State Supreme Court elections/ abortion rights/ judicial campaign spending/ state court races 2024/ reproductive rights state courts/ Newslooks/ LITTLE ROCK/ Ark./ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ State Supreme Court races in key states like North Carolina, Michigan, and Montana have become battlegrounds for abortion rights, drawing record spending from advocacy groups on both sides. The outcome of these races could determine the future of reproductive rights, voting laws, and redistricting for years to come.
Abortion Debate Sparks Costly State Supreme Court Races: Quick Looks
- Central Issue: Abortion and reproductive rights have become focal points in state Supreme Court races across the U.S.
- North Carolina Spotlight: Democrat Justice Allison Riggs campaigns on reproductive rights, challenging GOP-backed Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin.
- Big Spending: Advocacy groups are pouring millions into state Supreme Court campaigns, with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU investing heavily.
- States in Play: Key races in North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and Montana could reshape state courts and impact hot-button issues.
- Long-Term Impact: State Supreme Courts may increasingly handle major cases on reproductive rights, voting laws, and redistricting following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision.
Abortion Rights Fuel High-Stakes State Supreme Court Races Nationwide
Deep Look
In the final days before Election Day, the fight over abortion rights is fueling unprecedented spending in races for state Supreme Court seats across the United States. States like North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, and Montana have become flashpoints, with advocacy groups and political parties pouring millions into campaigns aimed at reshaping state courts. This spending surge comes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which returned the power to decide abortion rights to the states.
In North Carolina, Justice Allison Riggs, a Democratic incumbent, has made reproductive rights a central issue in her campaign to retain her seat on the state’s Supreme Court. North Carolina has relatively moderate abortion restrictions compared to its neighboring southern states, and Riggs emphasizes that keeping those protections may depend on who controls the court. The state’s current 5-2 Republican majority on the court could expand if Riggs loses to her Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin. Riggs has been outspoken about her support for reproductive rights, using campaign ads that highlight her opponent’s connection to gubernatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, a Republican who supports restricting abortion earlier than the current 12-week limit.
Griffin has criticized Riggs, saying her focus on abortion and other issues that could come before the court violates judicial ethics, suggesting it risks impartiality. Riggs counters that her campaign simply informs voters of her values without indicating specific rulings. “I’m going to keep talking about my values because, at the core, our democracy works best when people cast informed votes,” she said.
Across the nation, state Supreme Court seats have drawn unprecedented funding, with advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee contributing millions to support candidates in states where court decisions could impact reproductive rights, voting laws, and redistricting. Planned Parenthood Votes, for example, has invested $5 million in state Supreme Court races, a new benchmark in the organization’s campaign spending. “This is really a groundbreaking move for us, and I expect this will be the norm moving forward,” said Planned Parenthood spokesperson Katie Rodihan.
The Brennan Center for Justice reports that state Supreme Court elections have become pivotal for both political parties and advocacy groups. “What Dobbs did was make it clear… these state courts are actually going to be really important and will be deciding some of the biggest cases,” said Douglas Keith, senior counsel at the Brennan Center. This focus is evident in states like Ohio, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority. Ohio’s court makeup could be pivotal if legal battles over the state’s six-week abortion ban are revisited.
Michigan’s court, where Democrats hold a slim majority, could also see a shift depending on the election outcome. Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, a Democrat appointed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, is defending her seat against Republican Judge Patrick O’Grady, with both races drawing significant spending and partisan interest. Progressive groups have underscored the importance of maintaining Democratic influence on Michigan’s court, with ads warning that the state Supreme Court “can still take abortion rights away.”
Montana is another state where abortion rights could hinge on upcoming judicial races. The Montana Supreme Court has faced repeated challenges from GOP lawmakers who oppose its stance on reproductive rights and voting laws. Two key races in Montana pit progressive candidates, who support privacy-based abortion protections, against Republican-aligned candidates who could help reshape the court’s rulings. Both progressive candidates have received endorsements from advocacy groups like the ACLU, whose recent questionnaire showed support for a 1999 ruling affirming the right to a pre-viability abortion under Montana’s constitutional right to privacy.
Conservative groups are also investing in state court races to influence judicial outcomes on issues beyond abortion. The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) is spending substantial sums in states like Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas, often focusing its messaging on topics like immigration rather than reproductive rights. In Ohio, an RSLC-backed ad promoting three Republican candidates for the Supreme Court includes images of former President Donald Trump alongside immigration-related visuals, reflecting a broader conservative platform.
Meanwhile, conservative donor Richard Uihlein’s super PAC has contributed to state Supreme Court races in Montana and Ohio, supporting conservative judicial candidates. Even in states like Texas, where Republicans control every seat on the Supreme Court, progressive groups are working to unseat GOP justices, focusing on rulings that upheld Texas’s stringent abortion restrictions. Find Out PAC, for example, has launched digital ads in Texas cities accusing three Republican justices of “playing doctor from the bench.”
With each race carrying major implications for state and national policies, judicial candidates are navigating complex campaign environments. For example, in North Carolina, Riggs’ campaigning on reproductive rights has drawn criticism from Republicans who claim she is overstepping ethical boundaries by addressing issues that may come before the court. Riggs maintains that her campaign is simply an effort to clarify her values to voters, a stance that underscores how state Supreme Court races have become arenas for policy battles that were once decided at the federal level.
The outcome of these judicial elections could reshape state policies on reproductive rights, voting laws, and other contentious issues, making them some of the most consequential races in the 2024 election cycle.