More Abortion Ballot Measures Expected to Pass, With State Courts Poised to React
Arizona is among a number of states where conservative organizations are supporting right-leaning judges in anticipation of contests against recently enacted ballot measures aimed at safeguarding abortion rights.
TroibNews 
PHOENIX — Arizonans are likely to enshrine abortion protections in their state constitution. However, it could be judges, not voters, who ultimately decide the outcome.
The state is a battleground where conservative groups are rallying around judges as they prepare to challenge newly passed ballot measures that safeguard abortion rights in various state supreme courts.
Historically overlooked, judicial races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Texas are now attracting millions of dollars in contributions from national and state organizations on both sides of the abortion rights debate, including Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, SBA Pro-Life America, and National Right to Life.
In Arizona, progressive organizations are actively campaigning to make GOP-appointed state Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King the first justices in state history to lose a retention vote. They are reminding voters that the justices upheld an 1864 law that criminalizes almost all abortions.
“That law was created before women had the right to vote in Arizona, or anywhere. They literally made a law without us, about us,” said Jodi Liggett, the founder of Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement, who has worked with both Republican and Democratic state officials. “People need to understand that their vote on [judicial retention] is absolutely just as important as their vote on [the abortion-rights ballot measure]. We can’t have a runaway judiciary.”
Both proponents and opponents of abortion rights recognize that while political figures like former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris garner much attention, state high court justices are likely to play a much more significant role in influencing access to abortions.
State supreme courts gained considerable authority over reproductive rights after the Dobbs decision, which overturned federal abortion protections and returned the issue to states. In the previous year, elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania became crucial as abortion emerged as a leading issue for progressives.
Even if judges don’t overturn abortion-rights ballot measures, they can interpret and decide how these referendums will be implemented. They are also expected to rule on the legality of laws and regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods.
“If the ballot measures pass, there’s a lot of interest in challenging them as vague and misleading, and that can be an area for an injunction or other court action,” stated Kristi Hamrick, the chief policy strategist at Students for Life of America. “And that’s how we went from Roe to Dobbs — we ended up in court again and again and again. So on election night they might say, ‘Ha ha, we won, you lost.’ And my response will be: ‘We’ll see.’”
In Texas, progressives established the “Find Out PAC” to run advertisements against three conservative justices who denied Kate Cox an abortion despite a non-viable and health-threatening pregnancy. In Michigan, the ACLU is investing $2 million to support two justices who are expected to uphold the abortion protections that voters adopted shortly after the fall of Roe. Additionally, in Ohio, both abortion-rights and anti-abortion activists are actively canvassing to emphasize the significance of the state Supreme Court elections as it prepares to rule on the interpretation of an amendment passed by voters in 2023.
“People think, ‘Well, I voted on it. It’s a settled issue,’” remarked Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. “The court, no matter if it’s liberal or conservative, can’t overturn what the voters have put into the state constitution. That’s not going away. But they can interpret what it means, and what the legislature can do in the future — or can’t — and that’s important.”
The attention on state supreme court races is evident across Arizona's bustling corners, where signs bearing messages like “Bolick bans abortion” are juxtaposed against colorful campaign placards for candidates running for House, Senate, and presidency. Competing teal signs from the “Judicial Independence Defense PAC” claim that retaining Bolick and King would “preserve the independent judiciary,” warning that voting them out over their abortion decisions would politicize the high court.
The justices echoed this sentiment during remarks to the Sun City West Republicans Club at a local church. Positioned between a Christmas tree and a cardboard cutout of Trump, Bolick stated that he and King understand how to “check our politics at the door of the court” and claimed their abortion ruling was merely “a convenient excuse to try to get people on the left riled up and replace us with judges who will rubber stamp their ideological agenda.”
While Bolick emphasized his impartiality and independence, he reassured the crowd of Republicans that he intends to “fight for conservative principles.” He cited his connections with the conservative Goldwater Institute, the Reagan Justice Department, and Justice Clarence Thomas.
In contrast, progressives contend that Republicans are the ones who politicized the courts, pointing to former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s expansion of the court in 2016 from five to seven justices and his subsequent appointments of staunch conservatives, including Bolick and King. They highlight a separate measure put on this year’s ballot by Republican lawmakers intended to eliminate future judicial retention elections and possibly override the results of this year’s votes.
“If it is politicized, that’s something that started with the right,” argued Alex Alvarez, executive director of Progress Arizona. “We have an independent system already, and the voters are exercising their ability to be independent auditors of the court.”
Despite the increased focus, activists on both sides remain wary that voter engagement might still decline, with many voters checking boxes for higher offices while leaving judicial races blank.
