State Supreme Court Election Results 2026: No Majorities Flip, but Ohio Narrows to 5-2

State supreme court election results 2026 show Democrats and Democrat-backed candidates winning nearly every contested high-court race on November 3: both Ohio seats, both Michigan seats, North Carolina's lone seat, Montana's open seat, and four of the five Washington seats on the ballot, with Alabama the main Republican hold. Outside Texas, where Democrats won four seats but left a 5-4 Republican majority in place, no state's court changed hands, yet the narrower Ohio majority and the remade Washington bench matter directly to the personal injury bar, insurers, and anyone litigating damages caps, jury-trial rights, or the enforcement of an Arbitration Agreement in state court.

All numbers in this briefing are unofficial election-night and morning-after returns reported between November 3 and November 4, 2026. Canvasses and certification run through November and into December, and the closest Washington race could still move. Where outlets reported different snapshots of the count, the ranges are given rather than a single figure.

According to Ballotpedia, 32 states scheduled supreme court elections in 2026, covering 64 of the 344 state high-court seats in the country. Some of those contests were decided earlier in the year (Wisconsin in April, Arkansas in March), some were retention votes with no opponent, and some had already been resolved in primaries. The November races that drew money and attention were concentrated in seven states: Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Washington, Montana, Alabama and Texas. This briefing takes them in turn, then turns to what the results mean for civil litigation.

State supreme court election results 2026: the scorecard

The table collects the contested November results most relevant to civil practitioners. "Before" and "after" describe the partisan or nominating-party balance of the full court, which is how court watchers measure majorities even where ballots are formally nonpartisan.

State	Seats on ballot	Winners (unofficial)	Approx. margin	Court balance before	Court balance after
Ohio	2 of 7	Jennifer Brunner (D, incumbent); Marilyn Zayas (D, challenger)	51.4–48.6; 51.0–49.0	6-1 Republican	5-2 Republican
Michigan	2 of 7	Megan Cavanagh (D-nominated, chief justice); Noah Hood (D-nominated)	Top-two finish in multi-candidate field	6-1 Democratic-nominated	6-1 Democratic-nominated
North Carolina	1 of 7	Anita Earls (D, incumbent)	About 59–41	5-2 Republican	5-2 Republican
Washington	5 of 9	Debra Stephens, Colleen Melody, Theo Angelis, Jaime Hawk (Democrat-backed); Sean O'Donnell (Republican-backed, leading)	50.9–48.7 to 63.8–36	Democrat-aligned majority	Democrat-aligned majority
Montana	1 of 7	Amy Eddy	About 59–41	Nonpartisan, liberal-leaning majority	Unchanged
Alabama	2 of 9	Greg Shaw (R, Place 8); Brad Mendheim (R, Place 7)	Roughly 55–58% for Shaw; Mendheim about 96% against write-ins	All Republican	All Republican
Texas	4 of 9	Maggie Ellis, Chari Kelly, Kristen Hawkins, Gisela Triana (all D)	About 52–53% each	9-0 Republican	5-4 Republican
California	Retention	Justices Kelli Evans and Joshua Groban retained	About 72% yes (partial count)	Unchanged	Unchanged

Two patterns stand out. First, Democratic and Democrat-backed candidates ran ahead in every competitive November race except Alabama's Place 8 and Washington's O'Donnell–Birk contest. Second, the results moved margins rather than control: Ohio narrowed, Texas narrowed sharply, and every other court kept the majority it had on November 2.

Did any state supreme court change majority in the 2026 election?

No state supreme court changed majority control in the November 3, 2026 general election. The closest call was Texas, where four Democratic wins cut a 9-0 Republican court to 5-4 but stopped one seat short of a flip; Ohio narrowed from 6-1 to 5-2 Republican; and Michigan, North Carolina, Washington, Montana and Alabama kept their existing majorities.

