The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race, marked by a record-breaking $100 million in campaign spending, has highlighted a growing trend in judicial contests across the United States, where races are becoming increasingly costly and contentious. The involvement of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk underscores the significance these elections have gained. Such developments raise questions about the efficacy of using elections to fill roles meant to be nonpartisan, as these courts are pivotal in deciding state laws and citizen initiatives.
The polarized nature of these races was starkly illustrated when a Republican-majority appellate panel in North Carolina favored a GOP state Supreme Court candidate seeking to discard numerous ballots from the previous November’s election. Such contests are becoming critical for both major political parties, as state high courts play decisive roles in issues like redistricting, abortion, and voting rights, as well as resolving election disputes.
In response to the increasing politicization, some states have adopted election processes for selecting justices, aiming to enhance transparency and accountability. However, critics argue that these elections often fail to meet their intended goals. A merit-based selection process is seen by some as a means to ensure Supreme Courts remain less predictable along political lines.
Currently, seven states hold partisan elections for Supreme Court justices, while 14, including Wisconsin, conduct nonpartisan elections. Nine states appoint justices through governors, two use legislative appointments, four employ hybrid models, and 14 utilize a merit selection process involving nonpartisan nominating commissions.
Kansas, for example, has long used an appointment process lauded for its nonpartisan nature. However, Republicans in the state now advocate for a system where justices stand for election, aiming to forge a more conservative court. The proposed change would require Supreme Court candidates to campaign publicly, potentially amplifying political influence.
Critics warn Kansas could witness significant campaign spending similar to that in Wisconsin if voters approve the proposal. They argue that the current system prioritizes judicial experience over campaign skills. Meanwhile, proponents see elections as a means to reveal any political dynamics at play.
Other states, like Oklahoma and Alaska, have also considered transitioning to elections for judicial appointments but have yet to advance such initiatives. In North Carolina and Ohio, legislatures have added party labels to ballots, ostensibly to benefit conservative judicial candidates, aligning courts more closely with legislative agendas.
Pennsylvania is preparing for a potentially intense Supreme Court election, mirroring Wisconsin’s recent experience. This fall, Democrats will defend their 5-2 court majority, with substantial campaign spending expected. Observers predict that the dynamics seen in Wisconsin may repeat, affecting the outcome of critical election disputes in the future.
The Bottom Line
- Judicial elections have become battlegrounds for political influence, impacting state laws and rights such as abortion and voting.
- High campaign spending raises concerns about the impartiality and independence of the judiciary, affecting public confidence in legal systems.
- Proposals to change judicial selection methods, like in Kansas, could lead to increased political polarization in court rulings.
- States opting for election-based systems may face challenges in maintaining nonpartisan, merit-based judicial appointments.
- The outcome of these judicial races could significantly influence policies and legal interpretations on essential societal issues.