOP would significantly expand its majority if it does the same. Implementation of last year’s referendum protecting abortion rights hangs in the balance, as well as democracy issues such as possible redistricting cases.

All elections are statewide, and the GOP is confident it can take advantage of Ohio’s red lean in the wake of a recent law adding party labels to judicial races. In fact, Republicans are looking to push their advantage with an aggressive play to oust Democratic Justice Melody Stewart: Joe Deters, the GOP justice appointed last year, is challenging Stewart instead of seeking reelection to his own seat. 

Meanwhile, Democratic Justice Michael Donnelly will face Republican Megan Shanahan, a lower court judge in Cincinnati.

Two lower-court judges, Democrat Lisa Forbes and Republican Dan Hawkins, will face off for the third seat—the one Deters is vacating.

Oregon

Five of Oregon’s seven justices are up for reelection this year. And each and every one of them is running unopposed. With these Democratic-appointed justices all but certain to secure new terms, the court will keep its left-leaning majority. 

Texas: Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

There are six judicial seats on the ballot across the state’s two high courts. All are held by GOP judges, which has won every statewide race since 1994, judicial and otherwise. 

Democrats are fielding a candidate in all six—that’s better for them than in 2022—and a confluence of factors may at least give them a shot. For one, the aftershocks of the state’s abortion ban are making judicial politics a bit more salient. Then, there’s the fact that three incumbent Court of Appeals judges were ousted in the GOP primary, an unusual result driven by Attorney General Ken Paxton and his far-right allies’ bid to punish justices who restricted his ability to initiate voter fraud prosecutions. Finally, Supreme Court Justice John Devine, a staunch conservative challenged by Democrat Christine Weems, faces allegations about his ethics.

Still, Texas’ red lean will be difficult for the Democratic candidates to overcome, with Trump expected to again carry the state at the top of the ticket.

Washington

Steven González and Sheryl Gordon McCloud, two justices who are members of the court’s emerging progressive bloc, are running for reelection unopposed.

But it’s certain that there will be some changeover on the court since Justice Susan Owens is hitting the mandatory retirement age and cannot run for reelection.

To replace Owens, the state’s judicial establishment quickly coalesced around Sal Mungia, an attorney who has endorsements from eight of the nine sitting justices; Mungia is also backed by Democratic Governor Jay Inslee. Dave Larson, a municipal judge, won the second spot in the November general election; he has criticized the current court for issuing decisions that are too progressive and said he wants to help “take back the judiciary.”

Editor’s note: This item has been updated after the August primary.

West Virginia

Charles Trump, a Republican state senator, voted in favor of the state’s near-total ban on abortion in 2022. Now he is certain to join the state supreme court since no one else filed for an open seat by the filing deadline. 

The state’s second race also features an unopposed candidate: Justice Haley Bunn, who was appointed to the court by Republican Governor Jim Justice in 2022, drew no challenger. This court was one of the nation’s most polarized last decade, when state Republicans maneuvered to impeach justices or pressure them into resigning to secure a conservative majority.

States that only have retention elections this year 

Alaska

Justices Dario Borghesan and Jennifer Henderson, appointed by Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy in 2020 and 2021, face retention tests in November. No Alaska justice has lost a retention race since 1962, despite some organized efforts to oust incumbents in the past.

Still, this court’s membership matters a great deal for the future of reproductive rights. Alaska’s supreme court has ruled in the past that the state constitution protects abortion rights, though it has not revisited that issue since Borghesan and Henderson joined the court, making their views uncertain. State conservatives hope that an anti-abortion majority will emerge on the court and reverse that precedent. The court could soon hear a case filed by Planned Parenthood to expand access to abortion. 

Arizona

The two justices who face retention this year, Clint Bolick and Kathryn Hackett King, are both appointees of former Republican Governor Doug Ducey, who expanded the court and loosened constraints on appointment to shift it rightward. 

Arizona judges have historically easily prevailed in retention elections, though voters ousted a county judge in 2014, the first time that any Arizona judge had lost in decades, and they ousted three other county judges in 2022. Bolick, who was appointed by Ducey in 2016, received 70 percent in 2018 during his last retention race; King, who was appointed in 2021, has not yet faced voters.

Update (Sept. 2024): Bolick and King both joined a ruling this spring that revived a 19th-century law banning nearly all abortions. While the legislature overturned the ban, the court’s ruling prompted fresh progressive organizing against them. But in June, Republicans put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would end judicial elections in Arizona, and nullify the Bolick and King’s races, Bolts reports.

Colorado

Colorado’s supreme court briefly became the center of the political world in December when it ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible to run for president. (The U.S. Supreme reversed the decision in early March.) This year, three of the justices who took part in that decision are up for retention: Monica Márquez, who sided with the majority in that ruling, and Brian Boatright and Maria Berkenkotter, who dissented. 

Judicial races are rarely eventful in Colorado—over the last decade, no justice has dipped under than two-thirds of the retention vote—and there’s no high-profile effort to change that in 2024 as of now. Still, Márquez already suffered from one viral false attack in the wake of her vote.

Florida

Florida organizers collected hundreds of thousands of signatures on behalf of two initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize marijuana, but Attorney General Ashley Moody argued the measures were too unwieldy and confusing and tried to get Florida justices to toss them. That proved too much even for this conservative court, which ruled against Moody this week and placed the measures on November’s ballot.

