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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States with regular supreme court elections 

Alabama

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

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

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

Arkansas

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

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

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

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

Georgia

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

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

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

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

Idaho

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

Illinois

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

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

Kentucky

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

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

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

Louisiana

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

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

Michigan

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesota

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

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

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

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

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

Mississippi

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

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

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

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

 
Montana

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada

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

North Carolina

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

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

Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

Oregon

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

Texas: Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

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

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

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

Washington

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

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

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

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

West Virginia

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

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

States that only have retention elections this year 

Alaska

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

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

Arizona

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

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

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

Colorado

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

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

Florida

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

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

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

Indiana 

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

Iowa

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

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

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

Maryland

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

Missouri

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

Nebraska

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

New Mexico

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

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

Oklahoma: Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals

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

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

South Dakota

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

Tennessee

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

Utah

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

Wyoming

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

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

Illinois was supposed to make history at the start of this year: with the full implementation of the Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act, or SAFE-T Act, passed by the legislature in 2021, it would have been the first state to completely get rid of the use of cash bail. 

Instead, the part of the law eliminating cash bail, known as the Pretrial Fairness Act, is on hold after a Kankakee County judge ruled in favor of 58 state’s attorneys and sheriffs who sued Illinois to stop it from going into effect, and on December 31 the state’s supreme court stayed its effective date until it can weigh in. In striking the provision down, the circuit court judge, Judge Thomas W. Cunnington, deployed a novel argument: that the legislature’s effort to reform bail practices violated the separation of powers between the legislature and the courts enshrined in Illinois’s state constitution.

“Legislative enactments undermining the ‘traditional and inherent’ powers of the judicial branch, particularly, those restricting judicial discretion, violate the Separation of Powers Clause,” he wrote. The court has “independent, inherent authority to deny or revoke bail.”

Sarah Staudt, director of policy at Chicago Appleseed, an organization that advocates for court reform in Illinois, said Cunnington’s argument would set a dangerous precedent if the state supreme court allows it to stand. It would indicate, she warns, that courts “have authority, despite the legislature, to do whatever they want,” essentially walling them and their procedures off from the reach of the people democratically elected by voters. 

“It’s a pretty anti-democratic idea,” she added. 

The Illinois supreme court agreed to hear an appeal and will hold oral arguments no earlier than March, though no date has been set. Briefs were filed from both sides in late January.

In a brief he filed in defense of the law,  Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul agrees that Cunnington’s ruling misreads the separation of powers. Raoul, a Democrat who just won re-election in November against a Republican challenger who ran on repealing the Pretrial Fairness Act, quotes past decisions to write that “’[t]he legislature may enact laws involving judicial practice’ without violating separation-of-powers principles as long as those laws ‘do not infringe unduly upon the judiciary’s inherent powers.’” He adds that the act’s provisions “merely regulate the courts’ exercise of an inherent judicial authority, namely the authority to detain defendants pending trial, and do not unduly infringe upon it.”

In making his argument, Cunnington referenced one case in New York City after cash bail was eliminated there for many lower-level offenses. Cunnington says this is the only trial court to rule on whether eliminating cash bail conflicts with a separation of powers and which found that the reform “wrest[s] from courts… final discretion” in setting conditions of pretrial detainment. But it’s “a big departure,” said Kate Schwartz, a partner at Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd., a law firm that is part of an amicus brief to the supreme court in favor of the Pretrial Fairness Act, to go from that New York ruling to arguing that “the legislature can’t impose any rules or requirements [on] the overall system.” That, she said, is a brand new cudgel against bail reform and efforts to revamp the court system.

If the state supreme court sides with Cunnington’s interpretation, critics say, it may have broad ramifications in Illinois and elsewhere. “It would suggest that courts are able to have a really broad range of discretion,” said Staudt. It wouldn’t just give them absolute authority over individual cases, but also over the parameters within which they are supposed to make those individual decisions. 

“That is something that is a legislative function, not a judicial function,” Staudt said, warning that, taking Cunnington’s decision to its logical conclusion, the legislature may no longer be able to weigh in on a range of issues that are usually seen as matters for policymakers and lawmakers to decide. 

Pilar Weiss, director of Community Justice Exchange, a national organization that works to end cash bail, agrees that the doctrine would leave judges with little oversight. “The whole thing about separation of powers is the judges can’t make their own rules,” she said. “You have to have another body…to help make and enforce the rules.”

