Welcome to the Tuesday, March 18, 2025, Brew.
By: Lara Bonatesta
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- A look at how states select their state supreme court justices
- Idaho voters to decide on an amendment prohibiting marijuana citizen initiatives in 2026
- Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court election is now the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history
A look at how states select their state supreme court justices
There are 52 state supreme courts in the U.S. and 344 state supreme court justices. States select their supreme court justices in various ways, including through elections, gubernatorial appointments, commission nominations, and state legislative elections.
Lawmakers in at least four states have proposed legislation to change how their states select state supreme court justices.
- In Arkansas, SJR13 would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow state supreme court candidates to declare their party affiliation on the ballot.
- Status: In committee
- In Kansas, SCR 1611 would put an amendment on the ballot to change the state’s supreme court selection method from a commission to direct elections.
- Status: Crossed over (Passed Senate 27-13 with 27 Republicans in favor and nine Democrats and four Republicans opposed)
- In Montana, SB 42 would change the state’s supreme court elections from nonpartisan to partisan.
- Status: Crossed over (Passed Senate 28-22 with 28 Republicans in favor and 18 Democrats and four Republicans opposed)
- In North Carolina, SB107 would change the state’s supreme court elections from partisan to nonpartisan.
- Status: In committee
Across all types of state courts, there are five types of judicial selection. In addition to partisan elections and nonpartisan elections, other selection methods include:
- Legislative elections: The state legislature elections judges
- Gubernatorial appointment: The governor appoints judges. In some cases, a legislative body must approve the appointment.
- Assisted appointment: A nominating commission submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list. After serving an initial term, the judge must run in a retention election to remain on the court.
At the state supreme court level, assisted appointment can be broken down further into three types of controlled commissions:
- Governor-controlled commission: The governor either appoints a majority of the nominating commission members or may decline to appoint a candidate from a commission-provided list.
- Bar-controlled commission: The state Bar Association appoints a majority of the commission members.
- Hybrid commission: Neither the governor nor the state Bar Associated chooses the majority of commission members. Different rules in each state determine the membership of these commissions.
To learn more about the arguments for and against each type of judicial selection method, click here.
Currently, eight states hold partisan supreme court elections, and 13 hold nonpartisan ones. Ohio was the most recent state to make its judicial elections partisan in 2021.
Thirty-three states held state supreme court elections for 82 seats in 2024. As a result of these elections, Republicans lost one state court, Democrats neither gained nor lost control of a state court, and one court became divided. As of March 17, the race for a state supreme court seat in North Carolina has not been called, making it the last uncertified statewide 2024 election in the country.
To learn more about judicial selection in all 50 states, click here.
In 2026, Idaho voters will decide on an amendment prohibiting marijuana citizen initiatives
On Nov. 3, 2026, Idaho voters will decide on a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that would prohibit citizen initiatives that would legalize marijuana. The proposed amendment says that only the Legislature can legalize or regulate marijuana, narcotics, and other psychoactive substances.
The amendment, House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR 4), passed the House 58-10 on March 5, with 58 Republicans in favor and nine Democrats and one Republican voting against. The Senate passed the amendment 29-6, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it.
State Sen. Scott Grow (R), who cosponsored the amendment, said, “Too many legislatures across this nation have sat back and just waited as initiative after initiative would come after them, until they finally overwhelm it and overwhelm the legislature. We are acting because that’s our responsibility.”
Sen. James Ruchti (D), who voted against the amendment, said, “The people have a right under the initiative and the referendum process to weigh in on these issues. We have been clear in the Constitution that all political power is inherent in the people, and we have been clear that the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and enact the same at the polls independent of the Legislature. We should respect the people.”
The group Kind Idaho filed a recreational marijuana legalization initiative that is currently gathering signatures. The campaign must submit at least 70,725 valid signatures by May 1, 2026, to qualify for the November 2026 ballot.
If voters approve both conflicting measures, Idaho law states that the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other on any points of conflict. Idaho is one of seven states that use this approach to resolve conflicting ballot measures.
Twenty-four states and Washington, D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana. Thirteen states and D.C. have done so via ballot initiative. In two states, the legislature put legalization measures on the ballot. Nine states legalized marijuana through legislation.
Of the 26 states that have the initiative process, seven limit the types of initiatives that citizens can put on the ballot through subject restrictions. Idaho currently does not have any subject restrictions for initiatives.
Several state governments have preempted efforts from local governments to regulate marijuana. Preemption occurs when law at a higher level of government is used to overrule authority at a lower level. For example, in 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that state law preempted local bylaws requiring marijuana dispensaries to operate as nonprofits. To learn more about marijuana-related preemption conflicts between state and local governments, click here.
This amendment is the only statewide issue on the Idaho ballot so far in 2026. Two citizen initiatives, including the one to legalize marijuana, are gathering signatures.
To learn more about Idaho’s 2026 ballot measures, click here.
Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court election is now the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history
With two weeks to go until Wisconsin’s spring general election, here’s an update on the race for the state supreme court. To learn more about this race, check out our preview in the Dec. 16, 2024, edition of the Brew, our Jan. 17 video breaking down the race, and our Feb. 12 episode of On The Ballot featuring Wisconsin Public Radio’s Anya van Wagtendonk.
Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel are running for a 10-year term in the nonpartisan election on April 1. Incumbent Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, one of the court’s liberal members, is retiring.
Although Wisconsin’s Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, candidates often take stances on specific issues and receive backing from the state’s major political parties during their campaigns. Wisconsin’s Democratic Party has endorsed Crawford. Schimel is the state’s former Republican attorney general.
The court currently has a 4-3 liberal majority. In the 2023 election, Judge Janet Protasiewicz won an open seat, shifting control of the court for the first time in 15 years.
In our February episode of On the Ballot, Wisconsin Public Radio’s state capitol reporter Anya van Wagtendonk said, “We have a Democratic governor and a Republican-held Legislature, and it’s been that way for quite a while, and so increasingly important issues are just not getting decided by the Legislature, and then they end up getting kicked to the court. … So they’re increasingly just an important arm of political decision-making.”
To see our coverage of noteworthy recent and upcoming cases, click here.
Spending update
According to WisPolitics, the candidates and satellite groups combined had spent nearly $59 million on the race as of March 12. This surpasses the 2023 election, in which total spending was $56 million according to WisPolitics, and at the time, was the most spent on a state judicial race in U.S. history.
According to WisPolitics, before the 2023 election, the most expensive state supreme court race was the 2004 Illinois election between Lloyd Karmeier (R) and Gordon Maag (D), in which total spending reached $15 million. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Wisconsin’s previous record for total spending in a state supreme court race before the 2023 election was $10 million in 2020.
Click here to find updates on satellite spending in this race.
Here’s a breakdown of candidate spending in the race:
Candidate spending (according to reports filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission on Feb. 10):
- Crawford has raised $5.1 million and spent $3.6 million
- Schimel has raised $3 million and spent $2.1 million
Crawford and Schimel participated in a debate at Marquette University Law School on March 12. Click here to watch that debate.
Click here to see our ongoing coverage of the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.