That is also the framing State Court Report, the Brennan Center's state-courts publication, adopted on November 4: the midterms did not immediately change any high-court majority, but they set up fights for control in 2028 in Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and potentially Texas. For litigants, "no flip" is not the same as "no change." Coalition math on a 5-2 court differs from a 6-1 court, and a nine-member court with a four-justice minority bloc behaves differently from a unanimous one, particularly where a small number of votes controls which cases are heard. The Texas Supreme Court, for instance, needs only four votes to grant a petition for review, a point developed in this site's separate analysis of the Texas results.

Did Democrats win the Ohio Supreme Court races in 2026?

Yes. Democrats won both Ohio Supreme Court races in 2026, according to unofficial results reported on November 4: Justice Jennifer Brunner defeated Republican Colleen O'Donnell, and Marilyn Zayas unseated Republican Justice Dan Hawkins, shifting the Supreme Court of Ohio from a 6-1 to a 5-2 Republican majority.

The margins were close. The Ohio Capital Journal reported Brunner with 2,324,212 votes (51.37%) to O'Donnell's 2,200,021 (48.63%), with 102,148 provisional ballots still outstanding statewide. In the second race Zayas had 2,307,346 votes (51.01%) to Hawkins' 2,215,728 (48.99%), a gap of roughly 91,600 votes. Earlier snapshots taken with fewer precincts counted showed the Republicans ahead, which is why some election-night results pages still list O'Donnell and Hawkins in front; those are stale. Ohio's high-court races carry party labels on the general-election ballot, so the results track the statewide partisan environment more closely than nonpartisan races elsewhere.

Brunner had been the court's only Democrat. Adding Zayas does not hand Democrats a majority, but it changes the arithmetic on contested civil questions. A two-justice minority needs only two Republican votes to form a majority of four, rather than three.

Why Ohio matters to the plaintiffs' bar

Ohio's statutory caps on noneconomic damages sit at the center of the state's tort landscape. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the caps against a facial constitutional challenge in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson in 2007. Fifteen years later, in Brandt v. Pompa, 2022-Ohio-4525, decided December 16, 2022, a 4-3 court held the cap unconstitutional as applied to a plaintiff who had been sexually abused as a child and restored a $20 million noneconomic award. The ruling was deliberately narrow: commentators, including a Vorys client alert, stressed that the cap continues to apply in other cases.

As-applied challenges of the Brandt type are the kind of question on which a single vote changes the outcome. A 6-1 court gave defendants a cushion of two votes on any 4-3 split; a 5-2 court halves that cushion. Ohio litigants will also watch how the reconstituted court approaches expert-testimony gatekeeping, premises liability, insurer bad-faith claims and arbitration enforcement, including questions like those in the court's recent public-sector union arbitration decision.

Michigan: Cavanagh and Hood keep a 6-1 majority

The Associated Press projected on November 4, 2026 that Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Noah Hood had won re-election to the Michigan Supreme Court, defeating Republican-nominated candidates Casandra Morse-Bills and Michael Warren. Michigan Advance reported that the result preserves a 6-1 Democratic-nominated majority. Michigan nominates high-court candidates at party conventions but lists them without party labels on the ballot, and the top two vote-getters in a multi-candidate field win; partial returns reported by Michigan Advance put Cavanagh at about 33.8% and Hood at about 29.1% of all votes cast in the race.

For personal injury practice, Michigan's high court has been the final word on the 2019 overhaul of the state's no-fault auto insurance system, including whether the new medical fee schedules apply to people injured before the reform took effect (the court said they did not in Andary v. USAA in 2023). A stable 6-1 majority suggests continuity on no-fault, governmental immunity and premises-liability doctrine rather than a new direction.

Who won the North Carolina Supreme Court race in 2026?

Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, won the 2026 North Carolina Supreme Court race, defeating Republican Sarah Stevens, a former state legislator, by roughly 59% to 41% in unofficial returns, which leaves the court at a 5-2 Republican majority.

