Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

State supreme court races will determine future of our democracy

Opinion

Janet Protasiewicz, 60, is sworn in to the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Janet Protasiewicz takes the oath of office for the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Aug. 1, 2023, after winning the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history.

Sara Stathas for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Harris is deputy communications director at Stand Up America.

In 2023, voters demonstrated a firm commitment to defending our democracy in races up and down the ballot. Once-obscure elections burst into the mainstream. Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in state supreme court races that will determine their right to abortion access, whether their votes will be counted and how their voting districts will be drawn.

The election of Janet Protasiewicz to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April and Dan McCaffery to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in November underscores the importance of state courts in safeguarding our fundamental freedoms and democratic processes in 2024.


Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were focal points in the anti-democratic efforts to challenge election results in 2020 and 2022. In 2022, only Arizona saw more election-related lawsuits filed than Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Similarly, in 2020, the vast majority of election lawsuits were in six pivotal battleground states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The election of Protasiewicz and McCaffery sends a message that voters want justices who are vocal about protecting fundamental freedoms and rejecting baseless challenges to election results. By electing pro-democracy justices to their respective state supreme courts, voters built a critical firewall against efforts to subvert the will of the people in 2024.

On April 5, “Judge Janet” won with the highest-ever turnout for an off-year Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Spending on the race exceeded $42 million, nearly triple the previous national record for a court race. It was unusual that a state supreme court race would capture voters’ attention the way it did, but after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021, voters turned out in force to protect abortion rights and their freedom to vote. And Wisconsin was just the beginning.

In November, Dan McCaffery defeated Carolyn Carluccio in Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court race. McCaffery was vocal about defending democracy and Pennsylvanians’ access to health care, voting rights and other issues. While McCaffery’s election doesn’t change the partisan balance on the seven-seat high court, a loss would have heightened contentious fights on redistricting, abortion and voting rights in the coming years.

Voters’ increased attention on state supreme court races is a direct response to Republican-led efforts to restrict access to the ballot and overturn the will of the voters in 2020. Americans are also paying closer attention to the courts after key U.S. Supreme Court decisions left reproductive justice and voting rights in the hands of state legislatures. Right now, the electorate is demanding justices who uphold the democratic process and rule on cases without a partisan agenda. Americans are beginning to understand that state courts can serve as a firewall for our democracy and our freedoms.

At Stand Up America, we saw voters’ enthusiasm for these races firsthand. Our members sent 1 million peer-to-peer texts to voters, joined hundreds of volunteer shifts and wrote 22,000 handwritten letters to educate Wisconsin voters about the importance of the Supreme Court election. In Pennsylvania, our members mobilized volunteers to text over 130,000 voters to turn out the vote. The excitement around these races also helped us engage pro-democracy celebrities including Bradley Whitford, Chelsea Handler, Andy Cohen and Alicia Keys to encourage their fans to vote and volunteer in judicial elections.

In 2024, state supreme court races will continue to be a key battleground in protecting democracy. Voters in 33 states will cast ballots for their courts’ top judges in 2024. Races in Ohio and Michigan – and beyond – will be critical to defending our freedom to vote.

Americans can’t afford to elect judges who are unwilling to state their position on democracy issues, or risk further assaults on our right to vote and our right to reproductive health care. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania voters have set a commendable example, highlighting that the strength of our democracy rests in the hands of those who actively engage in its preservation.


Read More

 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less