Republicans grew their legislative ranks in 20 states, erasing Democratic majorities in two critical chambers in Michigan and Minnesota and soaring in a trio of New England states. But Democrats did the same in 11 states. They coalesced with centrist Republicans to flip the Alaska House away from GOP control, broke the GOP’s ability to override vetoes in North Carolina, and scored double-digit swings in Montana and Wisconsin.

Overall, Republicans gained 57 seats out of the roughly 6,000 races on the ballot, Bolts has determined in its third annual review of each state’s legislative elections. 

In 2022, the GOP gained 20 legislative seats, a meager result that deflated their expectations for a Democratic president’s midterms. (Several cycles in the 2010s saw swings that numbered in the hundreds of seats.) Democrats then gained five seats in 2023. 

These legislative results fit a broader pattern of short coattails for Trump: The GOP did not surge downballot as it did in the presidential race. The party secured full control of Congress but Democrats added a seat in the U.S. House and salvaged four U.S. Senate seats in states Trump carried. Bolts also reported that results were also mixed in state supreme court elections.

Going forward, the GOP will enjoy a trifecta—one-party control of both legislative chambers and the governorship—in 23 states, a number that did not change after last month’s elections. Democrats meanwhile will hold a trifecta in 15 states after losing one-party control in Michigan and Minnesota.

That leaves twelve states that will have split governments, though GOP lawmakers will have the votes to override the vetoes of a Democratic governor in two of these. 

This table details the make-up of each of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, plus the city council in Washington, D.C., before and after the Nov. 5 elections.

A handful of districts’ results are still not final pending recounts and lawsuits later this month. (This affects seats in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, and Washington.) Also, Bolts kept several methodological choices made in the 2022 analysis. Vacant seats are attributed to the party that held them most recently. For the purpose of quantifying a swing and being consistent, Bolts counted lawmakers who left their party since the last election but did not join or caucus with the other party as belonging to their original party. (This affects a handful of seats in New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.) Lawmakers who outright switched parties are counted as belonging to their new party. 

To dig deeper, here are five takeaways from the 2024 legislative elections.

1. In four states, a party lost the ability to unilaterally pass laws

Democrats in 2022 gained full control of the Michigan and Minnesota governments, huge prizes that they quickly used to adopt a slew of legislative priorities. Bolts covered the passage of voting rights legislation in both states, including an expansion of rights restoration in Minnesota and automatic voter registration for people who are released from prison in Michigan. 

These two trifectas are no more. 

The GOP gained just enough seats to cost Democrats the House in both states: Republicans won an outright majority in the Michigan House, but the Minnesota House ended up in a tie that will force a party-sharing agreement. Democrats will still hold the governorships and Senates in both states, but they won’t be able to pass ambitious legislation on party-line votes. 

Democrats also lost that power in Vermont, where heavy losses in both of the state’s chambers cost them their supermajorities. This means they will no longer be able to pass legislation by overriding vetoes from GOP Governor Phil Scott. Democrats had made liberal use of this ability in recent years, including by increasing property taxes this summer, an issue Scott then seized on to heavily campaign against Democrats. As Bolts reported last year, the Democratic legislature also greenlit requests by several towns to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. 

The GOP lost the power to legislate at will in just one state: North Carolina. 

While Republicans retained majorities thanks to their gerrymandered maps, Democrats broke the GOP’s supermajority in the state House. That means the GOP won’t be able to override the vetoes of Democrat Josh Stein, who won the governor’s race. 

North Carolina Republicans have responded to the impending loss of their veto-proof majority by ramming through a sprawling bill to gut the powers of the governor’s and change election rules during the outgoing legislature’s lame-duck session. The bill was vetoed by Governor Roy Cooper last week but the state Senate overrode his veto on Monday; the state House vote is still pending as of publication.

In no state did a party gain the ability to pass laws on its own: There is no new state trifecta, and there is no new supermajority for a party hoping to override the vetoes of a hostile governor.

This means that Democrats fell well short of their hopes of gaining control of Arizona for the first time since the 1960s, and of flipping New Hampshire. Instead, they lost ground in both states and also failed to break consequential GOP supermajorities in Kansas and Nebraska.

But in the days following the election, Alaska Democrats announced a new coalition with some moderate Republicans to grab control of the state House from GOP leaders. A similar mostly Democratic coalition has already been running the state Senate since the 2022 midterms.

2. In most states, the Nov. 5 elections preserved the status quo

In many places, the GOP’s great night at the top of the ticket did not trickle down to legislative elections. 

Take Pennsylvania. In 2022, Democrats easily won the elections for governor and for the U.S. Senate races; they also scored double-digits gains in the state House. This year, the GOP flipped the script for statewide races, winning the state’s electoral votes and defeating U.S. Senator Bob Casey. But not a single of Pennsylvania’s 203 House seats changed hands. Democrats defended their narrow majority, 102 to 101 seats.

Overall, 28 of the state chambers that held regular legislative elections this fall saw zero partisan change. That compares to 18 chambers that saw no partisan change in 2022. 

Just seven states experienced a partisan swing of at least five legislative seats this year. That’s compared to the 16 states that saw such a swing in 2022.

Four of the seven were in New England. The GOP made major gains in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Republicans cemented their majorities in New Hampshire, while in Maine they soared but fell short of flipping the state’s two chambers. And the starkest swing was in Vermont: By winning 25 additional seats, the GOP flipped roughly 14 percent of all the seats on the ballot.

That’s the national record for a swing this year. 

But in another New England state, Connecticut, Democrats grew their ranks in both chambers, adding five seats overall, a feat they’ve pulled off for at least the third consecutive cycle. Here, too, the result went counter Trump’s substantial gains at the presidential level.

The GOP gained five seats in Kansas. Democratic Governor Laura Kelly had campaigned to break the GOP’s supermajorities; instead, Republicans will have an easier time overriding her vetoes going forward. Some GOP moderates have occasionally sided with Democrats to sustain Kelly’s vetoes, for instance in April to narrowly defeat a ban on gender-affirming care. 

In the final two states that saw a large swing, Montana and Wisconsin, it was Democrats who gained. And in both cases, new legislative maps explain the swing, bringing us to our next takeaway.

3. Wisconsin and Montana showcase the importance of who controls redistricting

Following the 2020 decennial census, nearly all states used new legislative maps in 2022, and the results vividly illustrated how the choice between gerrymandering and independent commissions can transform state politics. The 2024 elections offered the same lesson.

In Wisconsin, aggressive gerrymanders locked in huge Republican majorities in both 2011 and 2021, but the GOP’s plan unraveled in the spring of 2023 when liberals flipped the state supreme court. The court struck down the GOP maps in late 2023, forcing fairer districts. As a result, Democrats gained 14 seats across both chambers in last month’s elections—the party’s biggest gain in any state. They narrowed the GOP majorities from 22-11 to 18-15 in the Senate, where only half of the seats were in play, and from 64-35 to 54-45 in the House. 

This will immediately affect governance in Wisconsin: Republicans last year had floated the idea of removing the new state supreme court justice who had secured liberals’ majority on the bench last year, but November’s legislative swings will make similar threats obsolete going forward since the party will no longer have the votes to back it up. 

In Montana, there was no judicial showdown that forced new maps. This was simply the first cycle of state legislative races since the state’s decennial redistricting. Still, the redistricting process last year saw a high-stakes decision: Over the objections of the GOP commissioners, the only nonpartisan member of Montana’s redistricting panel sided with the Democratic commissioners who wanted the new maps to better mirror the state’s overall partisan breakdown. 

Montana Democrats this fall gained 12 legislative seats, breaking GOP supermajorities in both legislative chambers. 

Montana conservatives had also hoped to end the liberal majority on the state supreme court that had struck down their legislative priorities, but they failed to meaningfully alter the court’s balance. And GOP lawmakers will no longer be able to advance constitutional amendments overriding the court rulings they disagree with: Such measures need a two-thirds majority in the legislature.

4. Even in states with little partisan change, the primaries may have changed the game

November settled the balance of power between the two major parties, but that’s only part of the story of 2024. In some states, this year’s legislative elections spell major changes within the ruling party, often due to primaries resolved months ago. 

In Texas, far-right Republicans gained ground during this spring’s primary elections. In total, 13 state representatives were defeated in GOP primaries or runoffs by challengers endorsed by Attorney General Ken Paxton, a close ally of Trump who sought retribution against those lawmakers for voting in 2023 to impeach him over an avalanche of scandals. Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, who forcefully defended his vote to impeach Paxton during his reelection campaign, barely escaped the AG’s revenge in a May runoff, however it’s unclear whether Phelan can survive a challenge for speaker in a state House that has moved further to the right.

The ultraconservative faction of the Wyoming Republican Party also increased its influence in the state’s primaries this summer. The state’s far-right Freedom Caucus won majorities in both legislative chambers for the first time, and won the leadership elections in late November.

No Democratic-run chamber underwent as big an upheaval. Still, a pair of progressive incumbents lost their reelection bids in Colorado in June, including Elisabeth Epps, an abolitionist activist who was elected to the state House in 2022; the results will cost criminal justice reformers key allies in a chamber where they’ve already struggled. 

