State supreme courts in key battleground states could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the November 5 presidential election.
According to a report from The Daily Signal, the political leanings of these high courts may impact how election laws are interpreted and enforced in closely contested states.
Several battleground states, including Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina, have enacted election reforms since 2020.
These reforms encompass enhanced voter ID requirements and prohibitions on private funding for election administration. However, the effectiveness of these laws may ultimately depend on how state supreme courts choose to interpret and apply them.
The political makeup of state supreme courts varies across battleground states. Democrats currently hold majorities in the high courts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
In contrast, Republican justices maintain control in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Nevada's Supreme Court is evenly split between the two parties.
Recent elections have shifted the balance of power in some state courts. In 2023, Wisconsin's supreme court flipped from a Republican to a Democratic majority. This change resulted in the reversal of previous decisions, including one regarding the legality of ballot drop boxes. Conversely, North Carolina's supreme court transitioned from a Democratic to a Republican majority following the 2022 elections.
The composition of state supreme courts could significantly influence the resolution of election-related disputes. Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, expressed concern about the politicization of some state courts:
Unfortunately some state supreme courts have become just as political as some of the idealogues that have been confirmed to federal judgeships. If it's a close election, I have no doubt we will be inundated with litigation.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, noted that the situation in battleground states has become more challenging for election integrity advocates. He stated:
In most of the battleground states, state supreme courts have gotten worse. Also, some of the executives in those states—the governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state—may not defend existing election laws.
State supreme court rulings have already impacted election procedures in some battleground states. In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court issued a controversial decision in 2020 allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrived up to three days after Election Day, despite state law requiring ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
More recently, a Pennsylvania state appeals court ruled that mail-in ballots must be counted even if a voter writes the wrong date on the return envelope. This decision could have implications for future elections in the state.
The composition of state supreme courts plays a critical role in shaping election laws and procedures. Recent shifts in court majorities, particularly in Wisconsin and North Carolina, may lead to significant changes in how election disputes are resolved.
As the November election approaches, the decisions made by these courts could have far-reaching consequences for the electoral process and outcomes in key battleground states.