She also shared a concern that, if the supreme court upheld Cunnington’s ruling, the effects may ricochet in other states where lawmakers are open to changing bail practices. 

“There might be a state in which a state legislature was considering pretrial reform and now feel that they can’t,” she said. 

Critics of Cunnington’s decision point to a myriad of ways that Illinois lawmakers already get to shape the court systems. “The legislature and the judiciary have always shared power when it comes to making decisions about criminal cases,” Staudt said. 

For instance, Illinois has a statute on the books allowing parties in a case to call for the substitution of a judge with a new one, one time per case, without needing to provide evidence of the need for a new judge. “If the legislature can tell a judge the party has the right to get rid of you altogether,” said Matt Piers, president of Hughes Socol Piers, the legislature has “a pretty powerful authority to tell judges what they can and can’t do.” 

Lawmakers in Illinois and elsewhere also impose mandatory sentences on their court systems or, on the other hand, sentencing limitations. “Legislatures all over the country, including the one we’re talking about the Illinois legislature, pass laws that limit what judges can do in criminal cases and other cases,” Piers said. It’s “paradigmatic.” 

Cunnington’s argument relies in large part on the idea that courts have the authority to keep the public safe and ensure that those charged with crimes return to court after their arrests. But the SAFE-T Act still allows judges to set plenty of other conditions on someone’s release: travel restrictions, drug testing, electronic monitoring, home confinement, restraining orders. Research has found that cash bail, on the other hand, does not increase people’s return to court for later hearings or enhance public safety. “The judges have a tremendous authority left to them,” Piers said. “The one thing they can’t do is use a condition that has proven to be an abysmal failure.”

Cunnington’s case also relies on the idea that the Illinois constitution enshrines bail as part of the criminal legal system, and that lawmakers cannot restrict that. But Piers points out that, while the Illinois state constitution states, “All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties,” that doesn’t mean money has to be involved. Bailable means “with appropriate conditions everybody has a right to be released pretrial because you are presumed innocent,” he said. “Bond is just a written promise to do something.” 

State Republicans, who have fought the SAFE-T Act, applauded Cunnington’s ruling and seemed to side with the judge’s reasoning. Senate Minority Leader Dan McConchie called the law “sloppy, rushed, [and] poorly drafted,” and a threat to public safety. “And on top of this, the central component has now been ruled unconstitutional.”

Staudt stressed that there was an effort to oust lawmakers who decided to get rid of cash bail, but Democrats retained a comfortable majority in the legislature in November. In fact, they expanded their majority in the state House. 

Democrats also have a 5-2 majority on the state supreme court because they swept the two supreme court elections held in the state in November. 

For Staudt, the court’s upcoming decision on Cunnington’s separation of powers doctrine will test who gets to decide the basic parameters of the court system in Illinois.

“I certainly worry about the outcome of this,” Staudt said. “We have to allow democratically elected legislators…to respond to their constituents and pass laws that reform our really broken criminal legal system.”

The post With Illinois Cash Bail Case, Courts May Wall Themselves Off from Reform appeared first on Bolts.

If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Roe vs. Wade, the right to access abortion will stay protected in Kansas—at least for now—because of a recent ruling by its state supreme court. The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down Republican gerrymanders earlier this year, producing fairer midterm maps. And last year, Washington State’s supreme court restricted sentences of life without parole for youth beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has established. 

Judges grounded all of these decisions in their state constitutions. As conservatives flex their stronghold on the federal bench to unravel decades of constitutional protections, state courts can offer alternative paths for civil rights litigation. Inversely, some state courts are proving as zealously conservative as the U.S. Supreme Court, as when Louisiana’s high court effectively restricted the right to protest earlier this year.

The midterm elections are now poised to reshuffle many supreme courts. Voters will elect dozens of justices all around the country, expanding or restricting these courts’ viability as a counter-weight to federal judges.

These elections will decide many of the judges who will hear election law cases in 2024, when former President Donald Trump could once again push to overturn election results. They may also hear many more cases dealing with reproductive rights if the end of Roe makes each state responsible for determining the legality of abortion.

The stakes are most transparent in the four states where the partisan balance of their supreme courts is on the line this fall—Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio.

But the 2022 cycle could also shift jurisprudence across the country if the fragile balance of power is altered in some state supreme courts. In Arkansas, Montana, and New Mexico, for instance, conservative lawyers are running to push the bench further to the right. In Washington State, justices who have formed a narrow progressive bloc are up for re-election.