Progressives gained ground in Delaware and New Mexico, though, by defeating a slew of centrist Democrats. The ousted incumbents include New Mexico Senator Daniel Ivey-Soto; Bolts reported in 2023 that voting rights advocates faulted Ivey-Soto for the failure of a legislation they’d championed. 

5. What lies ahead?

The Nov. 5 results could trigger further changes in early 2025. Three state senators won congressional races in Michigan and Virginia, and must now vacate their seats in tight chambers. 

In Michigan, Democrat Kristen McDonald Rivet’s resignation will spark a special election in the competitive 35th Senate District. The chamber is currently split 20 to 18 seats for Democrats, so the GOP would gain an even tie if they flip the district. (Still, the Democratic lieutenant governor would be able to break any tied votes in the chamber.)

Similarly, in Virginia, Democrat Suhas Subramanyan and Republican John McGuire are moving to the U.S. House from the state Senate, which is currently split 21 to 19 in Democrats’ favor. The race to replace Subramanyan in District 32nd is more likely to be competitive, according to The Downballot, giving the GOP a chance to tie the chamber in a Jan. 7 special election; a tie would effectively hand Republicans the majority since the GOP lieutenant governor would have the power to break ties.

In mid-November, Democrats chose state Delegate Kannan Srinivasan to run in this race. This triggered another Jan. 7 special election, this time in District 26, Srinivasan’s blue-leaning House seat. Democrats’ control of the lower chamber is just as narrow—51 to 49—so the GOP will have an outside shot at tying the House as well.

Next year will only speed up from there. Other specials are already scheduled, though in chambers that aren’t as tight as in Michigan and Virginia. And in the fall, the entirety of the New Jersey Assembly and Virginia House will be on the ballot alongside the state’s governorships.

The piece has been corrected to reflect the latest results in Oregon, where Democrats ended up flipping a seat in the state House by flipping the 22nd District with late votes.

The post The GOP Came Out Ahead in Legislative Races, But Their Gains Were Modest and Uneven appeared first on Bolts.

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.

His election victory last year was a landmark win for a burgeoning organizing movement known as Bozeman Tenants United, which emerged from protests in the summer of 2020, as thousands spilled into the streets of this lily-white, affluent, outdoor sports-obsessed college town, following the murder of George Floyd. 

“Me and a few other organizers thought, OK, there’s a lot of energy—how do we get names and phone numbers and turn this into something that lasts?” Emily LaShelle, Tenants United’s organizing director, told me in July from the group’s church-basement headquarters. 

Though protests provoked by police violence may not at first seem obvious venues for discussion of housing policy, LaShelle and colleagues found residents kept bringing up the city’s increasing unaffordability.

In conversations with neighbors during and after the protests, the organizers posed a simple question: What does public safety mean to you? “Was it having a third of the city budget being spent on the police force? Was it the military tank that Bozeman police has?” LaShelle said. “Time and time again, regardless of what people felt about the police, people said they couldn’t afford to live here, and that was making them less safe. It was resounding.”

Morrison, a co-founder of Tenants United, became an early test of the viability of this new progressive movement when he ran for the city commission in 2021 on a platform of economic justice. He lost by 24 percentage points. But then he ran again two years later, this time for mayor. In this city of roughly 60,000 residents, a campaign team of more than 100 volunteers knocked on some 15,000 doors, and Morrison wound up unseating a 13-year incumbent, nearly doubling her vote share.

Placing one of their own in the mayor’s office was a major step in the movement’s march toward a more equitable and accessible housing market in Bozeman, where about 60 percent of residents are renters. The Tenants United movement has been pushing policy to, among other things, restrict second-home vacation rentals, do less policing of homelessness, and set up publicly funded eviction legal defense. 

This summer, the movement scored a significant win: Bozeman voters overwhelmingly approved the creation of a study commission to examine possible changes to the city’s local government structure. 

Organizers with Tenants United worked hard to secure that result. Every ten years, the residents of all Montana cities and counties decide whether they want to revise their city charter, but this is the first time Bozeman has approved a review since 2004.

Morrison, LaShelle, and their growing corps of allies made the case this year that meaningful advances on affordability and economic justice require fundamentally rethinking how the city is governed: Currently, local leaders are paid around $20,000 for what can often amount to a full-time workload. This makes it too difficult, they said, for people who aren’t wealthy to hold city office. They want a study commission to advance structural reforms that would make Bozeman’s local institutions more inclusive of people who have been traditionally locked out of local politics.

And now that voters have set the study commission in motion, they’ll next decide in November exactly who will sit on the commission—and Tenants United has a few ideas for what the victors should do. 

They want the study commission to consider reforming city government elections so that leaders are elected by districts—they are all currently elected at-large—which would upend a system that has, for at least thirty years, seen every single city commission seat won by a candidate who lived on the more upscale south side of Bozeman, according to a review conducted by Tenants United.

They want it to consider expanding the city commission from five members to seven or more, and then paying those members more money. They want it to consider stripping some power away from the office of the (unelected, but still massively influential) city manager and transfer it over to elected officials. 

It’s a focus not just on individual laws, but on the conditions that determine how those laws get made. “We’re playing chess and checkers at the same time,” LaShelle says.

But no structural changes will be made if the study commission declines to recommend a reset. That makes the next step for these organizers quite important. 

On November 5, Bozeman will hold an election that is as down-ballot as down-ballot can be: voters will select five people, from a candidate pool of 15, to make up the actual members of this commission. These are the five people who will solicit input and eventually recommend changes to the city charter; any proposals would then have to be approved by voters in November of 2026.

Who gets elected in this obscure race will go a long way toward deciding if the study commission will have any appetite for the sort of fundamental reforms Tenants United is yearning for.

“It’s a weird little thing we’ve got going on down here, this process of electing our neighbors to determine our structure and function of government,” Morrison told me this summer, over coffee downtown. “It’s ironically the thing that is going to make the biggest difference to people in terms of material impact on our lives, but it is also going to be the thing that gets the least attention from voters.”

In a city where only about 30 percent of voters participated in the last mayoral election, it will be, and already is, a struggle to pique voter interest in a 15-way race for something so under-the-radar. But Tenants United sees opportunity. Like in other small cities, it is not necessarily money, but rather grassroots campaign tactics—yard signs, door-knocking, op-ed columns placed in the local paper—that can make all the difference in Bozeman elections.

“It’s so unsexy,” LaShelle tells me, almost cackling. “It’s gonna be really fun.”

It’s often said that states are laboratories of democracy, and this is arguably no more true anywhere than in Montana, because it’s the only state that regularly asks all its citizens to actively choose whether to amend, or even overhaul, their municipal and county government structures. The state constitution requires every municipality and county in the state to vote on a ballot measure, in the fourth year of every decade, to decide whether to undergo a review of their respective local governments.

These reviews, if approved by voters, do not concern granular policy questions, but rather structural ones: Should a city or county seize more local-control power, or rather align itself with what the state legislature commands? Is it better to elect a mayor with strong executive power, or to spread that power among other officials? How many people should serve on a local governing body, and should they be elected to represent districts or their entire jurisdictions?

“The reviews people vote on are basically generic calls to study how local government works,” Dan Clark, director of the Local Government Center at Montana State University, told me when we met just off-campus. “It’s a test of whether there is a sense of discontent within the community, or people feel there’s something that can be improved upon.”

There is, evidently, substantial discontent with local government in Bozeman, as the city grows in size and exclusivity. Its population has more than doubled since 2000, and the median new home price here is nearly $1 million. Many who love the city now are squinting to recognize it, and voters leapt at the opportunity to consider a local government review when it was on the June primary ballot; the measure passed 68 percent to 32 percent.

“It’s a gut feeling of betrayal, of losing home, when the favorite record store in town gets bought out and turned into a Lululemon,” says LaShelle, 26, who was raised here. “It’s a looming threat, constantly. I’m watching friends’ houses that used to be working-class set-ups of a bunch of younger folks living together getting turned into Airbnbs.”

LaShelle lives in a large, historic home near downtown with eight roommates. She pays $640 a month, the cheapest rent she knows of among her friends. The adjacent property was recently redeveloped into two units that each sold for $2.2 million. LaShelle thinks it’s a matter of time until something similar happens on her plot. “It feels very precarious,” she says.

Most of the rest of Montana is not so eager for structural change as Bozeman: 84 of the 127 municipalities that voted this year on whether to undergo local government reviews declined the offer. So, too, did 44 of 56 counties. 

Passing the review measure does not itself change anything. It simply kicks off a process: The 43 municipalities and 12 counties that did approve reviews will each now elect their own study commissions in the fall. The commissions will draw up and then carry out community engagement programs intended to gather feedback. Those programs will likely comprise in-person events, online surveys, and perhaps other forms of outreach, though it will be up to each commission to decide its course. The commissions are tasked with using the feedback they gather to inform their decisions to place structural reforms on the ballot in 2026. 

Most places never make any changes at all during the decadal review; in 2014, when this last happened, just four places, out of the 39 municipalities and 11 counties that had approved reviews, ended up passing something on the 2016 ballot, according to Clark.

It’s a long game, then, for Tenants United and anyone else hoping to use this vote to catalyze policy change. 

