Voters in half of the country will decide who sits on the bench of their state's highest court next Tuesday. State Supreme Court races are on ballot in two dozen states this November, with partisan, nonpartisan and retention contests determining which candidates win seats or remain on the bench of courts that often have the final word on interpreting state law in consequential matters like abortion and redistricting. "State Supreme Court is a super important level of the ballot for us because so much of people's rights and liberties is now determined at the state level," said Deirdre Schifeling, the chief political and advocacy officer for the ACLU, which has spent about $5.5 million on voter outreach efforts in Michigan, Montana and North Carolina.

And while the ideological balance of power isn't up for grabs in most states, experts say what happens next week could set the stage for shifts in 2028 and beyond. Here are five races to watch on election night: In Michigan, six candidates are running for two seats on the state's Supreme Court. Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh is seeking another eight-year term, and Justice Noah Hood is seeking his first full term.

Hood was appointed to the high court by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) after former Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement retired in 2025. All of the candidates will be placed on the same ballot, which also includes contenders Michael Warren, Casandra Morse-Bills, Thomas Howe and Jody White in an open election where the top two vote-getters will be declared winners.

The Wolverine State uses a unique method to determine which names make it on the general election ballot. Political parties select candidates during nominating conventions, but the elections are technically nonpartisan, so those party labels are not listed. It's no secret which way each candidate leans politically. Cavanagh and Hood are Democratic Party nominees, while lower court judges Morse-Bills and Warren were nominated by Republicans.

Howe and White were both nominated by the U.S. Taxpayers Party, the state affiliate of the ultraconservative Constitution Party. The Michigan Advance reports that neither is licensed to practice law in Michigan, a requirement for any judge or justice in the state court system. Recent election cycles have helped shore up liberals' 6-1 advantage on the Michigan Supreme Court, with only one Republican-backed justice currently on the bench. Both Democratic incumbents losing their reelection bids would tighten those margins but keep the majority intact.

A Democratic appointee in Missouri is running to keep his seat on the state's high court — but he has no opponent. Justice Paul Wilson, who was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court bench in 2012, is facing a retention vote. That's an up-and-down vote to decide whether an incumbent keeps their job. There isn't a power balance at stake, as justices appointed by Republican governors hold a 5-2 edge on the bench.

But it remains to be seen whether a mid-decade redistricting fight that ran through the Supreme Court will have any bearing on voters. Wilson authored the dissenting opinion in a narrow March decision that found the GOP-controlled legislature could redraw congressional lines before the next U.S. census. In September he joined with colleagues on a unanimous decision that invalidated a 7-1 House map that sought to dismantle Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's (D-Mo.) district and hand Republicans a pickup opportunity in the midterms.

The court ruled that the new lines, which had been used for the primaries, could not be implemented until voters weighed in on a general election referendum. The battle made to the U.S. Supreme Court three times, with the GOP losing each round. The Missouri Judicial Performance Review Committee, an independent, statewide panel that evaluates the performance of judges for retention, has recommended that Wilson should be retained. It is rare for judges to lose retention elections.

Wilson earned 63 percent yes votes the last time he was on the ballot, according to state election results. The race to replace a retiring justice on the Montana Supreme Court is a rematch between two lower court judges. Flathead County judges Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson are running to succeed outgoing Justice Beth Baker, who is stepping down after 16 years on the bench. The pair have already faced each other once this year, with Eddy securing just over 7,600 more votes than Wilson in the June primary.

As the only two candidates on the ballot, both advanced to the general election. It's officially a nonpartisan contest — meaning no party labels appear alongside their names — but that hasn't stopped it from becoming something of a proxy battle. The Montana GOP has lined up behind Wilson, hosting him as the keynote speaker at the state party's winter kickoff event in February. "I call myself a constitutional Conservative because I decide cases based on the facts and not feelings, principles above all else, and the Constitution," Wilson said at the time, according to Montana Public Radio.