Most states with supreme court elections this year organize them as regular elections, namely races where multiple candidates face off against each other. Other states straddle a middle ground between appointed and elected judiciaries, with appointed judges facing so-called retention elections, which are up-and-down votes without challengers. It is exceedingly rare for justices to be ousted in retention elections—in fact, in some states this has never happened—though this is at least an avenue for major upheavals this fall in populous states such as Arizona, California, and Florida, if organizing on the left or right were to pick-up. 

This breakdown from Bolts walks you through each state’s supreme court elections, telling you who’s running at this stage and why the race could matter. 

As the year progresses, new resignations and vacancies could spark new judicial elections, or even cancel them. Ballotpedia’s database can keep you up-to-date.

States with regular supreme court elections

Alabama

A longtime election lawyer for Republicans, Greg Cook is now sowing doubt about the handling of the 2020 election and blaming other state supreme courts for allowing expanded voting options that year. These Trumpian concerns are a major reason he is running to replace a retiring Alabama justice this year, he says. In the May Republican primary, Cook defeated lower-court judge Debra Jones, who also tied herself to the former president, in the Republican primary. He will be favored against Democrat Anita Kelly in the November general election given the state’s politics.

In the state’s second supreme court election, Republican Justice Kelli Wise drew no challenger.

Arkansas

Arkansas’s supreme court elections are ostensibly nonpartisan—but in the May 24 elections, candidates with close ties to the GOP hope to push the court to the right. 

Justice Karen Baker faces Gunner DeLay, a lower-court judge and former Republican lawmaker. DeLay, besides touting his conservative politics, is using the old-school tactic of attacking Baker over a vote she took to vacate a murder conviction. (The court found in that case that a charge had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.) And one of the two challengers to Justice Robin Wynne is the former executive director of the state Republican Party, Chris Carnahan. (A third justice, Rhonda Wood, is unopposed.)

Update (Sept. 26): Baker defeated DeLay on May 24, but Carnahan forced Wynne in a November runoff, Bolts reported.

Georgia 

On paper, the 2022 cycle had the potential to rock Georgia’s supreme court: Four seats, a majority of seats on the court, were meant to be on the ballot at once. But by the time the filing deadline passed, one of those four elections was canceled, and two incumbents recently appointed by Governor Brian Kemp had drawn no opponent. 

The reason: A “dystopian” loophole that allows Georgia officials to game the system by delaying elections at the last minute, pulling the rug out from under challengers late into a campaign—as state Republicans did in 2018. The gambit appears to be having a chilling effect on candidates’ willingness to jump in.  

As the state’s supreme court moves further to the right, at least on criminal justice issues, this legal loophole helps Republicans lock down a conservative bench as long as they have the governorship. The one justice who faces an opponent in the May election is Verda Colvin, against Veronica Brinson.

Idaho

Justices Robyn Brody and Colleen Zahn will each be unopposed as they seek a new term. 

Even though it is mostly made up of Republican appointees, this supreme court has protected progressives’ efforts to use direct democracy to circumvent the GOP-run state government. In 2019, it ruled against a conservative lawsuit seeking to invalidate a ballot initiative that expanded Medicaid; last summer, it struck down a Republican law that would have made it significantly harder to qualify an initiative on the ballot. Zahn just joined the court in the summer of 2021 and took part in neither of those decisions; Brody was part of the majority in the latter ruling.

Illinois

Partisan control of the Illinois supreme court could flip, and Republicans had to score an unlikely win just to get this far. A Democratic justice lost an up-or-down retention vote in 2020 and had to leave the court, which triggered an extra election to replace him this year. Two seats are on the ballot, and Republicans would seize control of the court—and with it the power to revisit the state’s Democratic gerrymanders, among other state issues like pension reform—if they win both.

Illinois justices are elected by district rather than statewide, which helps Republicans as neither of the two elections that will decide the court’s partisan balance involves any voter from heavily Democratic Cook County. (The state constitution gives Cook County three supreme court seats, and the rest of the state gets four.) Democrats redrew the judicial map last year for the first time since the 1960s; the 2nd district (Lake, Kane, McHenry, Kendall and DeKalb counties) and 3rd district (Bureau, DuPage, Grundy, Kankakee, Iroquois, LaSalle, Will counties) will decide the court’s balance. 

Separately, one Illinois justice from each party is facing a retention election. 