Clark, who is widely seen as the state’s preeminent expert on this review process, said that the stage Montana is in now—the study commission elections—has never been a headline-maker. He’s not aware, he told me, of a single candidate for a study commission anywhere in Montana who has raised money to run a serious campaign.

“In many cases, in the smaller communities, no one files to run at all, and they have to find people by pulling teeth,” said Clark, who, before moving to Bozeman, was once the mayor of the small Montana town of Choteau.

He said he’s rarely seen as much interest in a study commission as has popped up this year in Bozeman, where there are three times the number of candidates as the number of available seats. There’s massive interest, too, in Gallatin County, where Bozeman is located, which also approved a review in June and now has 22 people vying for its commission.

These study commission elections, which are nonpartisan, have usually not been very heated, Clark tells me, because candidates have traditionally sought to position themselves as mere facilitators of community debate, as opposed to political actors.

That is not the dynamic in Bozeman this year, however. With fifteen candidates running for five slots under one ballot heading, the county Republican Party has endorsed five people: Roger Blank, Deanna Campbell, Emily Daniels, Harrison Howarth, Stephanie Spencer. Tenants United has endorsed a competing slate of four: Carson Taylor, Rio Roland, Jan Strout, and Barrett McQuesten. Six more candidates are running without endorsements from either of these wings.

There is a good chance that Bozeman’s study commission will be open to considering structural reforms no matter who is elected. A recent forum hosted by Tenants United, in which 10 of 15 candidates participated, revealed that most attendees—including some backed by Republicans—support increasing pay for city leaders and expanding the number of seats in city government.

Morrison said he’s relieved that Tenants United has no organized opposition in this election from the home-owning liberals who have long controlled City Hall. He said he’s more worried that Republican-endorsed candidates will win seats and fail to center class justice once seated on the study commission. 

McQuesten, one of the study commission candidates, who is also an organizer with Tenants United, said that he wants a study commission that urgently feels Bozeman government should be more diverse. He said he’s running not to be a fly on the wall for community conversations about representation in government, but to help advance specific reforms to the 2026 ballot. He supports expanding the city commission and electing members by district instead of at-large.

It’s not that he won’t be an open-minded listener if he wins in November, he said, but rather that he’s seen too much in his 11 years in Bozeman to have his mind changed, on certain issues.

McQuesten, a 29-year-old paraprofessional educator, told Bolts, “I saw really, really solid educators who weren’t making enough to be able to live here. When I managed a McDonald’s, I had employees forced into homelessness because their rent went up. It’s kind of heartbreaking.”

He adds, “I want to be empirical where I can be, but there are some things that haven’t been working that need to be changed.”

Morrison says he regards the proposal to elect city commissioners in districts as most important because it will necessarily disrupt the long-term power center of Bozeman’s wealthier south side.

“It forces the opportunity of representation,” he says. “We need easier access to more diverse representation across our city, which will consequently mean differences in class, age, experience.”

He notes, correctly, that people all across the city are already free to run for the city commission. But he says there are at least a couple of big reasons why homeowners from the same part of town almost always win: For one, working-class people usually can’t afford to even consider seeking the job. But, perhaps more importantly, the south side holds on to power because those voters actually turn out to vote in municipal elections.

A basic rule of municipal elections in Bozeman, former Mayor Carson Taylor told me, has been that people on the south side tend to vote “regularly,” that people in the northeast vote “less often,” and that people on the west side, which is home to most of the city’s recent growth, “tend not to vote very much.”

I met with Taylor, who is 78 and now running for the study commission, at a cafe on the south side of town. He’s retired, he owns a home that he’s been told would sell for about $1.5 million, and he has lived in the city long enough to be on a first-name basis with all of its power players. He says he endorses the changes Morrison and allies seek, including the move to by-district municipal elections. 

Bozeman, Taylor told me, cannot continue operating as it has, with so many of the people who live here worrying about housing stability, falling homeless, or just moving out of the city entirely. 

“If you leave it to chance, we’re screwed, in my humble opinion,” he said. “You have houses that are built for people that have a lot of money, you have less affordability, and the worry is that we’re going down that road and we’re not getting off of it fast enough.”

Taylor hopes structural reforms in Bozeman will not only produce more diverse representation, but also inspire a more diverse electorate. He and others believe that it would make a big difference if people from all over town knew they had a neighbor at City Hall. 

“When you knock doors,” LaShelle said, “you’ll talk to folks on the south side who know the former mayors. You go to the northwest side of town and people say, ‘No one in this city gives a fuck about me.’ They’ll tell you that no one tells them anything about when a new development is coming in, or when an intersection is changing.”

Everyone from Clark to Morrison to Taylor seems to agree that electing city commissioners in districts does not itself promise any course correction. Plenty of other places with housing affordability crises elect city leaders this way, and most of Montana’s biggest cities, including Great Falls, Billings, Helena, and Missoula, already do, too. 

That’s why Tenants United doesn’t see this November’s election as a final step, just as it did not allow itself too much satisfaction with Morrison’s mayoral win. 

After all, what good is an overhauled government structure to this movement if it can’t produce policy change that prioritizes housing affordability? 

But there is a key difference, LaShelle believes, between Bozeman and other cities in Montana, and beyond, that have adopted some of the reforms that the study commission could consider. “An underlying issue in all these places is that working-class people have not been organized,” LaShelle said. “And here, they are getting organized.”

The post To Tackle Housing Crisis, These Organizers Want to First Change How City Hall Works 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.

All these officials were elected by voters in the 2022 midterms, a busy cycle that saw a coordinated (and largely unsuccessful) effort by followers of Donald Trump to take over election administration. Two years later, a new round of states are selecting their chief election officials.

Twelve states are deciding in November who will run their elections going forward. 

That role is directly on the ballot in seven states; in five others, voters will elect a governor or lawmakers who’ll then get to appoint their elections chief. 

In most of these states, this elections chief is the secretary of state; but in a few, there is another office that has that authority—for instance, in Utah, it’s the lieutenant governor.

Today Bolts is publishing a new guide that walks you through these elections in all 12 states.

In some of these states, including Missouri, Oregon, and Vermont, a candidate is once again running who has clearly embraced false conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. They’ve proposed taking drastic actions such as ending mail-in voting.

In other states, such as New Hampshire or Utah, the office is unlikely to fall into the hands of an election denier. But even these races can be critical to the shape of democracy. Secretaries of state or the equivalent official often design voter outreach programs, or set policies that can make voter registration easy or difficult. They can also champion new election legislation or maneuver to stall ballot initiatives. 

The exact roles that states attribute to their chief elections officials differ from state to state—for instance, some have a hand in election certification and others do not. To clarify this landscape, Bolts has published two databases. The first details, state by state, which offices prepare and administer an election (Who Runs our Elections?). The second details, state by state, which offices handle the counting, canvassing, and certification stages (Who Counts Our Elections?). 

Explore our state breakdown of the 2024 elections below.

Delaware (via the governor’s race)

In Delaware, voters do not elect a secretary of state; instead, the governor appoints a state election commissioner. And voters this fall are choosing a new governor between New Castle County Executive Matt Meyer, a Democrat who is the heavy frontrunner in this blue state, and House Minority Leader Michael Ramone, a Republican. 

The two candidates have taken very different stances toward election reforms. As a legislator, Ramone fought Democratic efforts to expand the availability of mail voting, while Meyer supported those changes. Meyer also says he would promote voting among some groups who are traditionally marginalized, vowing in response to an ACLU questionnaire to seek automatic registration of people exiting incarceration, and by expanding ballot access in local jails.

Maine (via legislative races)

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, became a national figure in late 2023 when she took Trump’s name off of the state’s ballot, citing his support for an insurrection. (The U.S. Supreme Court later put Trump back on the ballot.) Whether the office changes hands next year depends on Maine’s legislative races: Lawmakers select a secretary of state every two years. 

If Democrats retain the legislature, they could keep Bellows in office; Bellows told Bolts that she will seek another term. But the GOP has an outside shot at flipping the legislature in November. The last time they did that, in 2010, they replaced the Democratic secretary of state with a Republican. Democrats took back control of the legislature, and the secretary of state’s office, in 2012.

Missouri (via the race for secretary of state)

The secretary of state’s office in Missouri could fall into the hands of an ultraconservative Republican who has unambiguously embraced Trump’s lies about fraud and who vows that this would guide his tenure. “We have to ensure that none of the electoral fraud that took place in 2020 and stole the election from President Trump happens here,” Denny Hoskins, a state senator, told local media after winning a crowded GOP primary last month.

Hoskins, who is the front-runner in November in this staunch red state, has designs for major changes to election administration. He wants to hand count ballots and effectively eliminate absentee voting in an effort, his website says, to “root out election fraud and protect our elections from Chinese/Russian interference.”

He now faces Barbara Phifer, a Democratic state representative who broadly opposes his plans. She is also emphasizing her support for direct democracy, warning against GOP proposals to make it harder to pass citizen-initiated ballot initiatives. Hoskins championed such an effort this year, saying he was worried about the progressive push for an abortion rights measure.

Montana (via the race for secretary of state)

Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen, a Republican who is running for reelection, wants to make it harder for Montanans to vote. In 2021, her first year on the job, she strongly backed efforts by GOP lawmakers to toughen voter ID laws, end same-day registration, and make it more difficult to obtain an absentee ballot. Those policies were struck down earlier this year by the state’s liberal-leaning supreme court, and Jacobsen is now trying to get the conservative U.S. Supreme Court to revive them on appeal. 