Reported shares varied with the timing of the count. WRAL described Earls as winning with just under 60%, Axios Raleigh reported about 59% to 41% with all precincts in, and an earlier AP figure cited by the Duke Chronicle had her at 63%. Results remain unofficial until the state canvass. Earls dominated fundraising: NC Newsline reported that between July 1 and October 17 her campaign took in $4.7 million and had $1.8 million on hand, against $223,000 raised and $41,000 on hand for Stevens. State Court Report said total spending in the race passed $8 million, on course to make it the most expensive state supreme court contest of the year.

The North Carolina court has a 5-2 Republican majority, which this race could not change. The more consequential date is 2028, when three seats, all held by Republicans, are on the ballot. For civil litigants, that makes the next two years a period in which the present majority's approach to issues such as contributory negligence, a doctrine North Carolina retains, and the state's limits on punitive damages is unlikely to move.

Who won the Washington Supreme Court elections in 2026?

Democrat-backed candidates won four of the five Washington Supreme Court races on the November 3, 2026 ballot: Chief Justice Debra Stephens, Justice Colleen Melody, Justice Theo Angelis and Jaime Hawk all led comfortably, while Republican-backed Sean O'Donnell held a narrow lead over Democrat-endorsed Ian Birk in the only close race.

Washington's election was the largest in the country by share of a court on the ballot. Retirements and appointments put five of the nine seats before voters, a majority of the bench, against the usual three. Early returns compiled by the Washington State Standard and the Yakima Herald (and republished by the state court system's news-clip service on November 4) showed:

Candidate (Democrat-backed unless noted)	Opponent	Early result
Debra Stephens (chief justice)	Todd Bloom	63.8% to 36%
Colleen Melody	Scott Edwards	59.97% to 39.75%
Jaime Hawk	David Stevens	57.7% to 41.9%
Theo Angelis	Dave Larson	55.42% to 44.28%
Ian Birk	Sean O'Donnell (Republican-backed)	48.7% to 50.9%

Angelis, a former intellectual-property lawyer, joined the court on April 4, 2026 after an appointment by Governor Bob Ferguson. Larson, a Federal Way Municipal Court judge, was making his fifth run for the court. Hawk reversed the August primary, in which David Stevens had finished first. Washington counts mail ballots for days after election night, so the O'Donnell–Birk margin of about two points remains live.

Washington is significant for tort practice because its constitution has been read to protect the jury's role in fixing damages; the state supreme court struck down a statutory cap on noneconomic damages in Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. in 1989, and Washington has no general statutory cap today. Pre-election coverage framed the 2026 races partly as a referendum on that liability regime: one opinion-leaning outlet described the state's trial lawyers as the biggest spenders in its supreme court races, and Cascadia Daily News reported a record of roughly $5.2 million flowing into the five contests. One independent-expenditure committee, Beware the Attack on Our Courts, was primarily funded by public-sector unions and trial lawyers, according to pre-election campaign-finance coverage, while the conservative-leaning Concerned Taxpayers of Washington State drew on business interests and conservative donors. The court may also have to rule on the constitutionality of the state's new income tax on high earners, which kept spending high on both sides.

Who won the Montana Supreme Court seat in 2026?

Flathead County District Judge Amy Eddy won Montana's open Supreme Court seat in 2026, defeating fellow Flathead County District Judge Dan Wilson by about 59% to 41%; the Associated Press called the race shortly after 11:30 p.m. on November 3.

The Flathead Beacon reported Eddy with 250,999 votes to Wilson's 173,487. The seat opened because Justice Beth Baker, on the court since 2011, did not seek another term. Montana's races are nonpartisan on the ballot, but party money was visible: pre-election reporting showed that Wilson received $20,000 from the Montana Republican Party plus contributions from county Republican committees, and the ACLU said it put roughly $8 million into supreme court races in North Carolina, Michigan and Montana this year. Bolts magazine's pre-election guide noted that Eddy had, as a lawyer, helped file a state lawsuit seeking tighter pollution regulation.