Only two justices, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso, agreed with Moody on both counts, dissenting from both decisions. On the same day, Francis and Sasso also voted to uphold the state’s restrictions on abortion, this time joining a majority to overturn a longstanding precedent. 

Francis and Sasso now each face retention elections in November. They were both appointed to the court by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, and this is their first time facing voters. On paper, the races have the potential to flare up, since abortion and marijuana are popular and high-profile issues. But in practice, no judge has ever lost a retention election in Florida history.

Indiana 

Since Indiana adopted a system of retention elections in 1970, voters have never refused to retain a state judge. As of now, there’s no indication that 2024 will break that pattern. The court’s two oldest justices, Mark Massa and Loretta Rush, and its youngest justice, Derek Molter, face retention this fall; all were first appointed to the bench by Republican governors. 

Iowa

Justice David May faces voters for the first time since his 2022 appointment by Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, part of a series of appointments with which she’s reshaped the court in her image since signing a law giving herself more authority to decide judicial appointments.

May joined the court just weeks after its landmark opinion ending protections for abortion. The following year, May sided with the anti-abortion camp, voting to reverse a lower-court ruling that had blocked a new ban on abortions after six weeks. Since the supreme court tied that day, the lower court’s decision blocking the ban remained in effect and kept abortion legal in Iowa. But the supreme court is scheduled to weigh in again this year.

Update (July 8): On June 28, the Iowa supreme court on a 4 to 3 vote lifted the injunction against the six-week abortion ban, allowing the ban to be enforced. David May sided with that majority.

Maryland

Six of the seven members on Maryland’s high court were nominated by former Republican Governor Larry Hogan, though all were then confirmed by the Democratic-run Senate. Hogan’s final two nominees, Chief Justice Matthew Fader and Justice Angela Eaves, are up for retention this year, as is the court’s most senior member, Democratic-nominated Justice Shirley Watts. Don’t expect these races to catch fire, since all of the court’s current members who have faced retention races won with at least 75 percent of the vote. 

Missouri

Justices Kelly Broniec and Ginger Gooch joined the court last fall via appointments by Governor Mike Parson, a Republican. They each face voters this fall. Retention races have not caught fire in Missouri’s recent past, with justices routinely receiving more than two-thirds of the vote.

Nebraska

Nebraska is one of the few states where justices represent geographic districts. In 2024, only residents of Lancaster County, home to the city of Lincoln and to the state’s first judicial district, get to weigh in on the supreme court, with Justice Stephanie Stacy up for retention for the second time. She cleared her first test back in 2018 with 81 percent of the vote, a share that’s in line with Nebraskans’ history of overwhelmingly retaining their justices; David Lanphier, the last justice in the state who lost a retention election, was ousted in 1996 over some of his rulings, including one that gave dozens of people incarcerated over murder convictions the opportunity for new trials.

New Mexico

New Mexico has an unusual system in which justices run in regular partisan races the first time they face voters, and then in up-or-down retention elections thereafter. Democratic Justice Briana Zamora defeated a Republican just two years ago, 54 to 46 percent. This year, she’s asking voters to retain her for a full eight-year term, typically an easier hurdle for judges to clear. 

A high-profile decision in Zamora’s still-brief tenure came in November, when she joined all of her colleagues in upholding the state’s congressional map against a GOP challenge. 

Oklahoma: Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

Across Oklahoma’s two high courts, six judges face retention this year—three on the state supreme court, and three on its court of criminal appeals. 

No Oklahoma appellate judge has ever lost a retention election, but conservatives in the state are mounting an unusual campaign to oust the three supreme court justices who are up for retention. Each was nominated by a Democratic governor, and conservatives are making the case that they’ve stymied right-wing change, pointing for instance to a ruling last year that held that the state constitution protects a woman’s right to access abortion when necessary to save her life.

South Dakota

Justice Scott Myren faces his first retention vote, three years after he was appointed to the bench by Republican Governor Kristi Noem. In late 2021, Myren was the only justice to dissent from a ruling that invalidated a 2020 ballot measure legalizing marijuana. A majority of justices said the measure was too broad to fit within a single ballot question, but Myren wrote that the court should be more deferential to voters’ preferences, and described the initiative process as “this bold experiment in citizen-led direct democracy.”

Tennessee

Justice Dwight Tarwater, who joined the supreme court last summer, faces retention in August. After serving as general counsel to Republican Governor Bill Haslam, Tarwater was nominated to the court by Haslam’s successor, Republican Bill Lee. He replaced the court’s last remaining Democratic-nominated justice, cementing the court’s rightward shift; he is one of three justices that Lee has nominated in the past two years, alongside Sarah Campbell, a former clerk of Samuel Alito, and Mary Wagner, a Federalist Society member. 

Utah

The Utah supreme court has drawn scrutiny this year for stalling decisions on major cases related to abortion and redistricting. Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, meanwhile, is up for retention. He faced no issue surmounting this test the past two times he faced it, receiving 83 percent of the vote in 2004 and 78 percent in 2014.

Wyoming

Two of the court’s five members, Kate Fox and John Fenn, face voters this year. Both were appointed by Republican governors. Judicial elections in Wyoming have been extremely sleepy affairs over the last two decades; the state’s mandatory retirement age of 70 is far likelier to spark changeover in its membership.

