State supreme courts can be the final authority on issues including gerrymandering, abortion, and criminal justice. Despite this, little attention is paid to the elections that decide their makeup in many states. In 16 states,+
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
justices are chosen through statewide elections. Most other states give control to some combination of the governor and state legislature. In four states, however, justices are elected from districts and represent only part of their state. If these were legislative districts, Reynolds v. Sims means that they would have to have equal populations.+
Technically the voters of each district need to have equal voting power, which which is different only for multiple member districts.
Because these are judicial elections, there is no such requirement.
Mississippi
Mississippi represents the best-case scenerio for districted judicial elections. The state's District 1 is mostly black,+
The Mississippi Supreme Court Judicial Map is here, and the DRA link is here if you'd like to check that claim.
and gives African-American voters the opportunity to select three justices of their choice. The difference in population between the largest and smallest districts is about 10%, close to the standard applied to state legislative districts. In this case, properly apportioned judicial districts play a valuable role in ensuring minority representation Mississippi's highest court.
Kentucky
The outlook for Kentucky is nowhere near as rosy. Kentucky has seven supreme court districts, with two being recently won by Joe Biden. These 4th and 5th Districts are also significantly less white than all of the other districts.+
The district map for the Kentucky Supreme Court is here, and the DRA link is here if you'd like to check these claims.
Curiously, these are the only two districts over the ideal population (read: underrepresented), with a total deviation of 28%. Redistricting plans have been struck down in the past for disadvantaging minority voters by drawing them in districts where their votes will have a limited impact. This is far more straightforward. The votes of white Kentuckians are on average worth more than those of non-white residents.
Louisiana
If nearing a 30% deviation is bad, Louisiana takes this to another level. Another state with seven supreme court districts, a vote in its 7th judicial district is worth almost twice that in its 5th.+
The map of Louisiana Supreme Court Districts can be found here. This map is from the 90s and not all of the precincts line up with modern ones. This is an approximation of where these lines are currently. If there is any doubt about which district a precinct is in, it is assigned to the least populated reasonable option. This means that all claims about Louisiana are likely slight understatements. If you know anything about this map, please reach out.
The only positive about this system is that it does not have the questionable racial impact found elsewhere. Instead, the majority black 7th district gives African American voters the chance to elect a supreme court justice of their choice, which may not have happened using statewide elections.
Illinois
Illinois had the potential to be the ultimate example of judicial malapportionment, with this story culminating with the worst offender. Instead, Illinois has done something the other states on this list might want to consider.+
Except Mississippi, which actually already has a better apportioned map than the new Illinois plan. Well done, Mississippi.
The state legislature redrew the judicial districts for the first time ever, resulting in a significantly better apportioned plan than the original map from 1964. While the old lines had votes in the 5th district count 2.5 times those in the old 2nd, this new iteration has a more reasonable total deviation around 13%.+
Both old and new Illinois Judicial District Maps are here. Old DRA link here and new DRA link here. Illinois works a bit differently from how other states do judicial districts. Its constitution requires seven supreme court justices from five districts, with Cook County (Chicago) getting three justices for itself. Luckily, Cook continues to be very close to 3/7 of the population of Illinois, so this works out for now.
The legislature may not have redrawn the map for purely benevolent reasons,+
The new map is more favorable to Democrats than the old one, which might be appealling to a state legislature controlled by Democrats. To be fair to them, Illinois is a blue state, and a map that elects or comes close to electing a conservative majority in neutral circumstances is not ideal.
but it is better regardless.
Takeaway
If judicial elections must take place, using districts is not the worst solution. The four states where they are used are not electoral battlegrounds, and very few statewide elections hold much suspense these days.+
Dividing up a state can create a supreme court with ideological and racial diversity.+
Mississippi and Louisiana are the two states with the highest share of African American residents, at 37% and 31% respectively.
If having disagreements and a broad range of perspectives is valuable for the final decider in countless important issues, then judicial districts make this possible. They are not perfect, with malapportionment being the foremost issue, but they provide come opportunity for minority+
Think minority as in 'non-white' in the South and minority as in 'Republican' in Illinois.
representaton if executed correctly.
Feedback
Thoughts, suggestions, nitpicks, and any other kind of feedback is very much appreciated.