Kentucky

Joseph Fischer, a Republican lawmaker who has led the fight to pass abortion restrictions in the Kentucky legislature, is now running for a seat on the state supreme court. He is challenging Michelle Keller, a Democratic-appointed justice, in the sixth district, in northern Kentucky. That election is one of several that will decide this supreme court’s membership this year, since two justices are not seeking re-election in the second and fourth districts. Kentucky’s high court has been an active player in the battles between the Democratic governor and Republican legislature, for instance in its unanimous ruling last year reinstating a law that limited the governor’s public health emergency powers.

But the biggest fireworks in Kentucky’s judicial elections may be found in the very local election for the circuit court of Franklin County, a small jurisdiction that has outsized importance for civil rights and voting rights and has drawn the attention of U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, as Bolts reported in February. 

Louisiana

The Louisiana Supreme Court issued a 6-1 ruling earlier this year that makes protesters guilty by association, threatening the right to protest. And conservatives’ stronghold on the court is sure to continue after 2022. The one justice due to face voters this year is John Weimer, who joined the majority in that ruling, and who represents the 6th judicial district, a large coastal area in the southeast of Louisiana. Weimer faced no opponent in his prior two elections in 2002 and 2012; the filing deadline for 2022 has not yet passed. 

Update (Sept. 26): No one filed to challenge Weimer by the filing deadline for the third consecutive cycle. Weimer has thereby secured another term.

Michigan

The 2022 elections will decide nothing less than who controls the state supreme court in one of the nation’s premier swing states during the 2024 presidential race. And since allies of Donald Trump who trot out his Big Lie are trying to take over the machinery of election administration in Michigan, this supreme court may come to play an exceptionally important role at that time. The court’s majority will also be critical on criminal justice issues given a new slate of party-line decisions this year.

Democrats currently enjoy a 4-3 majority on the court. One justice from each party faces voters this year (Richard Bernstein and Brian Zahra, respectively). Republicans need to win both seats to regain control of the court.

Minnesota

Natalie Hudson and Gordon Moore, who are both justices appointed by Democratic governors, are up for re-election this year. Minnesota’s supreme court elections appear as nonpartisan on the ballot, and incumbents have easily won all elections held over the last decade. 

Update (Sept. 26): No one filed to run against either Hudson or Moore.

Montana

Conservatives want more control over Montana’s judiciary, and they have tried (unsuccessfully so far) to change election rules. This year, they are taking aim at both supreme court justices on the ballot, Democratic-appointed Ingrid Gayle Gustafson and GOP-appointed James Rice. 

Gustafson in particular faces an opponent who enjoys strong support from the state’s Republican officials: Jim Brown, a former counsel for the state’s Republican Party, as well as for a group that took down the state’s election disclosure laws. (A lower-court judge, Mike McMahon, is running in this election as well.) Montana’s supreme court is now at the center of the state’s latest voting rights disputes, as it’s long been, adding special importance to this showdown.

Nevada

Incumbent judges frequently go unopposed, and that will be the case this year for Justice Ron Parraguirre. But what’s more surprising is that the retirement of Justice James Hardesty has also occasioned no contest: Linda Bell, a lower court judge who has worked as a federal public defender and as a local prosecutor, is the only candidate and will join the state’s highest court. 

New Mexico

New Mexico’s state supreme court, which is currently entirely made up of Democratic justices, is sure to keep its Democratic majority this fall. But Republicans could narrow their deficit; Justices Julie Vargas and Briana Zamora, both appointees of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, will face GOP challengers Thomas Montoya and Kerry Morris, respectively. 

In a letter touting his candidacy, Morris casts Montoya and himself as “conservative voices,” and frames his bid as an answer “to the power of George Soros and Zucker Bucks [in reference to Mark Zuckerberg] to control the elections in New Mexico.” As Bolts reported in March, some on the right are fomenting conspiracies tying election funding to Soros and Zuckerberg, both of whom are Jewish, often spuriously.

North Carolina

The math is simple but the stakes are high in North Carolina. Democratic justices hold four of seven Supreme Court seats but they must defend two this year. If a Republican flips just one of them, they would gain control of the court. 

Given the state’s recent history, a partisan flip would affect the outcome of major civil rights cases. In recent years, the Democratic-majority court has voted on party lines to struck down GOP gerrymanders expanded the scope of racial discrimination appeals in the criminal legal system. It is now considering the constitutionality of the state’s felony disenfranchisement statutes in a case that may restore voting rights to tens of thousands of North Carolinians.