The post Your State-by-State Guide to the 2024 Supreme Court Elections appeared first on Bolts.

There’s something odd about next month’s ballot in Arkansas. 

Voters are filling two supreme court seats in two separate nonpartisan elections. Neither seat’s current occupant is seeking a new term, so at first glance it may look like the cycle will add two fresh faces to the court. But of the six candidates running for these two seats, four are already sitting justices on the court—they just want to shift into different seats than their own. 

If justices who already sit on the supreme court win either of those seats, they would then need to resign from their current positions. This would create vacancies that would be filled by the state’s staunchly conservative governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a reshuffling that’s poised to accelerate the court’s shift toward a solidly right-wing majority. 

“Almost inevitably, the governor is going to end up with some appointments here,” said Jay Barth, a professor emeritus at Hendrix College who has long studied Arkansas politics. “And the more she gets, the more conservative the court is likely to get as well.” 

The only two candidates not already on the court face tough odds, crushed by their opponents’ name recognition and fundraising. Each told Bolts that they’re concerned about the prospect of the governor shaping the court’s membership when justices are supposed to be chosen by voters. 

Many states select justices via elections, but then stretch the spirit of that approach. Justices in other states routinely resign before their term is up, enabling governors to name a replacement; in Minnesota, for instance, all current justices owe their seat to an appointment despite the state’s election system. As Bolts has reported, a loophole in Georgia law has even allowed state justices and other officials to maneuver to outright cancel some judicial elections.

In Arkansas, the reasons for this situation are very different across the two elections. One of the two open supreme court races this year is to replace Chief Justice John Dan Kemp, who is retiring rather than seek a new term. Three of the court’s associate justices—Karen Baker, Barbara Webb, and Rhonda Wood—are running for the open chief justice position, which is akin to seeking a promotion, since the chief justice has broad responsibilities over supervising the state’s judicial system. 

It’s not unusual for an associate justice to run for chief justice, but already sitting on the court is not a necessary stepping stone. Kemp was not on the court in 2016 when he successfully ran for chief justice. This year too, there’s a candidate running from the outside: Jay Martin, an attorney and former lawmaker, argues it’s an asset that he’s not already a justice. “I just think that we need a fresh pair of eyes on the court in the role of chief justice,” Martin told Bolts. (This race will head to a November runoff if no one tops 50 percent on March 5.)

Arkansas’ other open supreme court race is a special election that was triggered by the death last summer of Associate Justice Robin Wynne. It pits another outsider to the supreme court—Carlton Jones, a lower-court judge—against another sitting associate justice, Courtney Hudson, who is attempting to switch to the open associate justice seat. (With only two candidates in this race, one of them is sure to win outright in March.)

There’s no promotion at play here; Hudson’s current seat (“Position 3”) and the seat she is running for (“Position 2”) both fill the same role. What’s different between them is the timing of their elections. 

“By running for Position 2, I can potentially serve longer as a justice on the Court and continue my work of ensuring that everyone benefits from the goodness and protection of the law,” Hudson told Bolts this week.

Switching seats would allow Hudson to spend more time on the court, circumventing the state’s retirement age by a few extra years. Arkansas rules strip justices of retirement benefits if they run for reelection past age 70 but don’t force them to resign once they hit 70; justices can finish whatever term they’re already serving without endangering their benefits, thus the exact timing of their terms determines when they must retire. 

For Hudson, these are all considerations for a very distant future since she is only 51. Even if she stayed in her current seat, the earliest she’d have to retire is 2042. But if she succeeds at moving into the new seat this election, she’d be allowed to run as late as 2038 and serve out a final eight-year term until 2046—a potential four additional years on the court.

Jones, the lower-court judge challenging Hudson for the open seat, told Bolts in an interview that Hudson’s motivation for running was a “personal want,” comparing it unfavorably to what he called her three colleagues’ “legitimate reason” to run for chief justice. He added that a vacancy created by a Hudson win would be an “artificial opening” because of how unnecessary it is, and that this would betray the selection system that allows Arkansans to “express their choice through the ballot box.”   

“These offices, they belong to the citizens of the state of Arkansas, and we should be doing those things that best serve them,” he added. 

Hudson dismissed Jones’ concerns about her decision, saying it’s wrong to litigate the fate of the Position 3 seat during the campaign for Position 2. She said her experience makes her the best option to fill the open seat, telling Bolts, “The job of a Supreme Court Justice is far too important to wait for ‘on the job training’ to occur.” 

Martin, who is challenging three sitting associate justices for the chief justice seat, says he does not fault his opponents for trying to “step up” into the role. But he echoed Jones’ assessment that these races, and the prospect of gubernatorial appointments looming over them, are in tension with the state’s commitment to judicial elections, a system that was ratified by voters in a 2000 ballot initiative. 

“Arkansans made the decision to elect our judges, and not have the governor appoint judges,” Martin told Bolts. “We value electing judges.” 

Wood, one of Martin’s opponents, does not share his concern, telling Bolts via email, “I believe the people of Arkansas would prefer an experienced Chief Justice with a proven judicial record versus risking the Chief Justice position on someone with no judicial experience only because some would prefer the Constitution provided an alternative method for filling the temporary vacancy.” Baker and Webb did not reply to requests for comment.