Jacobsen has also used her authority to stall ballot initiatives, recently blocking some signatures on petitions for measures to strengthen abortion rights and bring about election reforms. 

Her Democratic opponent this November, Jesse James Mullen, says he is “appalled” by Jacobsen’s “efforts to disenfranchise Montanans.” Mullen, who owns a chain of local newspapers in Montana, opposes the GOP’s 2021 voting laws Jacobsen backed and criticizes Republicans for using false threats of voter fraud in Montana to justify new restrictions. Mullen will be an underdog in this red-leaning state that Trump is expected to decisively carry.

New Hampshire (via legislative races)

The secretary of state in New Hampshire is selected by lawmakers every two years, right after the state holds legislative elections. In the most recent such vote, in late 2022, Republican David Scanlan prevailed over a Democratic alternative. He benefited from the fact that the GOP narrowly controlled the state legislature but also got dozens of crossover votes from Democrats. That puts into question whether Democrats would oust Scanlan even if they take control of the legislature in November: In 2018, the most recent cycle in which Democrats won control of the legislature, just enough Democrats joined Republicans to reelect a secretary of state who had been supporting Republican restrictions on voter access.

Since becoming secretary of state in 2022, Scanlan has backed his party’s newest restrictions, including the proposal to require proof of citizenship when people want to register to vote.

North Carolina (via the governor’s race and/or legislative races)

While North Carolina is electing a secretary of state this year, this office has nothing to do with election administration. (For aficionados of secretary of state races, let the record reflect that longtime Democratic incumbent Elaine Marshall is seeking an eighth term against Republican Chad Brown, a county commissioner.) 

Instead, it’s the gubernatorial and legislative races that’ll determine who controls the appointed offices that oversee elections: the state board of elections, and the director of elections. 

But even then, it’s not clear who will have what power come 2025. Last year, in an ongoing effort to shrink the powers of their Democratic governor, North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers used their veto-proof majority to pass a new law stripping the governor of his influence over appointments and shifting more authority to the legislature. This was widely seen as a way to strip Democrats of their majority on the board and change the current director of elections, Karen Brinson Bell, who has questioned why the GOP is passing so many changes to election laws and has frustrated some conservatives who would like to see the state pursue fraud investigations more aggressively. 

The new law is currently caught up in court, however. The stakes of the battle over appointment powers are high: Democrats and Republicans have been clashing on a wide range of voting issues in the state, including same-day voter registration and voter ID laws.

Oregon (via the race for secretary of state)

Oregon has frequently led the way in expanding ballot access, including by pioneering universal mail voting and automatic voter registration. Democrat Tobias Read, currently state treasurer, says he is running for secretary of state this year to uphold that tradition. “Any effort to make it easier for people to vote, to remove barriers, is a good thing,” he told Bolts earlier this year, ahead of his primary victory.

Read’s Republican opponent, state Senator Dennis Linthicum, could hardly be more different, as Bolts reported in May. He is proposing to ban mail voting, despite the fact that most of the state votes by mail. He joined far-right lawmakers nationwide in 2020 to call for an audit of the 2020 presidential election based on unsubstantiated claims of fraud. And he has not committed to certifying election results, the role of a secretary of state.

Read is favored to win this race; Oregonians haven’t elected any Republican to statewide office since 2016. That would leave Linthicum without an office. He was barred from seeking another term in the state Senate because he participated in a prolonged GOP statehouse walkout in 2023.

Tennessee (via legislative races)

The secretary of state in Tennessee is not directly elected. Instead, the legislature chooses a secretary of state, who then names a state coordinator of elections—and that’s the person who state law designates as Tennessee’s chief elections official.

Republicans are massively favored to retain both chambers of the state legislature, making it very unlikely that election administration will take a different route. Secretary of State Tre Hargett has been in office since 2009, and he easily secured a new four-year term in 2021.

Mark Goins, the elections coordinator appointed by Hargett back in 2009, acted last year to drastically shut down people’s ability to regain their right to vote after a felony conviction, imposing new financial fees to even apply, and making success an extremely tall order. Hargett and Goins have backed restrictions on voter registration and mail voting, and have opposed Democratic proposals to boost turnout.

Vermont (via the race for secretary of state)

In a rematch of the 2022 race, Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas, a Democrat, faces H. Brooke Paige, a perennial Republican candidate who has fully embraced Trump’s lies about the 2020 election. The Big Lie does not sell in blue Vermont: Copeland Hanzas won the 2022 election 61 percent to 33 percent. There’s no indication that 2024 will be any different. 

“It is highly worrisome to hear people echoing false claims and misinformation about the safety and security of our elections,” Copeland Hanzas told Bolts two years ago. “It is a fundamental threat to our democracy, in that the purpose of these claims is to discourage people from participating in elections.” 

Copeland Hanzas has supported efforts by some Vermont municipalities to expand the franchise locally. Bolts has reported, for instance, on the organizing that led several cities to allow noncitizen residents to participate in local elections on Town Hall days. “We heard from these communities about why they thought it was important to be able to welcome people into the democratic franchise at the local level,” Copeland Hanzas told Bolts on why she helped authorize those reforms while in the legislature.

Utah (via the race for lieutenant governor)

Utahns abolished their secretary of state’s office in 1976, transferring the authority to oversee elections to the lieutenant governor instead.

Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, a Republican, is running for reelection this year. She barely survived the GOP primary against a conservative activist who had helped organized a ballot measure to restrict mail voting and voter access. During her first term, Henderson refused to leave a bipartisan election organization that’s come under conservative fire, saying she wouldn’t bow to “radical election deniers.”

In Utah’s general elections, lieutenant governors appear on a ticket with their running-mate as part of the governor’s race, so Henderson’s fate is tied to the race between Governor Spencer Cox and Democrats’ gubernatorial nominee Brian King, who is running on a ticket with Rebekah Cummings, a librarian at the University of Utah. In this staunchly red state, it’ll be an uphill climb for Democrats to land a statewide win.

Washington (via the race for secretary of state)

In 2022, a Democrat won the secretary of state’s office for the first time in a half-century. But that was in a special election, and Steve Hobbs now has to run for a full term against Republican Dale Whitaker, the former executive director of a conservative organization. 

Whitaker, who associated himself with “America First grassroots patriots” at his state party’s convention, has taken issue with some of the state’s election rules. He has made public comments against the availability of mail voting, despite running in a state where voters trust and widely use mail ballots. “I will fight for same-day in-person voting with paper ballots,” he said in April. Hobbs supports the mail voting system. Whitaker has also taken issue with Hobbs’ decision, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit filed last year, to agree to a consent decree that removes a requirement that Washington residents wait 30 days to register to vote when they move to a new address. Whitaker, who said a “reasonable registration deadline” is important, did not reply to a request for comment on whether he supports the state’s same-day voter registration rules.

Hobbs received 48 percent in the August all-party primary, which is generally predictive of the November results, with another Democrat taking 10 percent. Whitaker received 37 percent, leaving him an underdog in November. 

West Virginia (via the race for secretary of state)

West Virginia’s outgoing secretary of state, Republican Mac Warner, says the CIA robbed Trump of victory in 2020 and attended a “Stop the Steal” rally late that year. He unsuccessfully ran for governor this year. The favorite to replace him as secretary of state? His brother Kris Warner, who also refuses to call the 2020 results legitimate.

Kris Warner is currently the director of the state’s Economic Development Authority. As he runs to become West Virginia’s next top elections official, he’s promising to purge voter rolls and figures to fit neatly within a state Republican Party that has deeply embraced election denial.

His Democratic opponent, local attorney Thornton Cooper, has said he was motivated to run because he views the Warner brothers as particular threats to democracy. But it’s become very difficult for Democrats to win in West Virginia, and Cooper doesn’t seem to be trying much. He has no functioning campaign website as of publication and, according to the state’s data, he has spent under $2,000 on this race.

What about the remaining states?

Of the 38 states that aren’t on this list, the vast majority will hold elections for secretary of state, or an equivalent office, in 2026. (Check out Bolts’ national primer from 2022 for more on how many of these states’ elections unfolded last time around.) But before that, the next milestone looms in 2025: New Jersey and Virginia will host wide open governor’s races, and the two winners will get to select their state’s secretaries of state.

The post Your Guide to All 12 States Choosing Their Next Elections Chief in November appeared first on Bolts.

When a coalition of voting rights activists in Ohio set out last December to introduce a new ballot initiative to expand voting access, they hardly anticipated that the thing to stop them would be a matter of word choice.

But that’s what Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost took issue with when he reviewed the proposal’s summary language and title, then called “Secure and Fair Elections.” Among other issues, Yost said the title “does not fairly or truthfully summarize or describe the actual content of the proposed amendment.” 

So the group tried again, this time naming their measure “The Ohio Voters Bill of Rights.” Again, Yost rejected them, for the same issue, with the same explanation. After that, activists sued to try and certify their proposal—the first step on the long road toward putting the measure in front of voters on the ballot. 