Depending on the outcome, Democrats may rue the 2020 cycle, when Democratic Chief Justice Cheri Beasley lost her re-election race by just 401 votes.

North Dakota

Justice Daniel Crothers is running for a new 10-year term unopposed, just like the last two times he faced voters, now that the filing deadline has passed for anyone to challenge him.

Ohio

Ohio’s highest court struck down Republican gerrymanders on 4-3 votes this year, with the three Democratic justices who prevailed in 2018 and 2020 in the majority, joined by Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor. 

But everything is now on the line in 2022. Three seats are on the ballot, and all are now held by Republican justices, so Democrats have a shot at grabbing a majority of the court. But the court could also shift to the right because O’Connor is barred from seeking re-election due to her age. This means that, if Republicans sweep the cycle’s three elections, and even if these would all be partisan holds, it would likely tip the balance toward them in future redistricting cases, and re-open the gerrymandering floodgates.

One twist: The only Democrat running for O’Connor’s chief justice seat is Jennifer Brunner, who is already a justice on the court. Were she to win and flip that seat for Democrats, Ohio’s Republican governor would likely get to appoint Brunner’s successor. In other words, Democrats must flip one of the other two seats—ousting either Pat Fischer or Pat DeWine, the son of the state’s governor—to be sure to seize a court majority. 

Oregon

Governor Kate Brown appointed Roger DeHoog, a lower-court judge with past experience as a public defender, to the state Supreme Court in January. The appointment was noteworthy given the dearth of justices who have worked as public defenders in state supreme courts.

DeHoog is now seeking a full 6-year term—and he is sure to win, since no one filed to challenge him.

Texas

Conservative “stop the steal” activists fell short in their effort to oust a Republican judge in the March primary; they were angry at Scott Walker’s vote late last year to limit the attorney general’s efforts to investigate voter fraud. Now, it’s time for the general election. All 18 judges across the state’s two high courts are Republican, and five of them (including Walker) will face Democratic challengers in November. 

Democrats will have their work cut out for them: They haven’t won a statewide election in the state since 1994, and all the seats on the 2022 ballot (three on the Court of Criminal Appeals, which handles criminal cases, and three on the Supreme Court) feature a GOP incumbent. Of note: Two of the Democratic challengers, Erin Nowell and Amanda Reichek, are lower-court judges who beat Republican incumbents in 2018.

Washington

Washington’s supreme court has grown more progressive and diverse with Governor Jay Inslee’s appointments, with major ramifications for criminal justice. Last year, the court issued landmark rulings that expanded restrictions on life sentences, and that struck down state statutes that criminalized drug possession. (State Democrats then passed a law that makes drug possession a misdemeanor; it was a felony before the court’s ruling.) Both rulings were 5-4, a sign of the importance of court membership even in reliably Democratic-states.

Two of the justices in this emerging progressive majority, Mary Yu and Helen Whitener, have to face voters to secure new terms this year, as does a third incumbent, Barbara Madsen.

Incumbent justices seeking re-election in Washington have won very easily in recent cycles; the elections appear on the ballot as non-partisan.

Update (Sept. 26): None of the three justices who are seeking a new term this year will face an opponent on the ballot.

States that only have retention elections this year

Alaska

Daniel Winfree, the only sitting justice appointed by former Governor Sarah Palin, is technically up for retention this year, but he is set to hit the mandatory retirement age early next year anyway. Whomever is elected governor this fall will appoint Winfree’s replacement, and at least one other justice, and candidates are connecting the dots to future of abortion rights.

Arizona

Bill Montgomery built a punitive record as prosecutor of Arizona’s Maricopa County until he was nominated to the state supreme court in 2019 by the Republican governor. This year, he faces his first retention election, alongside other Republican-nominated justices. The political context is explosive: The GOP expanded the court’s size and changed the appointment procedure last decade to solidify conservative power.

On paper, all of this could all add up to a major showdown—if it weren’t so exceedingly rare for Arizona judges to fail retention elections. When voters ousted a county judge in 2014, it was the first time an Arizona judge had lost a retention election in decades. And it has not happened since.

California 

It would mark a significant break with recent history if California’s retention elections proved contentious this year. No justice has so much as dipped below two-thirds of the vote in the last two midterm cycles. Still, four justices are up for retention this year—one appointed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, another by Jerry Brown, and two by Gavin Newsom.

