TOPEKA – The battle for control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court drew $100 million in campaign funding, attack ads, and the attention of President Donald Trump and close ally Elon Musk.
While its spending set a new record for a U.S. judicial contest, the race that ended Tuesday was the culmination of a trend that had been developing for years as state Supreme Court races across the country became increasingly expensive and contentious.
The partisan nature of the Wisconsin race, as well as the amount of money raised from outside interest groups, raise questions about whether elections are the best way to fill seats on nonpartisan bodies that ultimately decide the fate of state laws and citizen ballot initiatives.
The politicized nature of the contests was starkly demonstrated on Friday when a Republican-majority appellate panel in North Carolina sided with a Republican state Supreme Court challenger seeking to invalidate thousands of ballots from last November’s election.
These races have become top priorities for both major parties because state high courts have played critical roles in determining rules regarding redistricting, abortion, and voting rights, as well as resolving election results disputes.
Some states began electing justices “to bring the process out into the sunlight, to disempower powerful political actors from getting themselves or allies on the bench, or to provide some level of public accountability,” according to Douglas Keith, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s judiciary program. “But with these modern judicial elections, these highly politicized races are not really serving any of those goals.”
Not all states put their Supreme Court seats up for statewide election. Some employ appointment processes that enable candidates to avoid public campaigning and the influence of political donors. Keith stated that a merit-based selection process can result in Supreme Courts “that are not as predictable along political lines.”
Seven states use partisan elections to choose Supreme Court justices, while fourteen, including Wisconsin, use nonpartisan elections. Meanwhile, nine governors are charged with appointing justices, two use legislative appointments, four use hybrid models, and 14 use a merit selection process that frequently includes nonpartisan nominating commissions.
Kansas is one of the states that uses an appointment system, which has been in place for six decades and is largely nonpartisan. Republicans in the state, who have been critical of some of the court’s recent decisions, now want to change that and move toward a system in which justices must run for election.
Opponents argue that Republicans’ goal in a GOP-leaning state is clear: to remake the court in a more conservative image.
When there is a vacancy on the seven-member court, a nine-member commission screens applicants for the seat. Five lawyers are elected by other lawyers, while four nonlawyers are appointed by the governor. The commission selects three finalists, from which one is chosen by the governor, who is currently a Democrat.
The Republican-supermajority Legislature put a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution on the ballot for the state’s August 2026 primary election, rejecting claims that the current system of filling Supreme Court vacancies is notable for its lack of partisan politics and promotes judicial independence.
For years, supporters of the proposal have criticized the state’s highest court for rulings protecting abortion rights and mandating increased public school spending.
They argue that the court is too liberal and out of touch with voters, despite the fact that Kansas voters chose to protect abortion rights in 2022, just months after the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.
Republicans also argue that by making Supreme Court candidates run for election, any politics involved would be visible rather than “a black box.”
“It is an elitist system, and that elitist system was designed by lawyers,” Kansas’ attorney general, Republican Kris Kobach, stated about the current system. “It is obviously controlled by lawyers.”
Critics of Kansas’ proposal cited Wisconsin and the tens of millions of dollars spent on state Supreme Court races in recent years. They say that is exactly what Kansas voters can expect if the change is approved next year.
According to the current system, a candidate’s experience and likely judicial temperament are more important than their campaigning, fundraising, or television ad creation skills.
“There is a reason that extends beyond giving people a voice. “There is a political reason to change the court,” Bob Beatty, a political science professor at Washburn University in Topeka, said of the Republican proposal.
Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, a Republican from Wichita, said he is not concerned about Wisconsin-style campaigning for high court seats if the amendment passes. He claimed opponents were “trying to take a one-off and make it something it is not.”
Oklahoma’s Republican-led Legislature has considered legislation for several years to change the state’s current appointment system for appellate court justices to one in which they are elected. In recent years, some Republicans in Alaska have raised the issue, but progress has been slow.
In recent years, Republican-dominated legislatures in North Carolina and Ohio have added party labels to the ballot, which many legal experts believe is an attempt to benefit conservative judicial candidates and create a court that is more aligned with the legislature’s policy goals.
North Carolina is embroiled in a legal battle over a closely contested, highly politicized state Supreme Court race. Jefferson Griffin, the Republican candidate, has challenged over 65,000 ballots from last fall’s election.
On Friday, the Republican majority of a North Carolina appellate panel sided with Griffin, who was 734 votes behind Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat who is expected to appeal.
Pennsylvania is bracing for a Wisconsin-style election this fall. It is another presidential battleground where the state Supreme Court may be called upon to resolve election disputes during next year’s midterms or the 2028 presidential election.
Three Democratic justices are seeking to retain their seats and will face a yes-or-no vote on additional 10-year terms.
According to Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown, the recently concluded Wisconsin election provides warning signs of what might happen in November in Pennsylvania, when Democrats’ 5-2 majority on the court is at stake.
Pennsylvania’s 2023 Supreme Court contest cost more than $22 million.
“It would be silly not to anticipate that in this current environment in a key state like Pennsylvania,” said Borick. “It is going to be intensified.”
Increasing term limits and eliminating judicial reelections could be beneficial reforms because “a lot of the influence of money comes from the pressure to get reelected,” according to Michael Kang, a Northwestern School of Law professor and author of “Free to Judge: The Power of Campaign Money in Judicial Elections.”
“There is no perfect system,” Kang explained. “But there are things that can be done to improve.”