Plus: State AGs fight climate change, Arizona considers challenge to dark money law, and more


[link removed]

On April 1, Wisconsinites will cast their ballots in a state supreme court election that is already the most expensive judicial contest in history. The Brennan Center has documented

[link removed]

an estimated $81.5 million in spending to date on the race for an open seat on the court, much of it from national figures and groups — all evidence that judicial elections have entered a new era of politicization.

My colleague Douglas Keith wrote about

[link removed]

the nominally nonpartisan election, in which trial judge and former Republican attorney general Brad Schimel is facing off against trial judge Susan Crawford, who was endorsed by the state Democratic Party. Two years ago, another record-setting election in Wisconsin established

[link removed]

the first liberal majority on the court in 15 years. This year, that majority is again up for grabs.

The Wisconsin election has attracted a presidential endorsement, more than $17 million in spending by groups associated with Elon Musk, and investments from a number of national players on both the left and right, including the ACLU Voter Education Fund, George Soros, Americans for Prosperity, and the conservative donor Richard Uihlein. What accounts for all this attention?

It’s a sign of the growing profile and national significance of state courts. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has repeatedly been at the center of high-profile cases. Last year, the court’s new liberal majority ruled

[link removed]

that election officials can use drop boxes to collect absentee ballots, overturning a ruling that the court had issued two years prior. The court also ordered redrawing

[link removed]

of the state’s gerrymandered legislative maps after previously declining to do so.

Currently, the biggest cases before the justices relate to abortion rights. The court recently heard arguments

[link removed]

in a case where it must decide whether a 176-year-old law should be interpreted to ban abortion in the state. If the court rules that the law is an abortion ban, Planned Parenthood is asking the court in a separate suit

[link removed]

to hold that the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion.

Given Wisconsin’s status as a battleground state, another looming question is the role the court will play in future election controversies. In 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected

[link removed]

a postelection effort by Donald Trump’s campaign to throw out more than 200,000 ballots from Democratic counties — one of many lawsuits filed across the country seeking to overturn his election loss. The court was closely divided 4–3, with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn joining the court’s three liberal justices to reject Trump’s lawsuit.

Put simply, state courts like Wisconsin’s are hearing cases with national stakes — and national political actors are increasingly paying attention. That’s not all bad news: Heightened attention can foster better voter information and engagement about the critical issues that state courts are deciding.

But there’s a darker side too. As judicial races become increasingly indistinguishable from political contests, complete with untraceable dark money, megadonors, and misleading attack ads, they can pose serious challenges to judicial independence and to public confidence in the judicial system.

Professors Michael Kang and Joanna Shepherd have done fascinating empirical work

[link removed]

suggesting that fundraising pressures and reelection concerns have a measurable impact on judicial decision-making, whether conscious or unconscious. This new generation of turbocharged judicial elections only amplifies the threat, putting even greater pressure on the justices caught in the maelstrom.





Gun Rights, Abortion Bans, and the Mysterious “Right to Travel”

The Massachusetts high court ruled that an out-of-state resident carrying a gun into the state must comply with Massachusetts’s licensing requirements, writes Northeastern University law professor Martha F. Davis, who also explains why abortion bans have brought increased focus to the “right to travel.” Read more

[link removed]

So Far, Montana’s Housing Crisis Fix Has Survived Constitutional Challenge

“A case winding its way through Montana’s courts illustrates the challenges of enacting innovative policies to address the nation’s housing crisis,” writes professor Maureen E. Brady of Harvard Law School. Read more

[link removed]

Threats to Withhold Disaster Relief Undermine Federalism Principles

The administration’s attempt to extract promises from states in exchange for federal funds disregards settled law preventing federal overreach, writes Georgetown University adjunct law professor Meryl Justin Chertoff. Read more

[link removed]

The Active Environmental Agendas of State Attorneys General

With the Trump administration dismantling environmental protections, state attorneys general play a critical role in protecting citizens from the harms of pollution and climate change, writes Sarah J. Morath of Wake Forest University School of Law. Read more

[link removed]

Montana Legislature’s Partisan Attack on Judicial Independence

Dissatisfied with recent court decisions, legislators are pushing for partisan judicial elections in Montana, law professor Constance Van Kley of the University of Montana writes. Read more

[link removed]

Idaho’s Constitution Promotes Freedom and Common Welfare

As part of our 50-state series

[link removed]

, legal scholar Kevin Frazier discusses how Idaho, still operating under its original 1889 constitution, has endeavored to preserve the state’s values and aspirations from the Gold Rush through modern times. Read more

[link removed]

Arizona Supreme Court Grapples with Challenge to “Dark Money” Disclosure Law

In 2022, voters overwhelmingly approved a law designed to shed light on anonymous campaign spending from large donors, the Brennan Center’s Eric Petry writes. A legal challenge argues that the law gives too much power to Arizona’s Clean Elections Commission. Read more

[link removed]

Amendments to Expand Legislative Power on Ballot in Louisiana

Voters in Louisiana are considering four proposed constitutional amendments that would overhaul the state tax code and make changes to judicial elections. They would also allow the legislature to create new trial courts and treat more juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system, writes the Brennan Center’s Erin Geiger Smith. Election Day is March 29. Read more

[link removed]





What We’re Reading and Watching

State Court Report hosted a panel discussion with state high court justices from California, Colorado, New York, and Rhode Island on what it’s like to clerk on state supreme courts and what law students need to know when applying for state clerkships. Watch it here

[link removed]

, and read

[link removed]

five takeaways from the discussion outlined by the Brennan Center’s Jamie Muth.





You May Have Missed

A trial court permanently blocked

[link removed]

Arizona’s 15-week abortion ban in light of the state’s 2024 abortion rights amendment. State Court Report previously wrote

[link removed]

about legal maneuvering after state amendments are passed.

An Ohio appeals court blocked

[link removed]

a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, ruling that it violated the state constitution. State Court Report previously wrote about how advocates are relying on health care freedom amendments to challenge these bans

[link removed]

in court and the future of state constitutional protections for transgender rights

[link removed]

.

A North Carolina appeals court panel heard arguments

[link removed]

Friday in the ongoing dispute over a November 2024 state supreme court race, in which the losing Republican candidate seeks to throw out more than 60,000 votes. State Court Report previously wrote

[link removed]

about this attempt to overturn the election.





Notable Cases

Natalie R. v. State

[link removed]

, Utah Supreme Court

Held that a lawsuit brought by Utah children alleging that state fossil fuel laws violate their state due process rights should be dismissed but said the district court must allow the plaintiffs to refile their complaint. // Fox13 Salt Lake City

[link removed]

Amdor v. Grisham

[link removed]

, New Mexico Supreme Court

Ruled 3–2 that legislator, gun owner, and Republican Party petitioners failed to establish that the governor’s executive orders declaring or addressing gun violence and drug abuse as public health emergencies violated either state law or the separation of powers doctrine. // Source NM

[link removed]

Fossella v. Adams

[link removed]

, New York Court of Appeals

Struck down a New York City law that would have allowed resident noncitizens, potentially as many as 800,000 people, to vote in municipal elections. The court cited the state constitution’s wording that every “citizen” should be allowed to vote. // Associated Press

[link removed]

You can find briefs and opinions from notable state constitutional lawsuits in our State Case Database

[link removed]

.









[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]



Did you get this message forwarded from a friend? Sign up here

[link removed]

.

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]