Montana's court has been a frequent target of business-group criticism over environmental, product and insurance rulings. Eddy's win keeps its current orientation, and State Court Report identifies Montana as one of the states where control could be contested in 2028.

Alabama, California, Texas and the spring races

Alabama remains the clearest Republican hold. Unofficial state results show Republican Justice Greg Shaw defeating Democrat AshLeigh Meyer Dunham for Place 8, with outlets reporting Shaw at anywhere from about 55% to 58% as counts were updated; Dunham carried Mobile County. Justice Brad Mendheim faced only write-in opposition for Place 7 and took roughly 96% of the vote. The court stays all-Republican, so its approach to damages review, Punitive Damages and arbitration enforcement should not change.

California's justices stand only in yes-or-no retention elections. Partial returns from the California Secretary of State showed Justices Kelli M. Evans and Joshua Groban each retained with about 72% voting yes; results will be certified by December 11, 2026. California's trial bar had already spent heavily this year to keep a separate Uber-backed fee-cap initiative off the ballot, as covered in this site's report on the Consumer Attorneys of California war chest.

Texas produced the year's largest change. Democrats unseated Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock and three other Republican justices, leaving a 5-4 Republican court with a four-justice Democratic bloc that can grant review on its own once the new justices take office in January 2027.

Two earlier 2026 contests round out the year. In Wisconsin's April election, Democratic-backed Chris Taylor beat Republican-backed Maria Lazar, expanding the liberal majority, in a race whose spending, the Wisconsin Law Journal reported, fell to about 5% of the record $100 million-plus spent in 2025. In Kansas, voters on August 4, 2026 rejected a constitutional amendment that would have replaced the state's commission-based selection system with direct election of supreme court justices.

Where the money came from

Judicial-election spending in 2026 ran below the record Wisconsin race of 2025 but remained high in the states covered here. The figures most often cited:

• North Carolina: more than $8 million overall (State Court Report); Earls raised $4.7 million between July 1 and October 17 against $223,000 for Stevens (NC Newsline).
• Washington: a record of about $5.2 million across five races (Cascadia Daily News), with trial lawyers and public-sector unions on one side and business interests on the other.
• Montana, Michigan and North Carolina: roughly $8 million from the ACLU, by its own account, across the three states.
• Wisconsin (April): spending about 5% of the 2025 record.

The trial bar's involvement is not new, and neither is the business community's. What 2026 adds is evidence that a strong top-of-ticket environment can carry plaintiff-friendly or Democrat-backed judicial candidates past well-funded opponents even in states, such as Ohio and Texas, where Republicans had won every recent high-court race.

What do the 2026 judicial elections mean for personal injury lawyers?

For personal injury lawyers, the 2026 judicial elections mean incremental rather than wholesale change: no high court flipped, but Ohio and Texas now have larger Democratic minorities able to shape which cases get heard and how close divisions come out, while Washington, Michigan and North Carolina stay on their existing tracks through at least 2028.

Concretely, plaintiffs' firms can expect the following.

• Ohio damages-cap litigation becomes more viable. With two Democratic justices and a 5-2 court, an as-applied challenge in the mold of Brandt v. Pompa needs to win over two Republican justices instead of three. Firms holding verdicts reduced by the statutory caps on noneconomic damages, or by the caps on Punitive Damages, may see more value in preserving constitutional objections for appeal.
• Texas petitions for review are back in play. The four-vote grant rule gives a plaintiff-friendly bloc docket influence before it has a merits majority. Plaintiffs who lose in intermediate courts have more reason to file.
• Washington's no-cap regime looks secure. With four of five seats going to Democrat-backed candidates, the 1989 Sofie line and the state's broad jury-right doctrine face no realistic near-term threat from the court itself.
• Michigan no-fault and premises doctrine stays put. A 6-1 majority that has already ruled on the 2019 reform's reach is unlikely to revisit it.
• North Carolina remains a hard forum. A 5-2 Republican court, contributory negligence and statutory caps on Punitive Damages continue until at least 2028.