A vacancy in Arkansas sparks a special election in the next even-numbered year, and an appointed justice cannot run for a full term. So if Huckabee Sanders chooses one or two new justices, they’d serve for up to two and a half years; then, there’d be new open elections for those seats in 2026. 

After Wynne’s death, for instance, the governor replaced him by appointing Cody Hiland, who was thus barred from running for the seat in the special election this year. But Barth says he expects Hiland to be on the shortlist for a new appointment to fill any vacancies that may result from the 2024 elections, which would extend his term on the court without facing voters to roughly three years. Hiland dodged the question of a reappointment when asked by The Arkansas Times earlier this month.

And important cases are looming just over the next few years, such as the challenge to a state law passed in 2023 that has significantly weakened direct democracy in the state. Relatedly, transparency advocates are embroiled in a legal saga against the state’s Republican attorney general who has blocked some popular initiatives from moving forward; the court is likely to weigh in on the fate of several ballot initiatives in coming years.

The reshuffling of the court also comes at a time of quick ascendancy for Arkansas conservatives.

While the state leans firmly to the right, its judiciary is divided between a more centrist and a more conservative wing, with recent elections producing some victories for the former. In 2022, conservatives failed in their effort to oust two justices whom they deemed to be too moderate—Baker, who is now running for chief justice, and Wynne, who passed away last year. 

Those two justices, plus Hudson, formed an informal group of three moderates on the seven-member court. Barth says that Kemp, the retiring chief justice who was first elected in 2016, typically issued conservative rulings but sometimes sided with his more moderate colleagues. But Wynne’s death last year, and his temporary replacement with Hiland, a conservative, set up a more reliably conservative majority on the court made up of Hiland, as well as Webb and Wood, who are both now running for chief justice, and Shawn Womack, an associate justice who is running for reelection unopposed this year. 

Kemp’s retirement could leave Baker and Hudson as the only two justices left on the court who have a more moderate reputation. Both are sure to stay on the supreme court no matter how they fare this year in their effort to switch seats. But if they win their upcoming races, the resulting appointments by Huckabee Sanders may shift the court yet another step to the right. 

“It’s pretty clear that the governor will attempt to appoint conservatives in those positions, that’s been the nature of her appointments so far,” Barth said. 

In their respective interviews with Bolts, Jones and Martin—the would-be newcomers to the court—each downplayed having ideological commitments, highlighting their independence. WIth candidates for judge in Arkansas running without any party label, that all makes it risky to predict how the court would rule on any issue even if they were to win. 

Still, both have run for past offices as Democrats. Jones became prosecuting attorney in Lafayette and Miller counties, in southwestern Arkansas, running as a Democrat in 2010; he served until becoming a circuit judge in 2014. Martin, who says he’s now an independent, was a Democratic lawmaker and House Majority Leader in the mid-2000s, right before the state’s hard swing toward the GOP. He also ran for governor in 2022, coming in a distant third in the Democratic primary. 

As he now runs against three sitting justices at once, Martin embraces his outsider status as the thing that distinguishes his campaign, even as his opponents hold it against him. “The presumption that any necessary change is stalled because there is not an outsider on the court is wrong,” Wood, one of the justices on the ballot, told Bolts in an email. “The Chief Justice role is not one that you can learn on the job.” Wood says she has goals of improving the court system, such as setting up a “web portal for victims of domestic violence” to file their documents.

Martin insists that his experience is relevant to the position. A volunteer pastor in Little Rock, he points to past activities like his involvement in an expungement clinic through his church as an example of the outsider’s perspective he’d want to bring. “I think that community involvement is very important to break up the status quo,” he told Bolts, denouncing the fact that many Arkansans lack access to legal help and end up unsuccessfully representing themselves in expungement proceedings or civil disputes with landlords. 

Martin also told Bolts that his background as a former legislator would prime him to talk to lawmakers and identify funding sources in budget negotiations. He vowed to be “the chief advocate for more pro bono work for attorneys and law students” to improve the legal representation people receive. 

“We can do a better job of providing services,” he said. Of his opponents who are already on the court, Martin added, “I think that it’s just easy to maintain the status quo after a number of years.”

The post Judges Play Musical Chairs on Arkansas’ Highest Court appeared first on Bolts.

Conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal judges could not entertain complaints of partisan gerrymandering. In its landmark 5-4 decision Rucho v. Common Cause, the court said that it’s not for federal courts to decide whether an election map is designed to give one party an illegal advantage. But Chief Justice John Roberts assured plaintiffs that his decision does not leave them powerless to stop partisan gerrymandering since they still have a path for litigation: state courts.

The Rucho decision did not “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void,” Roberts wrote, since states “are actively addressing the issue on a number of fronts.” 

New Hampshire last week became the latest state to show the promise was largely illusory. 

Its state supreme court ruled that it couldn’t consider whether the state’s election maps are illegal partisan gerrymanders because that’s not something that state judges should be deciding either. The 3-2 decision—with the three judges appointed by Republican Governor Chris Sununu in the majority—left in place the GOP gerrymanders signed into law by Sununu. This likely locks the party’s structural advantages in New Hampshire’s Senate and executive council through the 2030s. 

And it condemns complaints of partisan gerrymandering claims to echo into a void after all, with nowhere to turn in either federal court or New Hampshire court. 

