State courts decide 95% of all cases in the United States, shaping the daily lives of millions. While public trust in state courts has remained steady to date, an increasing number of Americans see the courts as a political institution. Nearly 9 out of 10 state judges must stand for election at some point in their careers. What was once a quiet corner of democracy has become one of its most expensive—and explosive—battlegrounds. During the 2021–2022 midterms, judicial elections in just 17 states shattered records with $100 million in campaign spending.

State courts are now deciding some of the nation’s most pivotal issues: voting rights, redistricting, reproductive decision-making, and more. At the same time, judges themselves are under unprecedented pressure. Beyond deciding divisive cases, they face escalating harassment and threats. While steps are being taken to protect their safety, these risks are intensifying. State courts are also emerging as prime targets for cyber threats. Attacks have shut down e-filing and case management systems in states like Texas and Georgia, delaying proceedings and undermining public trust. With courts increasingly digitized—and increasingly central to high-stakes political battles—their vulnerability to cyber intrusions is a direct threat to democratic stability.

At the epicenter of this growing storm are judicial elections—where the independence of our courts, and the trust of the public, are on the line. State election laws and judicial ethics rules have failed to keep pace with modern political realities. They overlook a crucial truth: judges are not ordinary elected officials. The mechanisms by which they attain office—what they can say on the campaign trail, and how money shapes those campaigns—go to the heart of public trust in the justice system itself.