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

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less