Across the United States, state supreme court elections are heating up as judges and justices face retention votes and contested seats, often reflecting the state’s political climate and contentious issues like abortion rights and judicial independence.
One key battleground is Indiana, where voter sentiment surrounding the state’s near-total abortion ban is leading to significant backlash aimed at three Indiana Supreme Court justices. These judges are on the November ballot for retention, and advocacy groups are urging voters to hold them accountable for their decisions. Kaitie Rector, the director of advocacy for MADVoters Indiana, noted, “We’ve kind of come down on the side of holding these judges accountable for some rulings.” This view is echoed by other organizations trying to highlight perceived partisan biases from the justices, who were appointed by Republican governors.
Despite the frustrations voiced by voters, some legal experts argue against using retention elections as punitive measures against judicial rulings. Judge John Trimble, former member of the Indiana Judicial Nomininating Commission, indicated this year’s organized anti-retention sentiment he is observing is unique, especially because past challenges against justices have often failed. “Voters have never voted to remove a sitting justice from the Indiana Supreme Court,” he pointed out.
Polling results indicate strong support for retention among Indiana’s legal community, with the Indiana State Bar Association showing over 80% of respondents favoring the three justices following their judicial performance, with Chief Justice Loretta Rush receiving 88% backing.
Meanwhile, North Carolina’s Supreme Court is facing its own high-stakes election, with Justice Allison Riggs, appointed by Governor Roy Cooper, seeking to fend off challenges from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin. Riggs argued during a candidate forum about judicial philosophy: “Judicial philosophy has just become a code word for how you will vote or what your political ideology is.” Her focus has been on civil rights, whereas Griffin advocates for strict adherence to the law as written, labeling broader judicial interpretations as “activism.” The stakes of this race are significant—losing would mean the court could shift from 5-2 Republican dominance to only one Democrat.
Riggs emphasized the need for transparency and respect for the law, insisting both candidates’ campaigning against partisanship stems from legislative decisions to have judges run on partisan lines. The promise of impartiality remains at the core of their campaign messages, yet controversies surrounding each candidate’s comments on sensitive issues, including abortion, continue to shape voter perceptions.
Over on the West Coast, Washington State will see its first truly open election for the Supreme Court seat after 12 years, as both candidates, Dave Larson and Sal Mungia, vie for the public’s trust without incumbents impacting the race. Larson, who has run before but lost, leans on his law-and-order rhetoric promoting services for defendants facing mental health challenges, whereas Mungia, endorsed by prominent Democrats, appeals for systemic changes to improve legal access and justice equality.
Mungia’s experience before the U.S. Supreme Court bolsters his reputation, and he is positioned as the progressive alternative to Larson. Funds raised reveal Mungia possesses far greater resources, pulling significantly more donations from unions and progressive factions, which could give him the upper hand heading toward November.
Down south in Florida, the stage is set for Justices Renatha Francis and Meredith L. Sasso to face voters on their retention. Both were appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis and now must convince the public of their effectiveness under the merit retention system implemented back in the 1970s. Interestingly, no Florida Supreme Court justice has ever been ousted under this process. While retention could mean retaining conservative judges, both justices dissent on key issues like abortion, which adds to the scrutiny they face. Critics of DeSantis point to broader political trends and legal challenges affecting judicial independence, especially as voters wrestle with their dissatisfaction with current legal frameworks and societal shifts.
With November looming closer, the dynamics of these elections reflect both the voters’ desire for accountability and the balance of judicial interpretation swayed by political beliefs. From hot-button issues surrounding abortion rights to broader questions of how judges should relate to politics, these elections will shape the future of judicial authority across different states, raising questions about accountability, judicial philosophy, and the effective role of democracy. Activists and legal experts alike are calling for heightened voter awareness about the candidates, emphasizing the need to understand judicial history and decision-making before casting ballots this election season.