Progressives looking to affect the court have focused their efforts on pressuring Governor Gavin Newsom to appoint a justice with background as a public defender, which has not happened in decades in this state. But both of Newsom’s appointments have prosecutorial experience instead. 

Florida

Five of the seven justices on Florida’s supreme court are up for retention this year, including two appointed by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. On paper, then, Democrats have a path to reverse the court’s dramatic rightward shift; also on paper, the right could push its advantage since one of the justices on the ballot, Jorge Labarga, is part of the court’s shrinking left flank.

But in practice, it would be an immense undertaking to convince the electorate to fire a justice. No judge has ever lost a retention election in Florida. 

And regardless of the ballot box, conservatives are likely to further solidify their hold on this court since Alan Lawson (one of the court’s less conservative justices) recently announced he would retire over the summer, granting DeSantis yet another appointment.

Indiana

Justice Steven David was meant to face a retention election in 2022, but he indicated instead that he would retire at the end of the year, so Indiana will host no supreme court race this year. Republican Governor Eric Holcomb will choose David’s replacement in the coming months.

Iowa

Not long ago, Iowa’s supreme court leaned liberal, as it issued a landmark ruling on same-sex marriage in 2009 and considered other progressive lawsuits. But the court has swung to the right alongside the rest of the state because conservatives ousted three justices in the 2010 cycle, and later Republican governors got to appoint many judges. The 2022 ballot features retention elections for two of GOP Governor Kim Reynolds’s appointees, Dana Oxley and Matthew McDermott, who long worked as a lawyer for Republican politicians.

Kansas

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the state constitution protects access to abortion. That landmark decision, which drew just one dissenter, was the latest in a string of decisions on reproductive rights. Those battles bled into the electoral realm in 2016, when conservative groups led by Kansas for Life targeted a group of justices. But all incumbents prevailed that year by margins no smaller than 10 percentage points.  

This year, six of seven Kansas justices (three of whom joined the court after that 2019 ruling) are on the ballot in retention elections.

Conservatives are seeking another route this year to overturn the court’s rulings on reproductive rights: Kansans will vote on a constitutional amendment on August 2 that would affirm there is no right to an abortion in the state constitution, effectively overturning the court’s 2019 ruling. (If the referendum fails, though, the court’s composition will remain paramount for this issue.)

Redistricting is also on the menu: By the time these retention elections come around, the Kansas supreme court will have settled the uncertain fate of the state’s GOP gerrymander.

Maryland 

Five of the court’s seven judges have been appointed by Republican Governor Larry Hogan and confirmed by the Democratic-controlled state Senate. Hogan’s first four appointees easily cleared their retention elections in past cycles, receiving at least 75 percent of the vote. The fifth, Steven Gould, faces voters this year.

Missouri 

Two judges face voters in retention elections this year: longtime incumbent Zel Fischer, and the recently appointed Robin Ransom. Retention elections have been uneventful in Missouri’s recent history; no judge has received less than 63 percent of the vote over the past ten years, and often they win with even higher margins.

Nebraska 

Nebraskans have overwhelmingly voted to retain their supreme court justices ever since a successful campaign in 1996 to oust David Lanphier over some of his rulings, including one that gave dozens of people incarcerated over murder convictions the opportunity for new trials. There is no indication so far that this year will be any different, with four justices up for retention if they choose to seek new terms.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s supreme court judges have never lost a retention election, according to The Oklahoman, despite the court’s history of high-profile decisions. There’s no reason so far to suspect that 2022 will wield a different result. Up for retention this year: Two longstanding justices who have already won two retention elections, alongside two newly appointed judges.

South Dakota

In November, South Dakota’s Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved initiative that legalized marijuana. The decision could become a campaign issue, considering two of the four justices who issued that ruling are facing voters in a retention election this year.

Tennessee 

Tennessee’s Supreme Court has already shifted rightward in 2022: In January, Governor Bill Lee appointed Sarah Campbell, a conservative jurist and former clerk for Samuel Alito, to replace one of the court’s only two Democratic-appointed justices, who passed away in the fall. 

As recently as 2014, a majority of justices were appointees of a Democratic governor. That year, conservatives launched a major offensive to oust them, but all incumbents prevailed that year by double-digits. Republicans have controlled the governor’s mansion since 2011, though, and they have been able to change the court’s composition through appointments.

The only remaining Democratic-appointed justice, Sharon Lee, is up for retention this year, as is Campbell and other justices. 

