The Invisible Election That Changes Everything
While Americans obsess over presidential races and congressional battles, a shadow war is being waged for control of state supreme courts—and most voters don't even know it's happening. Anonymous dark money groups spent over $100 million on state judicial elections in 2022 alone, shattering previous records while operating under disclosure rules so weak that voters have no idea who's trying to buy their courts.
These aren't obscure positions deciding minor disputes. State supreme courts control redistricting maps that determine which party controls Congress, interpret abortion bans that affect millions of women, decide voting rights cases that shape electoral access, and rule on labor laws that govern workplace protections. They are, in effect, super-legislatures operating without the accountability that comes with normal political campaigns.
The Money Trail Goes Dark
The scale of spending is staggering, but the source is deliberately hidden. In Wisconsin's 2023 state supreme court race, outside groups spent over $15 million—more than the candidates themselves raised. The Pennsylvania supreme court race in 2021 saw $16 million in dark money spending. Ohio's recent judicial elections have been flooded with anonymous cash, as have races in North Carolina, Michigan, and Montana.
Unlike federal campaigns, which require disclosure of donors contributing over $200, many states allow unlimited anonymous spending on judicial races through 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations. These groups can accept unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, or other dark money groups, then spend millions on attack ads without ever revealing their funding sources.
The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative dark money group, has spent over $80 million on state judicial races since 2014. Its liberal counterpart, Forward Justice, has spent millions as well. But voters have no way to know whether these groups are funded by local citizens concerned about justice or by billionaire donors with specific business interests before the courts.
Photo: Judicial Crisis Network, via judicialsupportnetwork.org
When Justice Has a Price Tag
The consequences are already visible. In West Virginia, a coal executive spent $3.5 million to help elect a state supreme court justice who later cast the deciding vote to overturn a $50 million judgment against his company. In Illinois, personal injury lawyers have spent millions electing justices who consistently rule in favor of expanded liability for corporations.
The most troubling cases involve direct conflicts of interest. A 2021 analysis by the Brennan Center found that in 69% of cases where business groups spent money to elect state supreme court justices, those justices later voted in favor of the business community's position. The correlation between campaign spending and judicial outcomes suggests that justice is increasingly for sale to the highest bidder.
Photo: Brennan Center, via my.lwv.org
These patterns extend beyond business cases. In states where conservative groups have captured supreme courts, voting rights have been systematically dismantled, redistricting maps have been gerrymandered to extreme levels, and reproductive rights have been eliminated even where voters support them. Liberal dark money has pursued its own agenda in states where it has gained influence.
The Federalist Society's State Strategy
The conservative legal movement's success in capturing federal courts through the Federalist Society has been well-documented, but its state-level strategy has received less attention despite being equally effective. Conservative donors have invested heavily in identifying and grooming state judicial candidates who share their ideological commitments.
This isn't a grassroots movement—it's a top-down strategy funded by a small number of wealthy donors. The same foundations and individuals who fund conservative federal judicial nominees are now investing in state courts, recognizing that these positions offer more direct control over policy outcomes.
The strategy is working. Conservative groups have flipped supreme court majorities in multiple states over the past decade, often in races where voters had little information about the candidates' judicial philosophies or the outside groups trying to influence their votes.
Democracy's Blind Spot
The lack of transparency in judicial elections represents a fundamental failure of democratic accountability. Voters are asked to choose between candidates while being bombarded with millions of dollars in advertising from groups that refuse to identify themselves or their motives.
This secrecy is particularly corrosive in judicial races because judges are supposed to be impartial arbiters of law, not political actors beholden to special interests. When dark money groups spend millions to elect judges, they create the appearance—if not the reality—that justice can be purchased.
The problem is compounded by voter ignorance about judicial races. Most Americans can't name their state supreme court justices, and judicial elections typically receive minimal media coverage. This information vacuum creates ideal conditions for dark money manipulation, allowing well-funded groups to shape judicial outcomes with minimal public scrutiny.
Solutions Hiding in Plain Sight
The fix is straightforward: require disclosure. Several states have already implemented stronger transparency rules for judicial elections, requiring groups spending over certain thresholds to reveal their major donors. These reforms haven't eliminated outside spending, but they've given voters the information they need to evaluate who's trying to influence their courts.
Some states have gone further, implementing public financing systems for judicial campaigns that reduce candidates' dependence on private donors. Others have moved to merit-based appointment systems that remove politics from judicial selection entirely.
At the federal level, Congress could pass legislation requiring disclosure in all elections, including judicial races. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision may have opened the floodgates for unlimited spending, but it explicitly endorsed disclosure requirements as a way to preserve democratic accountability.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
State supreme courts will decide the next decade of American policy on issues from voting rights to reproductive freedom to economic regulation. If these decisions are being shaped by anonymous billionaires rather than legal precedent and constitutional principles, then the rule of law itself is at risk.
The capture of state supreme courts by dark money represents one of the greatest threats to American democracy that most Americans have never heard of—and that's exactly how the people funding it want to keep it.
