Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

State supreme court races will determine future of our democracy

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less