The court said plaintiffs could address their grievances by getting state lawmakers to pass redistricting reform. But the odds of such a reform are low since the New Hampshire legislature is already gerrymandered, a circular dynamic that explains why voting groups tried to turn to federal and state courts on the issue. Any bill would have to be approved by the state Senate, a body whose districts have long been drawn to give Republicans an edge.

The New Hampshire decision adds to a trend in the nation since Rucho, with other state courts retreating from Roberts’ assurance and showing that they can just as easily refuse to answer the same questions. Earlier this year, for example, North Carolina’s supreme court ruled that partisan gerrymandering lawsuits can’t be brought under the state constitution, reversing past decisions to the contrary and paving the way for maps meant to maximize the GOP’s power.

New Hampshire Republicans won complete control of state government in 2020. They then proceeded to cement their advantage after the decennial census, adopting districts for the state Senate and executive council that created more Republican-leaning seats. A group of voters challenged the maps in court, alleging that they were partisan gerrymanders that violated New Hampshire’s constitution. 

But New Hampshire’s supreme court upheld the maps’ constitutionality on Nov. 29. The court declined to even consider the merits of the challenge, holding instead that partisan gerrymandering is a policy matter for other institutions to debate, and is a non-justiciable political question.

In practice, this means that no case alleging partisan gerrymandering, regardless of how egregious, can be brought in state courts. 

The New Hampshire court argued that there is no consistent method through which state judges could adjudicate such cases: no “discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating partisan-gerrymandering claims.” The language mirrors the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho on how federal courts should approach partisan gerrymandering claims: Roberts argued in that case that adjudicating such claims is overly subjective. “There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral,” the chief justice wrote.

The New Hampshire court’s decision flips an important part of the rationale in Rucho on its head. Roberts’ opinion also doubled as an ode to federalism; even as he sidelined federal courts, he invited states to look to their own laws and constitutions for alternative protections against partisan gerrymandering that don’t rely on the U.S. constitution. Writing in 2019, he offered as an example a 2015 decision  by Florida’s supreme court striking down a congressional map as an illegal gerrymander under the state constitution. 

Plaintiffs in New Hampshire asked state courts to similarly consider their own constitution. But in closing the door on their challenge, the state supreme court heavily relied on Rucho—calling it “directly on point” even though Rucho was interpreting the U.S. Constitution—and it drew extensively from Roberts’ opinion, even as Roberts invited states to chart their own path. 

“Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply,” Roberts wrote in Rucho, but that approach can’t get out of the starting blocks if a state court then turns to Rucho to decide how to interpret its state constitution.

Florida’s constitution, unlike New Hampshire’s, contains a clause that expressly restricts partisan gerrymandering. But even in states without such an express prohibition, some courts have found implied protections against partisan gerrymandering. In the last several years alone, courts in Alaska, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have all affirmed such protections. 

In their arguments to the New Hampshire supreme court, plaintiffs pointed to these decisions. They argued that the guarantee of “free” elections in New Hampshire’s constitution (which does not exist in the U.S. Constitution), along with other free-expression rights, established a right of voters to elect representatives on equal footing with each other. 

The court found this unpersuasive. It reiterated that developing and consistently applying standards for reviewing partisan gerrymandering isn’t possible in practice. As a “telling” sign of this inconsistency, the New Hampshire justices pointed to recent events in North Carolina, where the state supreme court struck down GOP gerrymanders in 2022 before reversing itself this year. 

But North Carolina’s court didn’t just change the standards for deciding whether maps are unconstitutional, or apply old standards differently. It simply ruled that this is not a question that judges can rationally decide, in language very similar to the New Hampshire decision. 

“There is no judicially manageable standard by which to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims,” North Carolina Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, wrote in February. “Courts are not intended to meddle in policy matters.”

New Mexico’s supreme court offered the opposite answer this year when it confronted a similar question.

It ruled that state courts can entertain claims of partisan gerrymandering, and decide whether a map is unduly giving an advantage to a party. To get around the concern that there’s no criteria judges could manage, the court identified a set of standards with which to analyze maps. It adopted a three-part test laid out by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent in the Rucho case; Kagan proposed that courts could strike down a map if they have proof that its creators’ purpose was to “entrench their party in power;” that it has had “the intended effect”; and, if so, that mapmakers cannot provide a “legitimate, non-partisan justification” for the map. 

The same court in November then upheld New Mexico’s congressional map, which delivered Democrats an additional seat in 2022, ruling on the merits that it did not violate Kagan’s test. 

The decision is a reminder that a state court’s decision to hear partisan gerrymandering claims does not mean they’ll automatically strike down a map. And when such cases come up, there’s no telling how left-leaning and right-leaning justices may rule, depending on who has drawn maps; in New York State last year, it was the conservative-leaning judges who struck down gerrymanders drawn by Democrats over the objections of more liberal judges.

But these decisions also underscore the widening contrast between courts on the first-order question of whether they’ll even entertain such claims: on whether partisan gerrymandering is a judiciable question. 

Conservative jurists have been more likely to rule that it is not. The North Carolina reversal came after the court flipped from 4–3 Democratic to 5–2 Republican last year. The Rucho decision was a similarly narrow 5-4 win for the court’s then-five conservative justices. 

And in New Hampshire, the decision to reject the partisan gerrymandering claims came down to a 3–2 vote, with the 3 justices nominated by a Republican governor in the majority, and the two nominated by Democratic governor dissenting. 

