The race for control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently climaxed in a battle marked by unprecedented campaign spending totaling $100 million, divisive attack ads, and involvement from public figures including former President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Although this spending set a milestone in U.S. judicial contest history, the trend of expensive and contentious state Supreme Court races has been on the rise for several years. The political nature and external funding in the Wisconsin race sparked a conversation about whether elections are the best way to fill judicial seats that are supposed to remain nonpartisan and make decisions on critical state laws and ballot initiatives.
This contentious scenario was further highlighted when a Republican-majority appellate panel in North Carolina supported a Republican state Supreme Court candidate’s endeavor to challenge thousands of ballots from the previous November’s election. Supreme Court races have become vital focal points for both major political parties, due to the pivotal roles these courts play in determining rules surrounding redistricting, abortion, and voting rights, as well as settling election disputes.
Douglas Keith, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s judiciary program, remarked that some states have moved to elect justices to enhance transparency and accountability. However, modern judicial elections have become so politically charged that they fail to achieve these intended goals. Not all states conduct elections for Supreme Court seats. Some have appointment processes that help candidates bypass public campaigning and the sway of political donations. Keith pointed out that a merit-based selection process often leads to Supreme Courts that are less predictable along political lines.
While seven states employ partisan elections for selecting Supreme Court justices, including Wisconsin, 14 conduct nonpartisan elections. Nine states authorize governors to appoint justices, two rely on legislative appointments, four utilize hybrid models, and 14 use a merit selection process involving nonpartisan nominating commissions.
In Kansas, a longstanding appointment system has been in place for selecting Supreme Court justices, known for its nonpartisan nature. However, dissatisfied with certain recent court rulings, Republicans are proposing a shift to elections, aiming to reshape the court with a more conservative slant. When a vacancy arises on the seven-member court, applicants are vetted by a nine-member commission comprised of both lawyers and non-lawyers, with the governor selecting from three finalists.
Aiming for change, the Republican-majority legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment for the state’s August 2026 primary election ballot, opposing the current vacancy-filling system lauded for its nonpartisanship and judicial independence. Critics argue that Republicans aim to adjust the court to reflect a more conservative perspective, although Kansans favored protecting abortion rights in a 2022 vote despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Opponents of the proposed shift cite the costly and intense Wisconsin elections as indicative of what could follow in Kansas. Currently, a candidate’s qualifications focus on experience and temperament rather than campaigning skills, fund-raising, or media outreach. Bob Beatty, a political science professor at Washburn University, suggests political motives underlie the proposed court changes.
Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson dismissed concerns about intense campaign spending, claiming such scenarios exaggerated. Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s legislature and Alaska lawmakers have contemplated similar shifts toward elected instead of appointed justices. With some changes already enacted in North Carolina and Ohio, partisan identification was introduced to ballots, aiming to align court decisions with legislative policies.
North Carolina is embroiled in a legal debate over a highly charged Supreme Court race, emphasizing the partisan divisions. Elsewhere, Pennsylvania anticipates a contentious election resembling Wisconsin’s as control of the state Supreme Court is contested. Anticipated costly campaigns signal an even more intense environment in politically crucial states like Pennsylvania, where judicial decisions in upcoming elections could prove decisive.
Reforming judicial elections, such as implementing longer term limits and removing the need for reelections, may mitigate financial influences on judicial candidates, as suggested by Michael Kang, a Northwestern School of Law professor. Although no system is ideal, Kang believes implementation of these reforms could enhance the integrity of judiciary appointments.