Why States Are Facing Off Over Supreme Court Elections

State Supreme Court elections have turned into major political showdowns. These contests have become increasingly expensive and heated, drawing in big money and national figures. The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race, for example, saw a staggering $100 million in campaign spending. This trend isn't new but has been building for years, with both major parties now treating these races as top priorities. The stakes are high because state Supreme Courts make crucial decisions. They handle issues like redistricting, abortion, and voting rights. They also settle disputes over election outcomes. The partisan tone of these races and the influence of outside money raise serious questions. Are elections the best way to fill seats on courts that are supposed to be nonpartisan? Some states have moved toward electing justices to increase transparency and accountability. However, the modern judicial elections are highly politicized and don't seem to be achieving these goals. Seven states use partisan elections, while 14 use nonpartisan elections. Nine states have governors appoint justices, and others use various methods, including merit-based selection. Kansas, for instance, has an appointment process that has been largely nonpartisan for six decades. But Republicans in the state want to change this. They want justices to stand for election, arguing that it would make the process more visible. Critics, however, point to the high costs and political influence seen in states like Wisconsin. The debate in Kansas highlights a broader national trend. States like Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Ohio are also considering changes to their judicial selection processes. In North Carolina, a highly politicized Supreme Court race has led to legal battles over ballot counts. Pennsylvania is bracing for a similar showdown in the fall. The recent Wisconsin election serves as a warning. It showed what could happen in states like Pennsylvania, where the Supreme Court could decide election disputes. Making term limits longer and eliminating judicial reelections could be a useful reform. This might reduce the influence of money in these elections. But there is no perfect system, and improvements are always possible.