Eddy, meanwhile, has picked up endorsements from labor unions and environmental groups like the Montana Conservation Voters. “When Montana constitutionalised environmental protections, it did so with the understanding that courts would serve as a forum where those rights were taken seriously, interpreted faithfully, and enforced when necessary," Eddy said in a statement shared by the group. Outside groups have spent a combined roughly $2.25 million in the contest, according to TV advertising data compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.

In addition to electing a state Supreme Court justice, voters are also weighing a ballot measure that would enshrine nonpartisan judicial elections in the state constitution after the GOP-controlled legislature tried unsuccessfully to advance bills that would have made them partisan.

"We believe that there is an effort underway in Montana at the state legislative level to make state supreme courts partisan as a way to eventually elect Republican, hard right judges who will then take away reproductive rights," said Schifeling. The court currently has a 4-3 liberal lean, though experts note that Baker has sometimes acted as a swing vote. That leaves room for a potential ideological flip if Wilson emerges on top. The outcome could prove even more important in 2028, when two state Supreme Court seats will be up for election.

A lot of eyes — and money — is also on North Carolina, where Democratic incumbent Justice Anita Earls is defending her seat against former Republican state lawmaker Sarah Stevens. It's the only seat up for election on the state Supreme Court this Tuesday, but it's one that both parties have their eyes on looking ahead to 2028. Republicans won a majority on the Tar Heel State's top court in the 2022 midterms and, within months, reversed the court's own prior rulings that had struck down a voter ID law and redistricting maps as unconstitutional.

The 2022 results followed years of wrangling between the GOP and Democrats over how the state's judicial elections should be held. Those races were partisan for much of the 20th century, but after Republicans started winning more in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Democratic lawmakers removed party labels from the ballot. State Supreme Court elections remained that way until 2016, when the Republican-controlled legislature changed them back to partisan after liberals secured a one-seat majority.

The contests have largely fallen along the state's broader political lines since then, and conservatives now have a 5-2 edge. A win for Stevens would expand that advantage, while Democrats are hoping Earls can cling to her seat to avoid shrinking the minority even further. Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs barely won reelection two years ago in a hotly contested election by less than 1,000 votes.

Tuesday's race has attracted millions of dollars, with figures from the Brennan Center showing Earls has spent just shy of $4.2 million. North Carolina Families First, a left-leaning PAC, also launched a multimillion advertising blitz targeting Stevens. The implications for 2028 are potentially big. Three sitting Republican justices are up for election that cycle, and at least one has already said he won't seek another term.

Five of the nine seats on the Washington Supreme Court are up for election. Chief Justice Debra Stephens is facing attorney Todd Bloom in her bid for another six-year term. Stephens has been on the bench since 2008. Justice Theo Angelis and Justice Colleen Melody, both of whom were tapped by Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) to fill vacancies on the court this year, are seeking to finish out the remainder of the terms. They are being challenged by retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson and attorney Scott Edwards, respectively.

The remaining two races are for seats left open by justices who opted not to seek re-election. King County Superior Court Judge Sean O'Donnell is squaring off against appellate Judge Ian Birk for one of those seats, while Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens is running against King County Superior Judge Jaime Hawk for the other.

Experts aren't anticipating a major ideological shift in this cycle, but the officially nonpartisan races are still attracting plenty of attention. The state Republican Party is backing attorney Edwards, Larson and Bloom in their bids to unseat the sitting justices. It has also endorsed Stevens and O'Donnell for the open seats. Various Democratic officials and left-leaning groups like Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates have signaled their support for the three incumbents, as well as Birk and Hawk. But it's not a clean partisan split. O'Donnell has also picked up endorsements from some Democrats, according to his campaign.

The interest comes as the court is expected to take up major issues in the coming months, according to the Washington State Standard, including reforms to bail bond policy and a challenge to the state's new income tax on high earners. An initiative to repeal the tax is also on the ballot.