Utah

Utah justices facing retention elections over the past decade have all won with at least 75 percent of the vote, which bodes well for Justice Paige Petersen in her retention election this year. The bigger upheaval this year is that GOP Governor Spencer Cox gets to fill two vacancies, including one triggered by the retirement of Thomas Lee, brother of U.S. Senator Mike Lee.

The post Your State-by-State Guide to the 2022 Supreme Court Elections appeared first on Bolts.

But Epstein isn’t running for any of those positions. He is running for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court. He is running, that is, to change policy as a judge. The court’s “justices are not simply our state’s loftiest case deciders,” he wrote on a questionnaire, “they are policy makers.”

Epstein’s campaign challenges the way we approach judicial elections. Institutions like the Illinois Supreme Court shape policies around some of the system’s most critical and controversial aspects, and are sometimes the most direct route for reform, yet candidates rarely lay out policies to inform voters of their views. Epstein thinks they should.

“This is not just a political campaign, it’s an educational campaign,” he told the Appeal: Political Report. “We’ve been going around teaching people about . . . the power of the court to make policy for our justice system.” Epstein is running on reform that would establish rules to eliminate unaffordable cash bail and to provide people charged with crimes more access to the prosecution’s evidence before trial, among other proposals.

These matters all fall under the Illinois Supreme Court’s purview to set the rules that govern criminal procedure, evidence, and ethics—broad areas that touch nearly every aspect of prosecutions from setting bail to jury selection and some aspects of sentencing. And in shaping how the justice system works, the court can take up and vote on such rules directly, rather than through the individual cases it decides.

The court has jealously guarded its control over rulemaking. It used a broad interpretation of “judicial power” in 1982 to hold that the legislature cannot require judges to explain the reasons for their sentencing decisions. Before that, it asserted exclusive control over how juries are selected, when in 1977 it struck down a law that gave lawyers, and not just the trial judge, the right to interview prospective jurors. Outside of amending the state Constitution, then, the court has staked its claim as the sole avenue of reform on these issues.

Still, Epstein is the only one among seven candidates running in this election to focus on the court’s influence in these areas.

“We talk a lot about criminal justice reform,” he told the Appeal: Political Report, “and what people don’t realize is that in some cases we need the Illinois Supreme Court to use its policy making powers to make criminal justice reform real.” 

Epstein, who has worked as an attorney since graduating from law school five years ago, is running against six judges in the Cook County Democratic primary to replace Justice Charles E. Freeman, who retired last year. That includes Justice P. Scott Neville Jr., whom the court appointed to finish Freeman’s term, and is now the de facto incumbent. Illinois elects its supreme court justices by region, with voters in Cook County (the populous jurisdiction that contains Chicago and its suburbs) choosing three of the court’s seven justices. With no Republican candidate, the March 17 primary will likely determine Freeman’s permanent replacement. 

Judicial candidates, whether elected or appointed, generally bristle at the suggestion that they make policy. Often they act as though they have no policy or political views at all, casting themselves as impartial arbiters of legal disputes — mere “umpires” who call “balls and strikes” as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts put it — and refusing to say how policy questions should be resolved. They often limit their campaigns to upholding lofty if vague ideals like independence and fairness and the rule of law. 

Elections for prosecutors have typically been waged on similar grounds, with depoliticized rhetoric and a focus on experience and credentials, but the vast policy discretion they exercise has increasingly reshaped those races. The same may be true for sheriffs.

The reticence of judicial candidates, though, is partly explained by codes of judicial conduct, which generally (including in Illinois) prohibit judges and candidates from making commitments about how they will decide future cases—“no hints, no forecasts, no previews,” as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said at her 1993 Senate confirmation hearing, a phrase that subsequent U.S. Supreme Court nominees adopted. 

One of Epstein’s opponents, Appellate Court Judge Margaret McBride, cites judicial ethics as one reason she has declined to make policy commitments. “It’s totally inappropriate and probably a violation of the code of conduct to have a policy platform,” McBride told the Political Report. “Our constituency is the rule of law, we don’t represent groups or individuals. We must represent the rule of law, so to speak.” 

A spokesperson for another candidate, Appellate Court Judge Cynthia Cobbs, offered similar pushback. “Generally speaking, judges here do not set out a policy platform,” Diana Embil said. “That traditionally has not been what judges running here will do.” The other four candidates did not respond to inquiries about their policies, and their campaign websites do not provide policy platforms.  

