On March 20, a bipartisan group of senators in the Judiciary Committee introduced the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act, which aims to provide security assistance to state and local judges and establish a State Judicial Threat Intelligence Resource Center to assess best security practices. The bill would authorize an existing grant-making organization, the State Justice Institute, to award federal funds to nonprofits with court security expertise.

This legislation is important in the face of mounting threats in recent years against public officials, particularly judges. “Any threat or attack against judges, their families or court personnel is unacceptable, and more must be done to ensure they can do their jobs safely and live their lives without fear,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), one of the bill’s sponsors. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), another sponsor, attributes the spike in the attacks on bench members to “heightened polarization and partisanship,” which, in his view, puts judicial independence in jeopardy.

These risks can also undermine judicial diversity. Brennan Center research on the intimidation of state and local nonjudicial officeholders found that the severity and nature of abuse varied across demographic groups. For example, women and officeholders of color were three times more likely to experience abuse compared to their white male colleagues, putting their safety at greater risk and potentially discouraging them from serving in office.

Last month, Illinois’s Cook County Electoral Board removed judicial candidate Ashonta C. Rice from the county’s primary ballot under a state law restricting name changes for candidates. Illinois legislators enacted the 2007 law to protect voters from deception after a candidate adopted a more Irish-sounding name in hopes of gaining an advantage in a county that disproportionately elected Irish candidates. The law states that “candidates who change their names within three years of an election cycle must include their former name on filing papers, with exceptions such as adoption, divorce, marriage and gender affirmation.” County officials concluded that Rice failed to satisfy this requirement because she did not include her married name in her nomination after delays in her divorce proceedings.

Rice argues that the Cook County Electoral Board’s decision to exclude her from the ballot is an unfair interpretation of the law. Andrew Finko, Rice’s attorney, said, “She’s not changing it to gain some advantage on the ballot or to conceal her identity or misrepresent to the voters. She’s using a name that she has consistently used.” Additionally, a judge in Rice’s divorce case issued an order officially changing her name, even as the divorce itself was not finalized.

While the name-change law appears to be gender-neutral, in practice, it disproportionately affects women involved in divorce proceedings, according to a review of public records. This outsize impact is unsurprising given the societal norm in at least some communities for women, but not men, to change their last names when they marry. John Fritchey, a former state representative and Cook County commissioner, acknowledged that “the original purpose of the law was aimed at people who very admittedly were changing their name to improve their chances of being elected judge.” He also noted that names on a ballot can sometimes drive voters more than the individual judge’s qualifications — in his view, a more fundamental problem that can only be addressed through voter education.

In Maryland, there is an ongoing debate on how to best choose judges, with a detailed study being conducted by a work group in the judicial branch. The main issue under consideration is whether circuit court judges should continue to be required to run in partisan retention elections for their 15-year terms after their initial appointment by the governor. The report was intended to be presented to the Maryland General Assembly before the next election, enabling the legislature to put any necessary proposals on the ballot for voters to approve in 2024. However, the report has been delayed, meaning the current system will stay in place through at least the 2026 election.

It is not clear whether the group will recommend changes. Some observers are skeptical of removing contested elections because minority groups have viewed them as a means to ensure judicial diversity. Senate President Bill Ferguson shared similar concerns, adding, “Maryland already does not have the best history when it comes to having a bench that is diverse and representing the people.”

In addition to reassessing contested elections for circuit court judges, the work group has also considered questions around the composition and transparency of commissions that recommend appointees to the governor, as well as whether and how to implement a judicial performance evaluation system like those used in other states to help educate voters in judicial elections.