The composition of state supreme courts in key battleground states could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the November 5 presidential election.
The Daily Signal reported that several states have enacted election reforms since 2020, but the effectiveness of these laws may ultimately depend on how state supreme courts interpret and apply them.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, states such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina implemented various election reforms. These changes included strengthening voter ID requirements and prohibiting private funding for election administration. However, the political leanings of state supreme courts could significantly influence how these reforms are upheld or challenged in the lead-up to and following the 2024 election.
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.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, expressed concern about the changing landscape of state supreme courts. He noted that in many battleground states, the composition of these courts has shifted in ways that may not favor existing election laws.
Hans von Spakosky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, warned about the potential for increased litigation in the event of a close election. He emphasized the political nature of some state supreme courts, comparing them to ideologically driven federal judges.
Several battleground states have experienced shifts in the control of their supreme courts since the 2020 election. Notably, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped from Democrat to Republican control, while Wisconsin's high court transitioned from a Republican to a Democratic majority.
The change in Wisconsin's supreme court has already had significant consequences. Following the Democratic victory in 2023, the court reversed previous decisions made by the former conservative majority, including a ruling on the legality of ballot drop boxes.
In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court's Democratic majority made controversial decisions leading up to the 2020 election. These rulings included extending the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots, a move that was criticized by Republican legislators and election integrity advocates.
Annette Olson, CEO of the MacIver Institute, a Wisconsin-based think tank, expressed apprehension about the unpredictability of the state's supreme court in election-related matters. This uncertainty highlights the potential for judicial decisions to shape the electoral landscape in crucial swing states.
Von Spakosky emphasized the importance of focusing on state judicial elections, particularly in states where judges are elected rather than appointed. He argued that conservatives have often neglected this aspect of the political process, potentially ceding ground in the legal battles that can shape election outcomes.
The influence of state supreme courts extends beyond election day itself. Recent rulings, such as a Pennsylvania state appeals court decision mandating the counting of mail-in ballots even with incorrect dates on return envelopes, demonstrate how judicial interpretations can affect election procedures and results.
State supreme courts in battleground states wield significant power in shaping election outcomes. Their decisions on election laws, voting procedures, and potential post-election disputes could prove decisive in a close race. The political composition of these courts, shaped by recent elections and appointments, may play a crucial role in determining how election reforms are implemented and challenged.