One of the justices in the majority was Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, whose nomination by Sununu was initially rejected by the executive council when it was under Democratic control. MacDonald was then confirmed to his seat when the council flipped to the GOP in 2020.

One of the Democratic-nominated justices who dissented in this case, Gary Hicks, left the court the day after the court issued its decision because he hit the mandatory retirement age. Sununu has nominated Melissa Beth Countway, a local judge, to replace him. 

Even Florida has come a long way since Roberts mentioned its supreme court: The mere threat that its new conservative justices may now shrug off partisan gerrymandering complaints has made the state’s existing protections virtually toothless. 

After voters amended their state constitution in 2010 to add provisions against partisan gerrymandering, Florida’s supreme court used those provisions to strike down state maps in 2015 for being “tainted” by partisanship. But by the time Republicans adopted a new set of aggressively gerrymandered maps masterminded by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, Florida’s judicial landscape was very different: The supreme court’s liberal majority had been wiped out, replaced by hard-right justices appointed by DeSantis. 

While plaintiffs initially filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s new congressional districts as partisan and racial gerrymanders, they later dropped all of their partisan gerrymandering claims, perhaps out of a concern that the Florida supreme court would be unwilling to meaningfully enforce the anti-gerrymandering provisions in the constitution.

Looming over all of this is the threat that the U.S. Supreme Court could step in against a state supreme court that actually does strike down a state map as a partisan gerrymander.

In its June decision in Moore v Harper, the court rejected the so-called independent state legislature doctrine, which argued that congressional maps drawn by legislatures (as well as other state statutes regulating federal elections) should not be subject to any review by state courts. But the decision, which was authored by Roberts, again, still kept open the possibility that it may intervene if state courts “transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review.” 

State courts trying to stop partisan gerrymandering may feel some trepidation about stepping over this ambiguous  line. After all, here was the same justice who told them in Rucho to look at their own state constitutions and statutes, now warning them in Moore that he may stop them even if they ground their rulings on state law. Roberts hollowed out his own promise, restricting with one hand what he had invited with the other.

The post Yet Another State Shuts the Door on Partisan Gerrymandering Complaints appeared first on Bolts.

Most obviously, these courts have become an urgent route for liberal litigants in light of conservatives’ durable majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts get to interpret state constitutions, which often protect rights and liberties more expansively than the U.S. Constitution, and they’ve proven friendly to arguments that wouldn’t succeed in federal court. The right has also focused on them to expand its control over the judiciary.

But these courts have even more clout than you may realize. They can shape virtually any policy area that state and local governments touch. They’re likely to have the final word on all cases filed in state courts, and many play additional roles that extend far beyond deciding cases, from crafting the rules of criminal trials to taking part in redistricting and certifying elections.

And yet these courts’ exact powers and procedures often remain well under the radar. What justices do and how they’re selected varies widely from state to state, and it always differs from the federal system. Most states elect justices but have their own twist on electoral rules, while some courts are shaped by commissions largely out of public view—and nearly all serve some idiosyncratic function with little scrutiny. These distinctions all influence how each court acts and what might be levers of change.

Today Bolts is publishing a new state-by-state resource that plunges into the weeds of these critical judicial powers. For each of 54 courts—accounting for the highest court in all 50 states, two of which have two separate high courts, plus Puerto Rico and D.C.—we cover every nook and cranny of how they are organized, what functions they serve, and rules for judicial selection.

But here we also wanted to take a step back. Why should we care about state supreme courts? What types of cases do they even hear? And what do we know about the balance of power between liberals and conservatives foothold on these courts across the country? Below is our FAQ to answer your big questions on state supreme courts.

I follow the U.S. Supreme Court: Why also care about state supreme courts?

If state and local governments have any involvement in an issue, you can bet that state supreme courts shape public policy on it. Why is abortion more widely available in this state than in neighboring ones? Why are police officers harder to prosecute in one jurisdiction over another? Why does this state better protect the rights of employees or access to mail-in ballots? The answer often has to do with how legal cases were resolved by state supreme courts, and who was sitting on them when they did.

In fact, many cases begin and end in state court, and never interact with federal judges. That includes countless civil lawsuits, and the vast majority of criminal prosecutions. These cases are heard within each state’s separate judicial system, and then work their way to the top state court that has supreme authority over their outcomes.

That’s how state supreme courts end up with the final word on critical cases—whether a lawsuit against South Carolina’s abortion restrictions, the appeal of a death sentence in Florida, or the legal battle over Illinois pensions. Some of these high courts also have idiosyncratic roles such as drafting bail schedules or approving pardons, and they can shape the rest of the judicial branch: That’s information that Bolts’ new state-by-state resource supplies.

Why would a case end up in state courts instead of federal court?

By-and-large, federal cases involve allegations that something or someone violated federal laws or the U.S. Constitution, or involve large financial amounts, inter-state disputes, or federal agencies. 

Everything else is likely to end up in state court, and possibly escalate to a state supreme court. 

These can be civil cases—you can bring a lawsuit in state court, especially if you’re invoking your state’s laws or your state’s constitution—or they can be criminal cases. Every state has its own criminal laws, and local prosecutors can charge people for breaking them in state courts; and if you’re convicted of a crime, you can appeal all the way to your state’s high court. 

