While the marquee battles for control of Congress dominate the political landscape, voters in nearly half the country will also decide who sits on their state's highest courts. These races, often overlooked, carry immense weight for the everyday lives of citizens, touching everything from abortion access and voting rights to criminal justice and environmental regulation.
On November 3, state Supreme Court seats are on the ballot in 24 states. Half of those are retention elections, where voters simply decide whether an incumbent judge stays on the bench. In total, more than 200 appellate court seats and a larger number of trial court positions are up for grabs, according to Ballotpedia.
The significance of these contests cannot be overstated. American University Professor Thomas Kahn told The World Signal that state Supreme Courts are “among the most powerful courts in the land,” second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Douglas Keith, deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Judiciary Program, added that 95% of all cases filed each year are in state courts, not federal ones. “There may have been cases that the public thought previously would always end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, but now they’re going to go to and end at their state’s highest court,” Keith said, citing examples like abortion, voting, environmental law, and criminal justice reform. “All of these things are issues that state high courts have tremendous amount power to interpret and apply.”
The way judges are selected varies widely across the country. According to the Brennan Center, 38 states use elections as at least part of their judicial selection process, with a mix of partisan, nonpartisan, and retention elections. The remaining states rely on gubernatorial or legislative appointments. In contested races, candidates may or may not have party labels attached to their names, depending on state law. Retention elections are different: a judge, typically appointed by the governor, faces no opponent and asks voters for a simple yes-or-no on keeping their seat. Losing a retention election is rare, Kahn noted, “but it does not happen often.”
Partisan contests for state Supreme Courts are concentrated in a handful of states. In Alabama, Democrat AshLeigh Dunham is challenging Republican incumbent Greg Shaw. North Carolina sees Democratic incumbent Anita Earls facing Republican Sarah Stevens. Ohio has two seats up: Democrat Jennifer Brunner against Republican Colleen O’Donnell, and Republican Dan Hawkins against Democrat Marilyn Zayas. Texas has four Republican incumbents—Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock and Associate Justices James Sullivan, Kyle Hawkins, and Brett Busby—each facing Democratic opponents.
Michigan uses a unique system: political parties choose candidates at nominating conventions, but the general election is nonpartisan, so voters don’t see party labels on the ballot. Even in states with nonpartisan elections, politics still seep in. “In states where the court’s ideological balance is nevertheless clear, and seemingly up for grabs, you will see interest groups that are clearly on the left or clearly on the right getting involved in these races to try and change the majority on the court,” Keith said. “And so, just because a state has nonpartisan judicial elections does not mean those races won’t become highly politicized or very high cost.”
This tension fuels a long-running debate over whether judges should have to campaign for office at all. Supporters of judicial elections argue they provide direct accountability to voters, while critics say an appointment system better preserves judicial independence by insulating judges from political pressure. “There is no perfect way to pick judges, and these different systems all reflect an attempt to balance some values that are often competing like transparency and democratic accountability and quality of judges and all these things,” Keith said.
The debate was tested in Kansas this year when voters overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment in the August primary that would have allowed direct elections of state Supreme Court justices. The proposal, backed by Republicans pushing for more conservative rulings on abortion and school funding, was defeated, according to the Kansas Reflector. As a result, Kansas will proceed with its retention elections as planned.
With so much at stake, political analysts urge voters to pay attention to these down-ballot races. For a deeper look at how election integrity issues are playing out, see the review of Alaska’s ballot confusion. And for context on how partisan tensions are shaping election administration, check the DOJ’s increased election scrutiny. The outcomes in state courts could have lasting effects on key policy areas, making them as consequential as any congressional race.
