State Supreme Courts have become an electoral battleground. Some states choose a different path

Apnews - Apr 6th, 2025

The Wisconsin Supreme Court race has garnered unprecedented attention, setting a new record with $100 million in campaign spending, heavily influenced by attack ads and the involvement of notable figures like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. This race highlights a concerning trend where judicial elections are becoming increasingly costly and politically charged. The partisan nature of these contests raises critical questions about the viability of elections as a means to fill judicial seats that should remain nonpartisan, as they play crucial roles in deciding state laws and citizen initiatives.

The implications of this highly politicized environment are profound as it reflects a broader trend across the United States, where state Supreme Court races are prioritized by major political parties. These courts have become key battlegrounds for issues like redistricting, abortion, and voting rights. In Kansas, a proposal to shift from an appointment system to elections for Supreme Court justices has sparked debate, with opponents warning of Wisconsin-style campaign spending. This shift could potentially undermine judicial independence and deepen partisan divides, as seen in other states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where similar election dynamics threaten to influence judicial impartiality.

Donald Trump Elon Musk Pennsylvania Abortion Rights Kansas Wisconsin Supreme Court Voting Rights North Carolina Redistricting Judicial Elections Campaign Spending Partisanship

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and timely exploration of the contentious issue of judicial elections in the United States. It effectively highlights the significant financial and political stakes involved, particularly in the context of recent and upcoming elections. The use of credible sources and expert opinions enhances the article's reliability, while its clear structure and accessible language make it easy to read and understand.

However, the article could benefit from a more diverse range of perspectives, particularly from grassroots organizations or the general public, to provide a more balanced view of the debate. Additionally, more detailed explanations of the methodology behind certain claims, such as campaign spending figures, would improve transparency.

Overall, the article is a strong piece that engages with a topic of significant public interest and has the potential to influence public opinion and policy discussions. Its clear presentation and timely relevance make it a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse on judicial elections and their implications for democracy.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the significant campaign spending in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, citing it as a record-setting event for U.S. judicial contests. This claim aligns with other reports highlighting the unprecedented financial involvement in this election. However, the exact figure of $100 million should be cross-verified as some sources indicate slightly lower amounts.

The involvement of high-profile individuals like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk in the race is mentioned, which is consistent with the heightened partisan interest in judicial elections. However, specific details about their roles or endorsements are not elaborated, which could provide a fuller picture of their influence.

The article correctly outlines the different methods states use to select Supreme Court justices, providing a comprehensive overview of the varied systems across the U.S. This information is accurate and supported by credible sources, reflecting the complexity and diversity of judicial selection processes.

Overall, the article is factually sound, though it would benefit from additional verification of the exact campaign spending figures and more detailed accounts of the roles played by mentioned public figures.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the issue by discussing both the current judicial selection systems and the proposed changes in states like Kansas. It provides perspectives from various stakeholders, including critics of the current systems and those advocating for change.

However, the article could improve by including more voices from the general public or grassroots organizations, which would offer a broader range of opinions on how these changes might affect everyday citizens. The focus is largely on political figures and legal experts, which might skew the perception towards a more elite viewpoint.

While the article does mention the potential downsides of politicized judicial elections, such as increased spending and partisanship, it could delve deeper into the arguments supporting the current systems. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the debate.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and presents information in a logical and coherent manner. It begins with a clear introduction to the issue, followed by detailed explanations of the various judicial selection systems and the debates surrounding them.

The language used is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for readers to follow the complex topic of judicial elections. The article avoids jargon and provides necessary background information, which aids comprehension.

While the clarity is generally strong, the article could benefit from more concise summaries of key points to reinforce understanding, especially for readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of judicial processes.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, including statements from legal experts like Douglas Keith from the Brennan Center and political figures such as Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach. These sources are authoritative and provide valuable insights into the debate over judicial elections.

The inclusion of quotes from political science professors and other experts adds depth and credibility to the narrative. However, the article could enhance its source quality by incorporating data or reports from non-partisan organizations that specialize in electoral processes and judicial reform.

Overall, the sources used are reliable, but a broader array of non-partisan data could strengthen the article's foundation.

Transparency

The article effectively discloses the context of the debate over judicial elections, explaining the motivations behind proposed changes and the potential consequences. It provides a clear outline of the current systems and proposed amendments, which helps readers understand the stakes involved.

However, the article could improve transparency by explicitly stating the methodology behind some of its claims, such as the exact calculation of campaign spending. Additionally, it would benefit from more explicit acknowledgment of any potential biases in the sources cited, particularly those with clear political affiliations.

While the article is generally transparent, greater detail in explaining the basis of certain claims would enhance its clarity and trustworthiness.