“I’m worried … that [voters] won’t spend the time and energy to really focus and learn and understand how these races impact their rights,” said Jake Faleschini, legal director for state courts at the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “Who these folks are and what their values are and how expansively they interpret those rights versus how narrowly they interpret those rights will now forever be on the ballot because of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning Roe v. Wade.”
In Ohio, abortion access hangs in the balance as an open state supreme court seat could flip the court’s majority to left-leaning justices for the first time in nearly forty years, but only if Democrats also retain two other seats in November.
The state voted in 2023 to include reproductive health services, including abortion, in the constitution. However, anti-abortion advocates hope a conservative court can clarify what restrictions may still be considered constitutional as the 2025 legislative session approaches.
Ohio Right to Life is engaging its 45 chapters statewide to canvass, run digital and radio advertisements, and mobilize voters through various community events.
Abortion rights advocates in Ohio are equally committed to securing a favorable court outcome. Abortion Forward, alongside other local and national groups, is working to persuade the 57 percent of voters who supported the abortion-rights amendment to now back three Democratic justices whom they see as more favorable to abortion rights. They are especially targeting suburban women.
“Just passing [the amendment] isn’t enough, just like Roe wasn’t enough,” declared Kellie Copeland, executive director of Abortion Forward. “You need to understand: Our opponents haven’t given up. They always have a long-term plan and they’re always looking for ways to undermine the work that groups that are working to protect abortion access are doing.”
In Montana, the abortion-rights amendment will appear on the ballot alongside state supreme court candidates. Organizations including the national ACLU and the ACLU of Montana are investing over $1 million in a voter education campaign regarding the court. There are two vacant seats on the court, a rare situation that could significantly influence the future of abortion access in the state.
“As we saw with Dobbs, who is sitting on the bench and interpreting a constitution is almost as important as what is contained in the constitution itself,” noted Alex Rate, legal director at the ACLU of Montana.
In Texas, where state laws prevent voters from proposing constitutional amendments, including those regarding abortion rights, progressive activists are promoting the idea that state supreme court races serve a similar function.
“This is our ballot initiative,” stated Gina Ortiz Jones, leader of the Find Out PAC. “We just have to explain to folks: If you’re pissed off about what’s happened to Kate Cox, if you’re pissed off about what has happened to Amanda Zurawski and all these other women, it’s the Texas Supreme Court that you can hold accountable this November. We’re not helpless. We’re not hopeless. We have an opportunity.”
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
The state is a battleground where conservative groups are rallying around judges as they prepare to challenge newly passed ballot measures that safeguard abortion rights in various state supreme courts.
Historically overlooked, judicial races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Texas are now attracting millions of dollars in contributions from national and state organizations on both sides of the abortion rights debate, including Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, SBA Pro-Life America, and National Right to Life.
In Arizona, progressive organizations are actively campaigning to make GOP-appointed state Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King the first justices in state history to lose a retention vote. They are reminding voters that the justices upheld an 1864 law that criminalizes almost all abortions.
“That law was created before women had the right to vote in Arizona, or anywhere. They literally made a law without us, about us,” said Jodi Liggett, the founder of Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement, who has worked with both Republican and Democratic state officials. “People need to understand that their vote on [judicial retention] is absolutely just as important as their vote on [the abortion-rights ballot measure]. We can’t have a runaway judiciary.”
Both proponents and opponents of abortion rights recognize that while political figures like former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris garner much attention, state high court justices are likely to play a much more significant role in influencing access to abortions.
State supreme courts gained considerable authority over reproductive rights after the Dobbs decision, which overturned federal abortion protections and returned the issue to states. In the previous year, elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania became crucial as abortion emerged as a leading issue for progressives.
Even if judges don’t overturn abortion-rights ballot measures, they can interpret and decide how these referendums will be implemented. They are also expected to rule on the legality of laws and regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods.
“If the ballot measures pass, there’s a lot of interest in challenging them as vague and misleading, and that can be an area for an injunction or other court action,” stated Kristi Hamrick, the chief policy strategist at Students for Life of America. “And that’s how we went from Roe to Dobbs — we ended up in court again and again and again. So on election night they might say, ‘Ha ha, we won, you lost.’ And my response will be: ‘We’ll see.’”
In Texas, progressives established the “Find Out PAC” to run advertisements against three conservative justices who denied Kate Cox an abortion despite a non-viable and health-threatening pregnancy. In Michigan, the ACLU is investing $2 million to support two justices who are expected to uphold the abortion protections that voters adopted shortly after the fall of Roe. Additionally, in Ohio, both abortion-rights and anti-abortion activists are actively canvassing to emphasize the significance of the state Supreme Court elections as it prepares to rule on the interpretation of an amendment passed by voters in 2023.