“AG Yost doesn’t have the authority to comment on our proposed title, let alone the authority to reject our petition altogether based on the title alone,” the group said in a statement announcing their plans to mount a legal challenge. “The latest rejection of our proposed ballot summary from AG Yost’s office is nothing but a shameful abuse of power to stymie the right of Ohio citizens to propose amendments to the Ohio Constitution.”

These Ohio advocates aren’t alone in their struggle to actually use the levers of direct democracy. Already in 2024, several citizen-led attempts to put issues directly to voters are hitting bureaucratic roadblocks early on in the process at the hands of state officials. 

Arkansas organizers have been stonewalled by their attorney general, who has rejected language for ballot proposals to expand medical marijuana and increase government transparency. In Nebraska, a lawmaker behind a law sending more public money to private schools has leaned on the secretary of state to block a ballot referendum attempting to repeal it. 

Abortion rights measures have been under particular scrutiny. Missourians attempting to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution were delayed from gathering signatures for months as state officials fought over the specifics of the ballot measure. Advocates in Montana are still fighting to get their proposal for abortion rights approved for signature gathering after the state’s attorney general rejected it in January. Meanwhile, observers across the South are waiting with bated breath for the Florida Supreme Court to decide the fate of a proposed abortion rights initiative, which could decide whether abortion remains legally available in the region; Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody asked the court to block the proposal, saying that the language is too confusing for voters to understand. 

Ostensibly, these proposals are being rejected over technicalities; a problem with a ballot title, or unclear language in the proposal. But in practice, advocates argue, the state officials reviewing these proposals are blurring the lines between procedural and political. They claim these officials are overstepping the bounds of their discretion to reject ballot initiatives based on their opposition to the underlying issue and not the quality of the petition.

“We have never seen the Ohio AG try to broaden their authority to allow them to determine whether a title is permissible,” explained Emma Olson Sharkey, an attorney specializing in ballot initiatives at Elias Law Group, one of the firms leading the suit against Yost, the Ohio attorney general. “This is clearly, from my perspective, an overreach of authority, and we are seeing similar efforts with conservative officials across the country.” 

National observers say this is an escalation of an ongoing effort by leaders of mostly conservative state governments to thwart direct democracy. Bureaucratic backlash to citizen-led ballot initiatives has become a pattern in some red states. Arkansas’ Republican-run legislature last year pushed through new rules raising the signature-gathering requirements, just a few years after voters rejected those same changes. Last August, Ohio voters similarly rejected a proposal put forth by state Republicans to increase the threshold needed for measures to pass.

“It’s all part of this larger puzzle of who gets a say and who gets to participate in our democracy, and where things are popular among constituents but that does not align with whoever is in political power in that state,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which tracks ballot measures around the country.

A rejection from a state official doesn’t necessarily spell certain death for a citizen-led initiative, because organizers typically have opportunities to correct problems and resubmit. But advocates for direct democracy say the long delays caused by fighting with an attorney general over the language of a ballot proposal wastes legal resources and precious time needed to collect signatures and connect with voters. In this way, even if state officials can’t kill proposals outright, then perhaps by a thousand cuts.

In the just over half of states that allow for citizen-led ballot initiatives or referendums, each one has different rules governing the process. In Michigan, a proposal is submitted to the secretary of state before signature gathering, and language is reviewed by the state Board of Canvassers. Illinois has next to no pre-approval process at all for a petition to make it onto the ballot. In Florida, by contrast, ballot title and summary language must be approved by the secretary of state, the attorney general and the state supreme court. 

In evaluating these petitions for inclusion on the ballot, these state officials are typically empowered to conduct a review of the petition’s formatting, language, and adherence to state and federal laws. This may mean an attorney general or lieutenant governor making sure that a petition only applies to one subject, or that the language of a summary is easy to understand. These officials don’t have the authority to review the underlying issue a petition is about. And yet, in recent years, some of them seem to be pushing the boundaries of their clerical duties. 

“It really should be more mechanical power to certify this and neutrally evaluate it,” explained Quinn Yeargain, a professor of state constitutional law at Widener University and frequent Bolts contributor. “They’re putting a thumb on the scale and pushing, I think, to expand the understanding of their power.”

David Couch, an Arkansas attorney who has spearheaded various ballot proposals for years, claims the state’s attorney tried to undercut organizers’ attempts to increase government transparency by repeatedly rejecting their proposed language for ballot measures. Couch worked with a coalition called Arkansas Citizens for Transparency last year to introduce a pair of initiatives aimed at amending the state constitution and creating a new state law to guarantee the right to access public information. The ballot initiatives were first submitted to Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin in November of last year, but he rejected one of them, on the grounds that the popular name and ballot title, “The Arkansas Government Transparency Amendment,” was not sufficiently specific.

The group resubmitted the amendment in December, offering four different options for ballot titles and other changes to the text, but the proposal was again rejected. They made a third submission in January, but before Griffin could issue a decision, Couch sued the attorney general in state court over the previous rejections. 

“In my opinion, he was using his statutory authority, which is very limited, to make us rewrite the amendment and rewrite the act to weaken it, and to make it be more what he would like it to be rather than what we the people would want it to be,” Couch told Bolts.

Griffin has maintained that his rejections remained within his authority, and stated in his first opinion from December that his “decision to certify or reject a popular name and ballot title is unrelated to my view of the proposed measure’s merits.” Even so, later on in the opinion, Griffin wrote that he took issue with the word “transparency” in the ballot title, saying it had “partisan coloring” and “seems more designed to persuade than inform.” 

Griffin eventually accepted both proposals, though not before one more rejection, and Couch dropped the lawsuit—not because he had a change of heart, he says, but because the coalition had already lost too much signature-gathering time. Organizers now have until July 5 to gather 90,000 signatures from voters in at least 15 counties to get the issue on the November ballot. (That threshold would be even higher under the bill Arkansas passed last year, but it’s currently held up by a different lawsuit heading toward the high court.)

“They use it to run the clock up. You lose a month every time you have to change something,” Couch said. “What he did was just wrong. It’s unconstitutional.” 

In Missouri, abortion rights organizers have engaged in a nearly year-long battle with the state over a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution and override the state’s near-total abortion ban. 

After the group, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, submitted 11 different options for an amendment proposal back in March, there was a protracted legal fight with Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican. Bailey tried to force a fiscal impact statement onto the measure claiming it would cost taxpayers billions of dollars (the state auditor, who is tasked with such assessments, had initially determined the state would see “no costs or savings”). 

Once the state supreme court rejected the attorney general’s attempts to inflate the cost of the amendment, the proposal moved on to Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who was tasked with writing 100-word summaries of each option submitted. Organizers accused him of using misleading and partisan language to describe six of the proposals, and the courts ultimately agreed with them after they sued; in an Oct. 31 ruling, a state appeals court said that Ashcroft’s ballot summaries were “replete with politically partisan language,” and ordered him to use the more neutral summaries written by a lower court. Ashcroft tried to appeal the decision to the state supreme court, but they refused to take up the case. 

By the time the dust settled from all this legal back and forth and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom embarked on their formal signature-gathering campaign, it was already January, eleven months since they first submitted their proposal. They now have until May 5 to gather more than 170,000 signatures to get it on the November ballot. One observer with experience running petition campaigns described the experience to The Missouri Independent as “going downhill at a very fast rate of speed.” 

In Montana, a group backing a similar abortion rights measure, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, is still stuck in limbo. After state Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, rejected their measure for not adhering to the single-issue rule, the group quickly petitioned the Montana Supreme Court to overturn the decision, claiming that Knusden overstepped his bounds. They have some precedent on their side—the supreme court in November reversed a similar decision from the attorney general, after he invalidated a ballot measure to reform election rules to create a top-four primary. 

“We were prepared for the fact that it was likely [Knudsen] would try to block the ballot measure and try and take up more time,” said Martha Fuller, president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, one of the groups in/leading the coalition. But Fuller says they’re not letting this delay kill their organizing momentum. 

“I feel really confident in our ability to gather the number of signatures even on a tighter time frame than we are now,” she said. “Every day we’re hearing from folks who are ready to go; we’re already feeling a sense of momentum building around this measure.”

As organizers fight to get their initiatives on the ballot, they also face broader conflicts around citizen-led ballot measures. Lawmakers around the country have continued to tinker with rules governing nearly every step of ballot initiative processes. While voters in Ohio and Arkansas have rejected state attempts to move the goalposts for ballot initiatives, in others states officials have forced those changes; an analysis by Ballotpedia of legislative changes made to the initiative and referendum process between 2018 and 2023 found that roughly 20 percent of all the legislation passed made the processes more difficult.

And the changes keep coming: Just last week, Republicans in the Missouri legislature advanced two different bills that would make it harder for initiatives to pass. One passed by the Senate would require that a proposal receive majority support in five of the state’s eight congressional districts to pass, in addition to a simple majority of voters statewide. The other, which just passed in the House, would add stricter requirements for the signature gathering process. 

“There’s a constant pushback from conservatives to try to stop these measures in their tracks,” said Olson Sharkey from Elias Law Group. “Because they know, especially with reproductive rights, if these measures get on the ballot, they’re going to win” 

Olson Sharkey sees these tactics coming out of conservatives’ playbook, but conservatives aren’t the only ones deploying them. As Bolts has reported, the Democratic city government of Atlanta changed the rules for popular initiatives in an effort to block a proposed referendum against the ‘Cop City’ police training center; the city council earlier this month went as far as to approve the controversial practice of signature matching to disqualify some people who signed the petition. 