What’s the role of state constitutions?

The rights inscribed in the U.S. Constitution only set a floor. Each state has a constitution that may have different language or protect rights that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t, at least if a state supreme court interprets it that way. How receptive a given court will be to such arguments, of course, will depend on its membership.

For instance, the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments is mirrored in many state constitutions, with some even banning “cruel or unusual” punishments, a grammatical tweak that may justify more expansive protections. And in each state, the supreme court will effectively have the final word on what exactly those clauses forbid.

In light of federal courts’ sharp turn to the right, many progressive and civil rights groups have prioritized filing state lawsuits by crafting arguments that rely on their own state’s constitution. They may argue, for instance, that its language enjoins climate action or protects reproductive rights.

But can’t the U.S. Supreme Court step in regardless? 

Yes, if you’re unhappy with how your state supreme court decided your case, you typically can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But that court hears very few cases. It’s also extraordinarily unlikely to consider a case that involves a state supreme court interpreting its own state’s constitution or statutes.

In practice, state supreme courts have the final word on what rights their state constitutions provide, and on nearly all cases and lawsuits that work their way through the state court systems. 

So what do these state supreme courts do, day-to-day?

Their primary role is to review decisions made by lower courts. Every state has its own judicial pyramid, like the federal system: there are trial courts, typically appeals courts, and a supreme court at the top. (There are variations on this structure; most notably, Oklahoma and Texas have separate high courts for criminal and civil matters.)

State supreme court justices decide whether to take up a case for review. 

But these courts also serve many other functions. Most are responsible for supervising the operations of their state’s entire judicial branch, putting them in charge of vast bureaucracies. They appoint people to key spots, and decide on rules that everyone else must follow, from attorneys to lower-court judges. In many states they also write the detailed procedures that govern any criminal case, including major matters like how bail or sentences are calculated.

Some courts have even more direct powers. In Arizona, justices witness election certification. In Nevada, they sit on the pardon board. In Tennessee, they appoint the attorney general.

Our state-by-state database highlights these unique powers for every high court, including the role each plays in crafting the rules of criminal procedures, and in various tasks relating to elections.

How do states decide who sits on their supreme courts? 

Every state sets its own rules for how justices are selected and how they remain on the court, and no two states do it exactly the same—and none do it exactly like the U.S. Supreme Court.

One rare trait that unites nearly all states is that justices serve set terms. They are on their court for defined periods of time and then must seek a new term. Only in Rhode Island do they serve for life with no age restrictions, like they do on the U.S. Supreme Court. 

This alone makes the membership of state courts far more fluid than the U.S. Supreme Court’s. To top it off, some states even impose a mandatory retirement age, often between 70 and 75. 

Otherwise, state systems differ a great deal. Broadly speaking, they fall into two big buckets as to how justices make it on the court.

Some states elect their justices from the get-go. People not yet on the court can run for a seat, and incumbents who want new terms may face challengers. States like North Carolina and Wisconsin, for instance, consistently have heated judicial elections. 

In other states like Indiana and Vermont, justices are always first appointed onto the court, typically by a governor. But these states vary on whether an appointed justice faces elections once they’re on the court. In many states, justices must face retention elections at the end of their term—up-or-down elections in which voters decide whether an incumbent can stay on the court. 

States also vary on how much latitude governors have when they select a justice: Some governors are free to choose anyone without even worrying about legislative confirmation. Governors making high court appointments in other states, like Missouri, are much more constrained and must choose from a shortlist preselected by a nominating commission over which they may have little control. And in Virginia and South Carolina, supreme court appointments are made by lawmakers with little involvement from the governor.

In practice, though, the difference between elections and appointments can get very blurry. 

Take Minnesota and Georgia, which have regular judicial elections but nearly all sitting justices first made it onto the court through an appointment. That’s because justices often resign before their term is over, letting governors select a replacement with little constraint. Once appointed, these incumbents rarely face any opposition when they run for a full term. 

Does my state have elections? 

Thirty-one states organize some sort of elections for supreme court justices. 

In some states, justices only face voters once they’ve already been on the court for a few years, and only in the form of retention elections—no named challengers, just a yes-or-no vote on whether they should stay on the court.

Other states organize regular elections for all judicial seats: Every few years, any candidate who meets the qualifications to be a judge can run for a seat whether or not there’s an incumbent, and the winner joins the court. That sounds simple enough, but each state comes with some twist. Elections may be held at odd times, they may be canceled at the drop of a hat, and they may be governed by unusual rules that don’t apply to the state’s more prominent elections. 

To complicate matters further, states may also mix up these models, using either regular or retention rules depending on the circumstances. 

Are judges partisan or political officials?

Only nine states elect judges in partisan elections. Candidates there may file to run as a Democrat or Republican. 

Still, in states that hold nonpartisan elections, parties and groups that support a political cause frequently get involved. Elections in Wisconsin are ostensibly nonpartisan, for instance, but are also very polarized. Other states with nonpartisan systems have sleepier elections. 

Similarly, in states where justices are appointed, party affiliation is not a formal factor in the process, but the political leanings of prospective appointees are often a factor on the decisions of the governors or lawmakers who make the selection—much like in the federal system.