But Epstein isn’t talking about future cases or legal questions the court might resolve. He is talking about rules the court has the power—and in some cases the exclusive power—to enact. 

Some of his proposals include creating “open file” discovery that allows people charged with crimes to see all the evidence that prosecutors have, some of which may help the defense, and requiring courts to consider someone’s ability to pay before setting money bail. He also wants to create a higher standard for the use of scientific expert testimony, so that people are not convicted based on faulty and debunked forensic evidence—a case he makes in a short video about how the Salem Witch Trials ended after a new rule barred “spectral evidence.” 

Reform through judicial rulemaking is not unusual. In 2018, the Washington Supreme Court adopted a new rule to address the “implicit, institutional, and unconscious” racial discrimination in jury selection. Under the rule, reasons for excluding jurors are presumed to be invalid if they are historically tied to racial bias and stereotypes—for example, that the prospective juror lives in a high-crime neighborhood, or believes that police officers racially profile. State Supreme Courts in Indiana, Maryland, New Mexico, and Arizona all recently enacted rules that limit the use of money bail. And through the Judicial Conference, the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal court judges write the federal rules of evidence, and civil and criminal procedure. 

In Illinois, the judicial rulemaking process generally begins with submissions, including from the public, to the Supreme Court’s Rules Committee, which takes public comment and evaluates proposed rules. It then makes a recommendation to the full court on whether it should adopt a proposed rule or consider an alternative. 

This rulemaking power of courts isn’t new, and it’s frequently used. It just hasn’t been part of how we talk about picking judges. 

In Illinois, advocates have already been targeting the Supreme Court as a pathway to reform. Consider restorative justice, which provides an alternative to prison and relies on open dialogue between those accused of crimes, the people they have harmed, and members of the community. In 2017, a coalition of advocacy groups proposed a Supreme Court rule to make discussions during that process privileged and confidential. They argued that restorative justice requires candid, honest conversations that are unlikely to happen if prosecutors can later use statements in court. The court did not adopt the rule then. It is now part of Epstein’s platform. 

Also in 2017, a broad coalition of community groups and advocates, including the Cook County state’s attorney, public defender, and sheriff, endorsed a proposed supreme court rule that would require judges to set money bail only at amounts that people can afford to pay. Again, the court did not adopt the rule, which Epstein supports, but created a “Commission on Pretrial Practices” to conduct a “comprehensive review of the Illinois pretrial detention system.” The Commission’s final report, due in December 2019, has not yet been published.

Sharlyn Grace, the executive director of the Chicago Community Bond Fund, told the Political Report that she welcomes Epstein’s rules-focused campaign. “I think the education about what the Supreme Court does and what it could do has been very, very beneficial in this race,” she said.

“If the court was willing to provide more political leadership on [bail reform] and many other similar issues, it would have a profound difference in the lives of people who are going through the court system,” Grace added. 

Cobbs and McBride, two of the appellate judges running against Epstein, also object to judicial candidate policy platforms because of how the rulemaking process typically works, with proposed rules working their way through the court’s Rules Committee before they are considered and voted on by the justices. Embil, Cobb’s spokesperson, described this as a “bottom up” process that allows for input from a wide variety of stakeholders, as opposed to justices dictating rules changes on their own. The court “relies on commissions and committees, and input from citizens and community groups and experts . . . to make changes within the system,” Embil said. “It’s not a top down process for a judge to determine what the rule will be.”

Epstein dismissed these concerns as “passing the buck.” Some of the changes that he sees as urgent were proposed by citizens and community groups, but they did not succeed. Epstein says he wants to revive them and make them work. And the supreme court is free to change a rule without any input from its Rules Committee, he said. “The fact that it’s typically been a bottom up process doesn’t justify the passivity in changing rules that need changing. We need leadership on rules reform.”

Even if voters embrace Epstein’s call for rules reform, though, there are other issues at stake. If Epstein wins, the court would be all white for the first time since Freeman, the retiring justice, who is Black, was elected in 1990. 

But already Epstein has started a new conversation in Illinois about the role of judges, a conversation that he thinks could spark a national reform movement, not unlike the recent wave of progressive prosecutors. 

“If we win this thing, it’s going to change how judicial races are run across the country,” he said. “I think it’s going to change how judges behave across the country, and [they will] start really taking a look at what their responsibilities are in terms of how to ensure our rules are such that fair people can find the truth.”

The post Courts Set Policy and an Illinois Candidate Wants to Finally Talk About It appeared first on Bolts.