The concept of infusing additional politics into the process of filling state supreme court seats via partisan elections has started to gain traction in certain Republican circles. This movement could potentially gather momentum following the party’s recent successes in North Carolina and Ohio. Ohio, which transitioned to partisan elections for supreme and appeals courts in 2021, saw Republicans triumph over Democrats in all contested races by margins of approximately 10 points. This outcome shifted the court’s composition from a narrow 4-3 Republican majority to a commanding 6-1. The sole Democrat remaining on the court is slated for reelection in 2026, having previously initiated a federal lawsuit challenging the law mandating party affiliations on ballots as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, North Carolina, where partisan labels were added for judicial elections in 2018, currently has a Republican appeals court judge narrowly leading against a sitting Democratic justice in an unresolved race.
Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael P. Donnelly (D), who was defeated by Judge Megan E. Shanahan (R) from the Cincinnati area, has voiced concerns about the overwhelming influence of party labels on election outcomes in regions like Ohio.
Despite criticisms that political labels may jeopardize the appearance of an impartial judiciary, some Republicans have defended this strategy. They argue it provides voters with more relevant information about judicial candidates—offering clarity in typically low-profile elections. Douglas Keith, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, suggests that the impact of partisan labels was likely predetermined by legislative changes made in Republican-leaning states.
Michigan, where Supreme Court candidates are nominated by political parties but appear on ballots without affiliation, is also cited as evidence. Here, Democratic nominees soundly defeated their Republican counterparts despite Trump’s success in the state during the presidential race.
In Montana, discussions are emerging over whether supreme court elections should feature party labels, reflecting the broader national debate. State legislation has been introduced to consider this change, and a proposed bill is set to be considered in the upcoming session.
While judicial selection methods vary with inherent political elements, as noted by William Raftery of the National Center for State Courts, the consideration of partisan labels signifies a notable shift in states’ approaches to judicial elections, vying to provide voters with more insight into their options at the polls.
For more information, heres the original article.