For Fields Figueredo, who tracks ballot initiatives across the country, no matter who’s responsible, chipping away at ballot initiatives betrays a disregard for the fundamental principles of democracy.

“It’s ultimately about minority rule,” she said. “We could elect people in a democratic process, and also they are not actually listening to the will of the people.” 

The post Red State AGs Keep Trying to Kill Ballot Measures by a Thousand Cuts appeared first on Bolts.

The result in Michigan will have the most immediate effects since, unlike California and Vermont, Michigan has a statutory ban on abortion on the books. Proposal 3, which affirms a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” passed on Tuesday, overturning the state’s abortion ban and protecting access going forward. ABC News called the race in favor of the measure which, as of publication, led 53 percent to 47 percent.

Meanwhile,  California voters overwhelmingly to  add a “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion” and a “fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives” to the state’s constitution. Vermont voters also approved language adding a  “right to personal reproductive autonomy” to that state’s constitution by a wide margin on Tuesday.  

Whether state constitutions protect abortion rights—and how state courts interpret those protections—has been a critical question in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overrule Roe v. Wade. The conservative court’s ruling only concerned whether abortion rights were protected under the federal constitution, but each state’s constitution can set higher standards for the protection of individual rights and liberties. Additionally, though individual rights to contraception are currently recognized by the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, many observers have speculated that the Court may overrule that decision, too. Accordingly, it is significant that all three constitutional amendments that passed tonight also recognize—explicitly or implicitly—individual rights to contraception.

An analysis published by Bolts in July found that a dozen state supreme courts have ruled that their states’ constitution recognizes abortion rights. But until Tuesday, no state constitution explicitly declared such a right; judges in those states relied on provisions that talked about a right to privacy or about due process. California, Michigan, and Vermont are the first three states to add provisions into their constitution that explicitly codify the right to an abortion. 

They likely will not be the last, with Democratic governors around the country calling for similar amendments and with abortion-rights advocates motivated by tonight’s results.

In states with abortion bans, advocates have also turned to courts to challenge their legality under state constitutions, hoping that more judges might recognize abortion protections.

Tuesday’s elections decided the courts’ balance of power in populous states that may face showdowns over abortion rights. The GOP gained a new majority on the state supreme court in North Carolina, and narrowly retained its majority in Ohio; Democrats are favored to retain their majority on the Michigan supreme court. In another major race where abortion was on the line, Republicans also failed to take full control of the state government in Pennsylvania, another battleground on the issue; Governor-elect Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, favors abortion rights and would be poised to veto bills that carry restrictions.

Tuesday’s results build on the landslide in favor of abortion rights in a referendum in Kansas in August. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers in Kansas proposed a constitutional amendment that would have effectively overruled a landmark decision by the Kansas supreme court in 2019 protecting abortion rights, but Kansas voters rejected that amendment.

Kentuckyians were similarly voting on Tuesday on a constitutional amendment that would have declared that their state constitution does not protect abortion rights, and just like Kansas they rejected the measure. The result is welcome news to abortion-rights advocates and opponents of the proposed amendment, which significantly outraised and outspent supporters. However, the failure of the amendment itself will not legalize abortion in Kentucky. Ongoing litigation at the Kentucky Supreme Court, which concerns whether the state constitution implicitly includes abortion rights, will ultimately determine the legality of abortion in the commonwealth. 

Also in Kentucky, a conservative lawmaker who championed abortion restrictions in the legislature lost an election to join the state supreme court.  

Montana decided yet another measure pertaining to abortion on Tuesday. Unlike the other referendums, this concerned a state statute that required medical care be given to any infant “born alive” after induced labor, cesarean sections, or attempted abortions. The bill was drafted to mirror model legislation advanced by national anti-abortion groups, and was condemned by abortion-rights advocates and abortion providers as addressing a non-existent problem—especially given the rarity of late-term abortions generally. The measure appeared to be failing on Tuesday night, but regardless would likely have little impact on the legality and availability of abortion in Montana.

Of Tuesday’s referendums, Michigan’s Prop 3 drew the most attention heading into Tuesday. 

Passage of the measures in California and Vermont was never seriously in doubt given both states’ socially liberal bent. Both states enable abortion access, and the California Supreme Court has recognized an implicit state constitutional right to reproductive rights since the early 1980s. However, the addition of explicit constitutional protections further entrenches abortion rights in both states, and insulates them from the prospect of future supreme courts changing course.

Michigan, though, is more politically divided and Prop 3 faced a heavy opposition campaign. Attacks from opponents of the measure falsely argued that passage of the amendment would allow children to have access to “gender change therapy without parental consent,” a charge that appeared in television advertisements and was widely condemned as false.

The measure was also set to offset the status quo. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision “triggered” old statutes outlawing abortion in many states around the country. In some places, this meant returning to laws that were a century old—and in some cases, even older. Arizona returned to its 1864 ban, adopted when it was still a territory, and Wisconsin returned to its 1849 ban. In Michigan, the ruling threatened to reactivate the 1931 abortion ban, raising the prospect of widespread criminalization, even as some liberal prosecutors promised to resist it.

But the ban was blocked by state courts, with the state court of appeals halting the law’s enforcement and the state court of claims holding that it ran afoul of the state constitution. The issue was still pending before the state court of appeals, however, and the passage of Proposal 3 all but guarantees that the 1931 ban will be held unconstitutional.

With the amendment’s passage in hand, abortion will remain lawful in Michigan—and protected as a “fundamental right,” meaning that state courts will critically evaluate infringements on the right.

The post Measures to Protect Abortion Rights Triumph on Tuesday appeared first on Bolts.

This guide walks you through how concretely the 2022 midterms will shape abortion access. 

We identify nine questions that touch on reproductive rights that state and local elections will decide, and the critical battles that will help answer them. The guide successively covers the meaning of state constitutions, the viability of new laws, and matters of law enforcement.

This guide is just one small slice. The elections mentioned, which cover 21 states, are by no means exhaustive: There are many other races playing out along similar lines for offices that will wield power over these issues for years to come. Still, we hope to give you a taste of the enormous range of powers held by state and local officials, and some of the ways that candidates on all sides are getting creative in how they’d use these in the wake of the Dobbs decision.

What are the candidates running for prosecutor saying in your county, if there’s an election? What about those running for sheriff and attorney general, governor and judge? The very need to ask these questions underscores the magnitude of the loss of federal protections, though local and state conflicts over the issue are by no means new; and that means many candidates already have long histories and some ideas when it comes to how they will approach abortion access.

1. Will voters affirm or reject state constitutional protections for abortion access?

Never have there been more referendums on abortion than this year. In six states, voters will weigh in directly on the issue, and more indirectly in a seventh, and the results could establish new bulwarks against the right’s efforts—or else open the door to new restrictions.

These stakes are clear in: Kansas’s August referendum… 

In a landmark ruling that’s now styming Kansas conservatives, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the state constitution’s equal protection clause protects access to abortion. But voters will soon decide whether to adopt a constitutional amendment, championed by Republicans, that would overturn that ruling and lift its protections; the election is scheduled for the lower-turnout August primary. 

… and a likely Michigan referendum in November.

Pro-choice organizers in Michigan this week submitted more than 700,000 signatures on behalf of a constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion rights, far more than the amount needed to get the measure on November’s ballot. If enough signatures are verified, voters will decide the fate of the state’s pre-Roe abortion ban. A progressive win here would be one of Election Night’s defining stories since it would protect access to abortion in a populous swing state, one where governance has long been out of reach for Democrats due to GOP gerrymanders. (That may change this year too.)

Also keep an eye on:

California and Vermont already enable access to abortions, but this fall they could become the first states to explicitly codify the right to abortion and contraception in their state constitutions. 

Inversely, Kentucky conservatives are championing an amendment that would say that the state constitution provides no protections for abortion. Kentucky courts have not affirmed such a right, so this referendum would not overturn existing protections. Still, pro-choice groups have asked judges to do so; that door would all but close if the amendment passed. In Montana, voters may decide that a fetus born alive counts as a legal person. Finally, and more indirectly, Alaska holds a referendum, as it does every ten years, on whether to hold a constitutional convention that may change the state constitution; this matters because the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitution’s privacy clause protects abortion access, and some conservatives who favor an abortion ban in Alaska hope for a ‘yes’ win to overturn that precedent.

2. Will new state judges affirm abortion rights, or strike down abortion protections?

State supreme courts are critical battlegrounds for reproductive rights. Nearly a dozen have established that their state constitutions recognize abortion rights. But that landscape is in flux as progressive and conservative litigators aim for new rulings. Upcoming judicial elections will tip the scales in many states; most states elect supreme court justices this year.

These stakes are clear in: Michigan’s supreme court elections…

Governor Gretchen Whitmer and pro-choice organizations want Michigan courts to strike down the state’s pre-Roe ban and find a right to access abortions in the state constitution; the state’s supreme court has yet to rule, and its makeup is a question mark. Democrats enjoy a 4-3 majority on the court, but one justice from each party (Richard Bernstein, a Democrat, and Brian Zahra, a Republican) is up for re-election. Republicans must carry both seats to flip the court.