“People think, ‘Well, I voted on it. It’s a settled issue,’” remarked Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. “The court, no matter if it’s liberal or conservative, can’t overturn what the voters have put into the state constitution. That’s not going away. But they can interpret what it means, and what the legislature can do in the future — or can’t — and that’s important.”
The attention on state supreme court races is evident across Arizona's bustling corners, where signs bearing messages like “Bolick bans abortion” are juxtaposed against colorful campaign placards for candidates running for House, Senate, and presidency. Competing teal signs from the “Judicial Independence Defense PAC” claim that retaining Bolick and King would “preserve the independent judiciary,” warning that voting them out over their abortion decisions would politicize the high court.
The justices echoed this sentiment during remarks to the Sun City West Republicans Club at a local church. Positioned between a Christmas tree and a cardboard cutout of Trump, Bolick stated that he and King understand how to “check our politics at the door of the court” and claimed their abortion ruling was merely “a convenient excuse to try to get people on the left riled up and replace us with judges who will rubber stamp their ideological agenda.”
While Bolick emphasized his impartiality and independence, he reassured the crowd of Republicans that he intends to “fight for conservative principles.” He cited his connections with the conservative Goldwater Institute, the Reagan Justice Department, and Justice Clarence Thomas.
In contrast, progressives contend that Republicans are the ones who politicized the courts, pointing to former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s expansion of the court in 2016 from five to seven justices and his subsequent appointments of staunch conservatives, including Bolick and King. They highlight a separate measure put on this year’s ballot by Republican lawmakers intended to eliminate future judicial retention elections and possibly override the results of this year’s votes.
“If it is politicized, that’s something that started with the right,” argued Alex Alvarez, executive director of Progress Arizona. “We have an independent system already, and the voters are exercising their ability to be independent auditors of the court.”
Despite the increased focus, activists on both sides remain wary that voter engagement might still decline, with many voters checking boxes for higher offices while leaving judicial races blank.
“I’m worried … that [voters] won’t spend the time and energy to really focus and learn and understand how these races impact their rights,” said Jake Faleschini, legal director for state courts at the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “Who these folks are and what their values are and how expansively they interpret those rights versus how narrowly they interpret those rights will now forever be on the ballot because of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning Roe v. Wade.”
In Ohio, abortion access hangs in the balance as an open state supreme court seat could flip the court’s majority to left-leaning justices for the first time in nearly forty years, but only if Democrats also retain two other seats in November.
The state voted in 2023 to include reproductive health services, including abortion, in the constitution. However, anti-abortion advocates hope a conservative court can clarify what restrictions may still be considered constitutional as the 2025 legislative session approaches.
Ohio Right to Life is engaging its 45 chapters statewide to canvass, run digital and radio advertisements, and mobilize voters through various community events.
Abortion rights advocates in Ohio are equally committed to securing a favorable court outcome. Abortion Forward, alongside other local and national groups, is working to persuade the 57 percent of voters who supported the abortion-rights amendment to now back three Democratic justices whom they see as more favorable to abortion rights. They are especially targeting suburban women.
“Just passing [the amendment] isn’t enough, just like Roe wasn’t enough,” declared Kellie Copeland, executive director of Abortion Forward. “You need to understand: Our opponents haven’t given up. They always have a long-term plan and they’re always looking for ways to undermine the work that groups that are working to protect abortion access are doing.”
In Montana, the abortion-rights amendment will appear on the ballot alongside state supreme court candidates. Organizations including the national ACLU and the ACLU of Montana are investing over $1 million in a voter education campaign regarding the court. There are two vacant seats on the court, a rare situation that could significantly influence the future of abortion access in the state.
“As we saw with Dobbs, who is sitting on the bench and interpreting a constitution is almost as important as what is contained in the constitution itself,” noted Alex Rate, legal director at the ACLU of Montana.
In Texas, where state laws prevent voters from proposing constitutional amendments, including those regarding abortion rights, progressive activists are promoting the idea that state supreme court races serve a similar function.
“This is our ballot initiative,” stated Gina Ortiz Jones, leader of the Find Out PAC. “We just have to explain to folks: If you’re pissed off about what’s happened to Kate Cox, if you’re pissed off about what has happened to Amanda Zurawski and all these other women, it’s the Texas Supreme Court that you can hold accountable this November. We’re not helpless. We’re not hopeless. We have an opportunity.”
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
