Midterm Results: What Voters Decided on Judges and Courts

Before Election Day we set out what was on the ballot for the legal world. Now the results are in, though none is final. Every figure below comes from election night reporting or a state results page, and none has been certified. Where an outlet relied on an Associated Press call or projection, we say so. This piece reports outcomes and what they change for lawyers and courts. It takes no side on any measure or race.

Montana and Oklahoma

Montana’s Constitutional Initiative 132 passed, according to the AP, which called the race just after 11:30 p.m. Tuesday with about 70% of ballots counted, Montana Free Press reported. CI-132 led by about 140,000 votes at the time of the call. It amends the state constitution to require that judicial elections remain nonpartisan.

In practice, Montana judges already run without party labels. The outlet notes that the requirement has existed in state law, which lawmakers could change without voter approval, and that with CI-132 approved it will become considerably more difficult to make judicial elections partisan. The two sides framed it differently. Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts, the group behind the measure, says judges “should be elected based on their record and qualifications, not politics.” The Montana Republican Party passed a resolution opposing CI-132 that argues letting candidates campaign with a party affiliation will keep judicial elections “free, fair, and honest.” In the same election, Amy Eddy won the open Montana Supreme Court seat, according to Montana Free Press.

Oklahoma’s State Question 845 failed, according to AP projections reported by News On 6. That keeps the current rules for the Judicial Nominating Commission, which nominates state judges to the governor. Appointments stay tied to congressional districts as constituted in 1967. The six governor appointees and three at-large members still cannot be licensed attorneys or have an immediate family member licensed to practice law. No more than three of the six governor appointees, and no more than two of the three at-large members, can belong to the same party, and commissioners still cannot serve consecutive terms. News On 6, citing the Oklahoma Policy Institute, summarized supporters as saying the changes would modernize boundaries, keep experienced members and add legal expertise, and opponents as warning of more partisanship on the commission, conflicts of interest and fewer safeguards against corruption.

Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana and Maryland

Georgia voters approved an amendment requiring that probate judges be elected on a nonpartisan basis, by 68% to 32%, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The AJC says probate judges were the last judicial office in Georgia where candidates still ran by party. They administer wills and estates, appoint guardians and conservators and issue marriage and weapons carry licenses, and some hear traffic and misdemeanor cases, so estate and guardianship lawyers will see the change most directly. Supporters argue it will promote impartiality and public trust, according to the paper.

In Hawaii, Constitutional Amendment 1 held a large lead in the state’s first printout, with 155,925 votes (59.9%) in favor and 82,994 (31.9%) against, Hawaii News Now reported. It gives the state Senate 60 days instead of 30 to act on appointments of justices and judges made between April 1 and December 31 when the Senate is not in regular session or is about to adjourn.

Indiana’s Public Question 2 passed with 62.6% yes and 89% reporting, according to the AP, the Indiana Daily Student reported. City and town court judges, who now must live in the city or town they serve, may live anywhere in the court’s county or in the closest bordering Indiana county. The Indiana Lawyer reports that supporters hope the change will help smaller communities fill local judgeships as judges retire and few attorneys are available to replace them.

Maryland’s Question 2 was passing with 66.8% in favor on the state’s unofficial results page Wednesday morning. Per the state’s ballot question text, it allows temporary substitute appointments to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities when a member is recused or disqualified or a term expires without a replacement.

Attorneys General in States With AI Laws

Attorneys general enforce most state AI and consumer protection laws, which is why we flagged these races before the vote. Troutman Pepper Locke’s AG results tracker, last updated Wednesday morning, reports winners race by race across the 30 states and the District of Columbia that elected attorneys general.

In Colorado, whose attorney general is writing the rules for the state’s new automated decision-making law, Democrat Jena Griswold was elected to the open seat with 58.5% of the vote over Republican Michael Allen, according to the tracker. She will inherit the rulemaking we covered last week and the defense of xAI’s lawsuit over the law. In Texas, whose Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act is enforced by the attorney general, Democrat Nathan Johnson was elected to the open seat with 52.4% over Republican Mayes Middleton. The Texas Tribune reported that Middleton called Johnson to concede, according to a Johnson campaign spokesperson, and that Johnson has said he will focus on duties such as consumer protection, anti-corruption work and child support enforcement.

The tracker also lists incumbents reelected in other states with their own AI laws: Rob Bonta in California, Letitia James in New York, Kwame Raoul in Illinois and William Tong in Connecticut.

Common Questions

Are these results final?

No. They are election night and early returns, some based on AP calls or projections, and states certify official results later.

Does CI-132 change how Montana judges run now?

Not immediately. Montana already holds nonpartisan judicial elections under state law. The amendment moves that requirement into the constitution.

What changes for Oklahoma’s nominating commission?

Nothing. With SQ 845 failing, the current rules on districts, attorney members, party balance and consecutive terms stay in place.

Did any state vote directly on AI regulation?

Before the election we found no statewide ballot measure on AI regulation or legal services regulation, and these results do not change that.

What to Watch

Watch for certified results, the final Hawaii count and how the new attorneys general in Colorado and Texas approach AI enforcement once they take office. The lame-duck Congress also has until January 3 to act on AI preemption or privacy language before the new Congress convenes.