… and a supreme court election in Montana.

Montana’s supreme court, unlike Michigan’s, has already affirmed that the state constitution protects abortion. But conservatives are asking the high court to overturn that ruling—at the same time as they’re working to push the bench further right. In a heated judicial election this fall, they are backing Jim Brown, a former counsel for the state’s Republican Party, over Justice Ingrid Gayle Gustafson, an incumbent who was appointed by a Democratic governor. 

Also keep an eye on:

The partisan majority of supreme courts is on the line in three other states—Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio—with a combined seven elections between them. These races may be decisive in future cases that touch on abortion rights. Of the three, North Carolina stands out: Abortion remains legal there but the situation could rapidly shift if the GOP makes further gains (see below), making it critical for Democrats to maintain their supreme court majority.

In Kentucky, pro-choice advocates hope to get courts to affirm a right to abortion in the state constitution but a fervently anti-abortion lawmaker is running for a seat on the supreme court. Similarly, conservatives hope to oust a moderate supreme court justice in Arkansas. Finally, eleven justices face retention elections (meaning a yes-or-no vote on whether they should stay in office) in Florida and Kansas, where state jurisprudence is especially fragile right now.

See also: Your State-By-State Guide to the 2022 Supreme Court Elections

3. Will states elect governors who will veto new abortion restrictions?

In some places where abortion remains legal, all that’s standing between virulently anti-abortion legislatures and new restrictions is the veto pen of a pro-choice governor. But for how long?

The stakes are clear in: Pennsylvania’s governor race.

Abortion rights have survived in this state despite Roe’s fall because the GOP legislature has to deal with the veto power of Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat who supports abortion rights. But this status-quo is precarious: Wolf is term-limited and Republicans have nominated far-right lawmaker Doug Mastriano, who has long fought access to abortion, to replace him. The contrast is stark between Mastriano and the Democratic nominee, Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who has opposed new abortion restrictions for decades.

Also keep an eye on:

The Democratic governors of Kansas and Michigan, Laura Kelly and Whitmer, have each used their veto pen to block anti-abortion bills passed by GOP lawmakers. But that shield could soon disappear: Each is up for re-election this fall. That said, each state’s situation is complex: Michigan already has a ban on the books, but Governor Gretchen Whitmer wants state courts to strike it down; in Kansas, the right to an abortion is protected by a court ruling that voters may overturn this summer.

Inversely, Democrats could break the GOP’s control of Arizona and Iowa by flipping these state’s governorships. Arizona’s legal landscape on abortion is in flux, while Iowa’s high court overturned abortion protections in June, opening the door to new restrictions. In New York, where Republican Lee Zeldin would be the first governor opposed to abortion rights in at least 50 years, access would remain broadly protected but Zeldin has signaled he’ll look for ways to chip away.

4. Will states elect legislatures that want to restrict or protect abortion?

Governors are only one part of the puzzle when it comes to new laws; legislative control is just as fundamental. Simply put, will each chamber be favorable or hostile to abortion rights—and if they disagree with their governor, will lawmakers have the votes to override a veto?

These stakes are clear in: North Carolina’s legislative elections.

North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat who supports abortion rights, is sure to be in office through 2024. At the moment Republicans, who control the legislature but lack veto-proof majorities, cannot get restrictions past him. Will that change this fall? If November is very rough for Democrats, the GOP could make enough gains to sideline Cooper.

Also keep an eye on: 

Republicans have failed to override Kansas Governor Laura Kelly’s veto of anti-abortion bills, but even if Kelly wins a second term, they may have an easier time next year if they grow their legislative majorities. Republicans also have outside shots at seizing control of Nevada, New Mexico, and Minnesota state governments if they manage to flip both the governorship and legislature. In the first two states, abortion is currently legal but not protected by state courts; in the third, a court ruling protects abortion but the GOP may still push for some new restrictions.

Inversely, legislative gains by Democrats could protect abortion in Pennsylvania and Michigan, where the party has a stronger shot than it has in decades thanks to fairer maps. Finally, keep an eye on Democratic primaries in Maryland and Rhode Island, where progressive groups like Pro-Choice Maryland are targeting Democrats who oppose abortion. This can matter even where Democrats have supermajorities (as in Maryland) if they need to override a Republican governor’s veto.

5. Will cities and counties empower law enforcement to enforce bans or investigate pregnancy outcomes?

Besides changing state constitutions and laws, proponents of reproductive rights face a vast host of challenges having to do with how to mitigate the harms of existing bans, and that includes the threat of arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. First up are the sheriffs and police chiefs in charge of arresting and investigating people. A few police chiefs and sheriffs in blue-leaning areas like New Orleans have said they would not enforce abortion bans. How might this play out in the midterms? Police chiefs are typically appointed by city governments (which often have more leeway to direct police practices than they utilize), while sheriffs are directly elected.

The stakes are clear in: Wisconsin’s sheriff elections.

The sheriff of Dane County (Madison) put the question of abortion enforcement at the center of Wisconsin’s sheriff elections when he said he would not enforce the state’s 1849 ban on abortion. “Our sheriff’s office has a very strict budget with regards to our time and where we decide to put things,” Kalvin Barrett, a Democrat, told Bolts. He is now running for re-election against Republican Anthony Hamilton, who did not respond to Bolts‘s questions about his position on the issue. Bolts reached out to other candidates running for sheriff in the state. In Milwaukee, the state’s most populous county, all three candidates echoed Barrett’s stance and said they would not use the department’s resources to investigate abortion cases. (All are Democrats.)

In Eau Claire County, where three candidates are running, only Democrat Kevin Otto told Bolts that he would follow Barrett’s footsteps. “I would not enforce the laws on abortion because of the lack of resources and interference into a person’s health matters,” he said. Otto’s Democratic opponent David Riewestahl said it was too early to definitively answer the question, while Republican candidate Don Henning replied he would “investigate complaints as they arise.” 

Also keep an eye on:

Many cities in states with severe abortion restrictions (or that risk having them soon) will elect their municipal governments this year, and the role that their local police departments play in enforcing abortion bans should be central issues. Those cities include Little Rock, Arkansas, Tallahassee, Florida, and Lexington and Louisville, Kentucky.

6. Will counties elect prosecutors who have pledged not to charge abortion cases?

Prosecutors have historically enjoyed vast discretion over what cases to charge, which has made them a highly visible line of defense against the criminal consequences of bans. Already, dozens of prosecutors have said they won’t press charges in cases that involve abortions. As a result, reproductive rights are a major fault line in a host of upcoming elections that pit candidates who say they would enforce restrictions—and candidates who say they’ll decline cases. 

These issues were already present before Dobbs, as zealous prosecutors investigated pregnancy outcomes, as Bolts reported in June. Just last month, a conservative California district attorney lost his re-election bid after prosecuting two women who had experienced stillbirths.

The stakes are clear in: Maricopa County’s prosecutor race (Phoenix)…

Four years after questioning Christine Blasey Ford during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Rachel Mitchell is now the chief prosecutor of Maricopa County in Arizona, home to 4.5 million people. If courts greenlight the state’s new restrictions on abortion, Mitchell has said she would enforce them. But Maricopa is holding a special election this year, which adds further uncertainty since presumptive Democratic Julie Gunnigle has ruled out pressing criminal charges, as Bolts reported in May in partnership with The Appeal. “As Maricopa County attorney I will never prosecute a patient, a provider, or a family for choosing to have an abortion or any other reproductive decision,” Gunnigle said. “Not now, not ever.”

… and in the prosecutor’s race in Florida’s Pasco-Pinellas (St. Petersburg) counties… 

Florida’s Pasco and Pinellas counties, which share a state attorney, have not had a contested election for prosecutor in 30 years despite being home to a combined 1.5 million residents. And what a time to have one: Their judicial district hosts a special election, much like Maricopa, and the two contenders are at odds on whether to enforce the state’s existing ban on abortions after 15-weeks. (Florida laws may soon get harsher still.) Democrat Allison Miller, a local public defender, says she will not prosecute people providing or obtaining an abortion, unlike Republican incumbent Bruce Bartlett, appointed to the job by Governor Ron DeSantis.

… and in the Texas DA elections.

A group of Texas DAs issued a joint statement this spring vowing to not prosecute abortion. And though just a portion of Texas counties vote for a DA this year, November’s elections will shape whether that group grows or shrinks. Democratic DAs who signed that statement are running for re-election in Bexar and Dallas counties. And in two populous counties that have trended bluer, Democrats are hoping to flip the DA offices. “I will not allow the persecution of our neighbors by cynical politicians bent on establishing a theocracy in Texas,” Kelly Higgins, the Democratic nominee in Hays County, wrote on Facebook after the Dobbs decision. In Tarrant County, where a staunchly punitive incumbent is retiring and former President Trump has gotten involved on behalf of the GOP nominee, Democratic nominee Tiffany Burks told Bolts she “does not have any plan to prosecute women or anyone who facilitates an abortion, doctors or whomever.”

Importantly, the discretion of Texas DAs may be strongly tested by conservatives going forward, as lawmakers and the attorney general are working out ways to kneecap these local officials.