That may be true even in states that constrain a governor to a list preselected by a nominating commission made up of legal professionals—a process that is meant to be more meritocratic but does not eliminate political considerations. The shortlist may present various options that preserve a governor’s ability to shape the court’s direction, and some commissions also have an ideological bent. There’s often backdoor maneuvering about who sits on them, with governors or legislative leaders shaping their  membership. Florida’s commission, for instance, has helped Governor Ron DeSantis move the state’s high court to the right, while New York’s has faced scrutiny for leaving jurists of color off of nominating lists. In Iowa, the GOP recently changed its commission to give the governor more control over who sits on the commission.

Can you tell me which party, or which ideological side, controls which court?

This is a difficult question. Only 12 high courts explicitly integrate justices’ party affiliation into their selection. That’s usually because the justices are elected in partisan elections, but it may also be because there’s a formal requirement (Delaware) or informal convention (New Jersey) that there be some partisan balance on the court.

In those states, it’s at least possible to say which party holds a majority of the court.

As of today, 6 of these courts have a Republican majority and 6 have a Democratic majority. (Two of those Republican majorities are in Texas, which is a rare state with two high courts.)

But judicial philosophies do not always map onto judges’ partisan affiliation.

Inversely, courts that are technically nonpartisan may have a strong ideological lean. They may have a coherent majority that constantly favors liberals or conservatives, or justices whose careers demonstrate a strong affiliation to a political cause. In Arkansas, for instance, a majority of supreme court justices now have ties with the Republican Party after Governor Huckabee Sanders appointed the chair of the state GOP to the court this summer. Wisconsin’s court flipped from a conservative majority to a liberal one as a consequence of the 2023 elections. New York’s conservative-leaning court took a step to the left this spring after a heated battle in which progressive groups fought the governor’s initial nomination. 

Assessing a court’s politics may then entail identifying other proxies for judicial ideology. In states with judicial appointments, we can start by assessing the party of the governors who selected the justices. In Minnesota, for instance, all justices as of now have been appointed by a Democrat, while in Arizona they’ve all been appointed by a Republican. 

This is a reliable predictor in some states—but it can be an imperfect proxy in others since some governors must get their choices approved by the legislature, or are constrained to choosing from a commission’s shortlist. Then again, governors can try to craft these commissions to their liking to gain more influence over the process, frequently far out of view of the general public.

The devil is in the details, which is why Bolts’ state-by-state database lays out more information on each court’s process.

How do state supreme courts affect a specific issue I care about?

On any issue, lawsuits may put a state’s statutes and practices under court scrutiny, at which point it comes down to what’s written in the state’s constitution and laws—and who has the power to interpret them. Many courts also have rulemaking powers that give them the ability to upend some matters even more directly. Here are some examples of what to watch on just six key issues.

If you care about abortion rights: The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, but state supreme courts can interpret their own constitution as recognizing a right to abortion. A Bolts analysis found that a dozen had done so by the time of the Dobbs ruling, and more since. But conservative gains can undo these rulings. In 2018, Iowa’s supreme court ruled that the Iowa constitution guarantees a right to abortion but then reversed itself in 2022 after the arrival of new conservative justices. 

If you care about criminal justice: State courts shape the rights of people accused of crimes at every stage of a criminal case, and some courts have pushed back more than others against invasive police practices or extreme sentences. Many supreme courts also write their state’s rules of criminal procedure—lengthy codes that govern how cases unfold, from the issuance of warrants to the calculation of sentences. Some courts even set bail schedules. This is an often-overlooked but potent policymaking role. In 2021, for instance, Arizona’s supreme court eliminated peremptory strikes, the practice by which attorneys can eliminate someone from the jury pool without stating a cause. Explore our state-by-state guide to learn the extent of each court’s rulemaking role with regards to criminal procedure; the guide also specifies for each court whether a court is involved in drafting sentencing guidelines and setting bail schedules.

If you care about LGBT rights: Some state constitutions provide greater protections for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution, and LGBT activists have turned to state courts when federal courts have been unwilling to affirm certain rights. In 2003, Massachusetts’ supreme court recognized marriage equality, setting off a wave of supreme courts that did the same before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationally. And as states are now passing new anti-trans legislation, state advocates are again turning to state courts.

If you care about education: Many state constitutions contain provisions that state courts have interpreted as creating a right to education, and activists have argued in court since the 1970s that unequally or inadequately funding schools is unconstitutional.

If you care about the environment: As the climate crisis rages on, the regulatory power of environmental agencies often hinges on decisions by state supreme courts. Plaintiffs have also invoked environmental rights to push for climate action, with some success; Hawaii’s supreme courts, for instance, recently affirmed a robust interpretation of such rights in its state constitution, and a case in Montana that involves a right to a “healthful environment” could soon make its way to that state’s supreme court.

If you care about how elections are run: The shape of democracy can hinge on the composition of state supreme courts, which play a crucial role in blessing or rejecting voter suppression. Lawsuits are constantly filed in state courts challenging election law and practices, anything from voting procedures and gerrymandered maps to legislation restricting access to mail ballots. A change in the court’s membership can lead to major changes in election law, as in North Carolina this year. And some supreme courts are tasked with more direct roles in the running of elections, like supervising the drawing of new maps or participating in the certification of election results.

For more information, explore our state-by-state guide to how each state’s high court.

The post Everything You Always Wanted to Know About State Supreme Courts appeared first on Bolts.