State Supreme Court Elections in Texas and Ohio Set Stage for 2028

State Supreme Court Results Set the Stage for 2028 Power Shifts

The dust is still settling from Tuesday’s elections, but for those watching the legal architecture of the United States, the results are already signaling a long-term recalibration. While high-profile congressional and gubernatorial contests dominated the headlines, 23 states held elections for 42 state supreme court seats on Tuesday. According to reporting from State Court Report, the outcomes have not instantly flipped majorities in most states, but they have fundamentally altered the terrain for 2028, when ideological control of the high courts in Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, and potentially Texas will sit squarely on the ballot.

The Unexpected Blue Wave in Texas

Perhaps the most striking development occurred in Texas, where the state supreme court has had all-Republican membership since 1999. In a surprise showing, Democratic candidates for both the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals are currently leading their Republican opponents. If these leads hold, it would shrink the Republican majority on the state supreme court to a narrow 5–4 margin.

The stakes here are high. The Texas Supreme Court has been a reliably conservative force, notably refusing to expand or clarify medical exemptions to the state’s abortion ban in a 2024 unanimous ruling. However, the court has not always been a monolith. Even with its current composition, one justice has dissented from a ruling upholding the state’s ban on certain gender-affirming care treatments for minors. With three Republican-held seats up for election in 2028, the path for a potential shift in the court’s majority is now clearly mapped out.

Columbus oh the supreme court of ohio on may in columbus ohio

The Court of Criminal Appeals is facing similar pressure. The court previously drew national attention for its role in the case of Robert Roberson, a man sentenced to death in 2003 based on evidence critics identified as “junk science.” After the court initially refused to halt his execution, an unprecedented legislative intervention forced a stay, eventually leading the court to reconsider the case. The political fallout from such decisions has been intense; in the 2024 primaries, Attorney General Ken Paxton funded three challengers who defeated sitting judges who had previously ruled against his office’s power to prosecute voter fraud.

Ohio and the Battle Over Partisan Labels

In Ohio, politics moved in a different direction. Despite a 2022 decision by the Republican-majority legislature in Ohio to add party labels to judicial ballots, Democrats managed to expand their footprint on the court. Justice Jennifer Brunner successfully defended her seat, and Judge Marilyn Zayas defeated incumbent Justice Daniel Hawkins. While Republicans maintain a 5–2 majority, the upcoming 2028 election, which includes at least one open seat due to mandatory retirement, ensures that partisan control will remain a central point of contention.

In Texas, Republicans are defending four seats on the state supreme court, with four GOP justices seeking reelection and each facing a Democratic challenger. https://t.co/iiu4mT2z9v

— https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/2116228603285221586

The Financial and Ideological Stakes in North Carolina and Montana

North Carolina remains one of the most polarized judicial battlegrounds in the country. Justice Anita Earls’s reelection race attracted over $8 million in spending, on track to be the most expensive state supreme court election this year. Despite her victory, the court retains a 5–2 Republican majority. With three Republican seats up for election in 2028, Democrats will need to secure two of those positions to flip the court. The impact of this control is immediate; when Republicans gained the majority in 2022, the court quickly reversed course on critical rulings regarding redistricting and education funding.

Meanwhile, in Montana, district court judge Amy Eddy won a high-stakes seat on the state supreme court. While Montana’s elections are technically nonpartisan, the ideological divide was clear, with Eddy receiving endorsements from labor unions and conservation groups, while her opponent, Dan Wilson, positioned himself as a “judicial conservative.” Montana voters also overwhelmingly approved a citizens’ initiative to enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state constitution, effectively blocking the legislature from forcing party labels onto the ballot in the future.

As we look toward 2028, the question remains: will the electorate continue to view state supreme courts as political institutions, or will the push for nonpartisan independence gain traction? The current results confirm that these benches are no longer insulated from the broader political currents flowing through the country.