Also keep a eye on:

Iowa’s most populous county (Polk, home to Des Moines) is sure to have a new prosecutor come next year, and Democratic nominee Kimberly Graham told Bolts in June she would not prosecute cases linked to abortion; the state supreme court in Iowa struck down abortion protections in June, plunging reproductive rights in the state in greater vulnerability. In Shelby County (Memphis), one of the few staunchly blue counties in Tennessee, Republican DA Amy Weirich has pointedly rejected the idea of issuing a blanket policy on not enforcing abortion ban; Steve Mulroy, her Democratic opponent in the August election, has said prosecutions “should be extremely low priorities” and he has assailed Weirich for lobbying for a harsher law.

See also: Which Counties Elect Their Prosecutors in 2022?

7. Will states elect attorneys general who want to interfere with local prosecutors?

Prosecutors are imperfect bulwarks since any policy they set is at the mercy of the next election, but also because conservatives have mechanisms at their disposal to supersede DAs—and they are plotting to set up more. Chief among them: Attorneys general. In some states, they have the authority to bring criminal charges on their own, and if not to bury providers under civil lawsuits. 

But this authority can cut both ways. Pro-choice candidates are signaling how they too would try to use the powers of this office for the opposite end, namely to stop the prosecution of abortions. When the conservative DA of California’s Kings County prosecuted two women over stillbirths, for instance, Attorney General Roy Bonta blew up the cases through media appearances and convinced a judge to reopen a case.

The stakes are clear in: Michigan’s attorney general election…

While a series of Michigan prosecutors have ruled out prosecuting abortion, they face a major obstacle: The Michigan attorney general’s latitude to step in is greater than in many other states. Democratic incumbent Dana Nessel has ruled out doing so, but she’s up for re-election and her likely general election opponent, Matt DePerno, has indicated he is in favor of enforcing bans.

… and the Arizona attorney general election.

Kris Mayes, Democrats’ likely nominee for Arizona attorney general, wants to go a step further: She is not just ruling out prosecuting people herself, but she also proposes stopping others from doing so. She says she would use her office’s supervisory authority over all local prosecutors, an authority that is broader in Arizona than elsewhere, to direct all of Arizona’s county attorneys to not enforce bans on abortion. But the Republican candidates in this race largely oppose abortion rights; were they to win, they may flex their power and try to supercede Democratic prosecutors who are refusing to bring criminal charges. Either way, legal questions about the extent of the attorney general’s authority will remain, likely leading to more clashes.

Also keep an eye on: 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, is among the country’s most militant officials in restricting abortion and has vowed to help local prosecutors enforce the state’s harsh laws; he may also bring ruinous civil lawsuits against providers. His opponent Rochelle Garza could not be more different. She has worked on defending access to abortion as an attorney and says she would set up a reproductive rights unit in the office if she wins, which is always a tough proposition for a Texas Democrat—though Paxton’s own criminal indictments may give her an additional opening. In Georgia and Ohio, two states that are looking to implement severe restrictions, Democratic nominees Jen Jordan and Jeffrey Crossman are also speaking on the issue; Jordan says she would issue legal opinions to undercut local prosecutors who are bringing criminal charges, for instance, and Crossman refuses to defend the law in court. Their Republican opponents, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (who responded skeptically to a 10 year-old rape victim who sought an abortion), are currently defending abortion restrictions in court.

8. Will states elect governors who promise clemency?

In states that have already banned or severely restricted abortion, a pro-choice governor, on their own, won’t shield people from arrest and prosecution. But some governors may at least have the authority—by themselves or through appointees to a board, depending on state rules—to issue clemencies for people who are convicted of violating criminal codes.

The stakes are clear in: Wisconsin’s governor race.

Democratic Governor Tony Evers has said he would grant clemency to anyone convicted under the state’s 1847 ban on abortions. But Evers is up for re-election this fall, and his GOP opponents have made it clear they support enforcing the ban. 

Also keep an eye on: 

Wisconsin governors have broader discretion than most to grant clemency; many other states dilute that power considerably. 

Still, at least one other state is electing a governor who will have somewhat direct authority to issue pardons: Ohio. Republican Governor Mike DeWine faces Nan Whaley, Dayton’s Democratic mayor, who is an abortion rights supporter and says she would veto new restrictions. She did not respond to a request for comment on clemency powers. The issue has also come up in Arizona, where the governor shares power with a clemency board. Democrat Marco Lopez has said he would support pardoning people convicted over abortions; Katie Hobbs, the other Democrat in the race, supports abortion rights but did not reply to a request for comment on clemency. 

Kentucky’s Democratic governor, who has broad authority over pardons and is only up for re-election in 2023, has not said how he would use his own clemency powers.

9. Will new judges bless gerrymanders that would lock in anti-abortion majorities?

Before overturning Roe v. Wade, this conservative U.S. Supreme Court also refused to rein in partisan gerrymandering. And there’s a direct connection to abortion rights: The GOP in many states has drawn maps that lock in legislative control, making it extraordinarily difficult for pro-choice majorities to emerge even if most residents vote for them. A few state courts have guarded against this dynamic—but their judgements are now on the line.

The stakes are clear in: North Carolina and Ohio’s supreme court elections.

These two states’ supreme courts have each struck down GOP gerrymanders, though Ohio lawmakers have for now circumvented those rulings. But new court majorities may emerge in November—five justices will be elected across the two states—and re-open the floodgates of gerrymandering, as Bolts reported in March. Friendlier courts could enable the GOP to draw maps that last the full decade and enshrine anti-abortion majorities. (Note that, while North Carolina is sure to have new congressional maps by 2024, it will be tricky for Republicans to justify drawing new legislative maps before the end of the decade due to legal idiosyncrasies, but they may try if they think they’ve secured a high court would rubber stamp their maneuver.)

And there will be no rest for the weary. Virginia Governor Glenn Younkin indicated that he may push for severe restrictions if the legislature were favorable to it, which has already marked the state’s elections for the state Assembly and Senate in the fall of 2023 as critical for abortion.

The post Your Guide to Local Elections Where Abortion Is on the Line This Year appeared first on Bolts.

On Nov. 3, voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota approved ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis for recreational use.

“Americans across the country have embraced the idea that marijuana legalization is the policy decision that best serves the interests of public health, public safety, and, most importantly, justice,” said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocated for the measures.

The results are a clean sweep for marijuana legalization, and a dramatic acceleration for a movement whose first wins came in Colorado and Washington in 2012. Many other states have since followed suit. 

With Tuesday’s four successes, there are now 15 states, alongside Washington, D.C., that have opted to legalize the recreational possession and sale of marijuana.

In addition, voters in Mississippi and South Dakota approved initiatives that enable the use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes; voters in Oregon legalized psilocybin therapy and decriminalized drugs; and partial returns showed voters in Washington, D.C. opting to largely decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms, though that result is not yet final.

Marijuana legalization will make for a stark change in Arizona because the state has had harsh marijuana laws. Possession of even a small amount of cannabis is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Since incarceration can become a barrier to employment, education, housing, and even the right to vote, one marijuana conviction can upend people’s lives—especially people from marginalized communities.

Arizona’s Proposition 207 will now set up a system of marijuana sales in the state.

With legalization, Arizona, alongside Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota, will have an opportunity to reverse the effects of the war on drugs on marginalized communities. 

And advocates say that racial justice should be central to legalization efforts.

“People of color are arrested at far higher rates for marijuana possession than white people,” Jared Moffat, campaigns coordinator at the Marijuana Policy Project, told The Appeal: Political Report in October, “and that’s not due to any difference in usage. That’s just due to a racist policy.”

In South Dakota, for instance, Black people are five times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession.

But when it comes to making amends for racial injustice, this year’s four legalization measures vary. 

Only Arizona’s initiative includes provisions to ensure that communities harmed by drug criminalization benefit financially from legalized cannabis.

It allows people with past cannabis convictions to apply to have their records expunged. Everyone who applies would be presumed qualified unless proved otherwise, according to Stacy Pearson, a spokesperson for Smart and Safe Arizona, the campaign promoting Proposition 207. 

Its cannabis initiative would place a 16 percent tax on marijuana sales, which would fund social services as well as a social equity ownership program to help those with past marijuana convictions get licenses to produce and sell their own cannabis.

But the majority of early priority licenses for recreational cannabis would go to existing medical dispensaries. Only 26 out of 160 licenses would be reserved for social equity applicants and rural counties without a dispensary, according to Pearson.

Advocates have pointed out similar shortcomings in other states. Illinois is considered to have the most robust social equity program, but people who qualify still struggle to secure enough capital to start a business. 

New Jersey’s initiative doesn’t specify regulations beyond tax limits. Now that it has passed, other details will need to be worked out by the state’s Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Advocates plan to push for social equity provisions in that process. 

Provisions that are specifically meant to advance social equity are also absent from the initiatives in Montana and South Dakota.

In recent years, other states have legalized marijuana without provisions to repair the harms of criminalization, but later made reforms to address that issue. Michigan voters approved an initiative to legalize marijuana in 2018, and in October of this year the state adopted a law that enables the expungement of past convictions.

This article is adapted from an October story previewing these four referendums. Daniel Nichanian updated it with the incoming results.

The post Four States Just Legalized Marijuana appeared first on Bolts.