Alabama IVF ruling highlights importance of state supreme court races in this year’s US elections

CHICAGO– CHICAGO (AP) — Alabama’s recent ruling that frozen embryos are legally considered children created a political firestorm after the decision halted treatment for many couples seeking to start a family through fertility treatments. It has also drawn attention to the importance of institutions poised to play a central role in this year’s elections: the states’ supreme courts.

Decisions by state supreme courts have become particularly critical in the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a constitutional right to abortion. This year, campaigns for seats on the state Supreme Court are expected to be among the most expensive and contentious elections. At stake are future decisions on abortion, other reproductive rights, gerrymandering, voting rights and other crucial issues.

“This is where the action is,” said Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

The Feb. 16 ruling by the Republican-majority Alabama Supreme Court to consider frozen embryos created through IVF as children under state law has unexpectedly made in vitro fertilization, or IVF, an emerging issue in increasingly popular campaigns. the mood has been. With multiple providers pausing fertility treatments in the state for fear of criminal charges or damages, the Republican Party-controlled Legislature is under pressure to come up with a solution.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, striking down federal protections for abortion rights, the decision unleashed a flurry of activity in the states, from legislation to lawsuits that often ended up in the state’s highest courts. These cases have raised the stakes of having liberals or conservatives control a majority in those courts.

“Many people may not have realized that state supreme courts can decide these types of issues that have such a direct impact on their daily lives,” Hill said. “But this ruling in Alabama reminds us that these courts have so much power, especially now, over people’s rights.”

This year’s elections involve 80 races for Supreme Court seats in 33 states, including some like Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, where party control is at stake. At least four states will hold Supreme Court races on Super Tuesday, including Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas. Others including Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon and West Virginia will hold competitions throughout the spring.

In Alabama, five of the nine seats on the all-Republican Supreme Court are at stake. Chief Justice Tom Parker, 72, who cited verses from the Bible and Christian theologians in his concurring opinion in the IVF case, cannot seek another term because the Mississippi Constitution does not allow judges older than 70 to be elected.

Since Roe fell in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, about 40 lawsuits challenging abortion bans have been filed in 23 states, and many have worked their way up to the states’ highest courts as advocates look for protections in state constitutions of abortion rights.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 30 state supreme courts have ruled on cases challenging abortion restrictions under their state constitutions. Of these, 12 have recognized the protection of abortion rights in state constitutions, while four have denied that their state constitutions protect abortion rights. Other supreme courts have upheld or blocked abortion restrictions without explicitly deciding whether their state constitutions protect abortion rights.

These rulings have had direct consequences for those trying to access abortion care. In December, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a court order that would have allowed a Dallas woman to have an abortion after her story that she was forced to leave the state to end her unviable pregnancy sparked national outrage.

Abortion rights are just one recent example of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against states on important issues, said Douglas Keith, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice’s judicial program, which tracks spending on judicial races. The U.S. Supreme Court also vacated rulings on issues such as partisan gerrymandering and voting rights, with state supreme courts often having the final say on these issues.

“The Dobbs decision and others made clear that these courts would be the ones to decide these fundamental issues at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court was taking a step back in protecting certain rights,” Keith said.

State courts are also involved in the process of bringing statewide citizen initiatives to a vote, often deciding disputes over the technical requirements of petitions and the signature gathering process. They will play a crucial role this year as reproductive rights groups in a number of states look to put abortion protection measures before voters.

State supreme courts are expected to rule on such measures planned in Florida, Missouri and Nevada.

Florida’s Republican attorney general in January asked the state Supreme Court to keep a proposed abortion rights change off the ballot. In Missouri, an appeals court ruled in October that summaries written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an abortion opponent who is running for governor, were politically partisan and misleading. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear Ashcroft’s appeal of the ruling.

A Nevada district court judge in January approved a signature-gathering petition on abortion rights, despite a legal challenge by anti-abortion groups. In November, the judge rejected an earlier request that was much broader and included protections for prenatal care, postpartum care, vasectomies, tubal ligations, miscarriages and infertility. Nevadans for Reproductive Freedoms, the group behind the petition, has appealed the denial to the Nevada Supreme Court and is awaiting a ruling.

Activists are also pushing to put abortion rights on the ballot in Arizona, where Republican governors have appointed all seven Supreme Court justices.

“In many cases, state supreme courts have a lot of power to shut down direct democracy by preventing a question from getting on the ballot,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

Strategies that seek to derail ballot initiatives are part of a blueprint created by anti-abortion groups in other states, including Ohio, where voters overwhelmingly decided last year to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

Even with voter approval, the Ohio Supreme Court will be the “ultimate arbiter” of how to interpret the constitutional amendment and how it will affect existing abortion laws, said Hill, the Case Western law professor who served as a consultant to the campaign served in Ohio. enshrine abortion rights. This means this year’s Supreme Court races, starting with the March 19 primary, will be critical to abortion rights in the state, as well as other issues such as gerrymandering, environmental protection and criminal justice, she said.

With three seats up for a vote and a current Republican majority of 4-3, Democrats have a chance to flip the court’s majority for the first time since 1986, while Republicans will try to expand their control.

The outcome of a heated race in Wisconsin last year has already had an impact, after that state’s Supreme Court shifted to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years.

In December, Wisconsin’s new Supreme Court overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps and ordered new district boundaries to be drawn. Wisconsin is a swing state, but it is also one of the hardest-hit states in the country, allowing Republicans to have an outsized majority in the legislature. A lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s abortion ban could also go to the state Supreme Court.

“There have been immediate redistricting repercussions that have fundamentally reshaped Wisconsin politics,” said Kyle Kondik, editor-in-chief of an election and campaign newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “It shows how important these races are.”

___

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to improve its explanatory reporting on elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.