None of this changes how quickly cases move. Newly elected justices typically take office in January, and their votes show up in opinions months later. Firms evaluating case selection, venue, and appeal strategy should treat 2027 as a year of observation rather than assumption.

What it means for defendants, insurers, funders and arbitration drafters

Defendants and insurers. Companies with exposure in Ohio and Texas should model a modestly higher chance of adverse appellate outcomes on close questions, particularly constitutional challenges to damages limits and insurer bad-faith standards. In Washington, the absence of a damages cap remains the baseline. Reserving and settlement authority in Ohio wrongful-death and catastrophic-injury matters may need to account for the possibility that a cap will not apply to the most sympathetic plaintiffs.

Litigation funders. For Third-Party Litigation Funding providers, the outcome tilts portfolio economics slightly in favor of Ohio and Texas state-court matters on appeal, where a reversal of a capped or vacated verdict is now somewhat more plausible. Funders will also watch the 2028 cycle, when control of the Ohio, North Carolina and Montana courts is realistically at stake.

Arbitration drafters. State supreme courts decide how state contract-law defenses apply to arbitration agreements, within the limits of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Questions of Unconscionability, assent to online terms, and whether a nonsignatory can compel arbitration are often resolved by state high courts. A narrower Republican majority in Ohio and a new Texas bloc do not change the FAA, but they can change how a state court reads a consumer or employment clause. Drafters with Ohio or Texas exposure may want to revisit fee-allocation and mass-filing provisions most likely to be challenged as one-sided.

Claimants' counsel in mass torts. Most Mass Tort litigation runs through federal multidistrict proceedings, but state-court dockets in Ohio, Texas and Washington handle parallel cases, and state high courts define the substantive law that federal MDL judges apply. Questions such as the Statute of Repose, Failure to Warn standards and expert admissibility under state rules return to these courts regularly.

Which state supreme court seats are up in 2028?

The 2028 cycle is where majorities could actually change. Based on State Court Report's post-election analysis and the Ohio and North Carolina reporting, the seats to watch are:

State	2028 seats	Current balance	Why it matters
North Carolina	3, all held by Republicans	5-2 Republican	Democrats would need to win two of three to flip the court
Ohio	2 Republican-held seats, at least one open because of the mandatory retirement age	5-2 Republican	Two Democratic wins would produce a 4-3 Democratic court
Texas	Further Supreme Court seats, plus three Republican-held Court of Criminal Appeals seats	5-4 Republican	One more Democratic win would flip the civil court of last resort
Montana	Two seats, per State Court Report	Liberal-leaning majority	Conservatives see an opening to gain ground

The two-year horizon matters to anyone litigating long cases. A personal injury action filed in Ohio or North Carolina in 2026 may reach the state supreme court after the 2028 election, before a court whose majority could differ from today's.

FAQ: state supreme court election results 2026

What were the 2026 state supreme court election results?

In the November 3, 2026 general election, Democrats or Democrat-backed candidates won both Ohio seats, both Michigan seats, North Carolina's seat, Montana's open seat, four of five Washington seats and all four Texas seats on the ballot, while Republicans held Alabama. California retained Justices Evans and Groban. All results were unofficial as of November 4.

Did any state supreme court change majority in 2026?

No. Texas came closest, moving from 9-0 to 5-4 Republican; Ohio narrowed from 6-1 to 5-2 Republican. Every other court kept the same majority.

Did Democrats win the Ohio Supreme Court races in 2026?

Yes. Jennifer Brunner beat Colleen O'Donnell about 51.4% to 48.6%, and Marilyn Zayas beat Justice Dan Hawkins about 51.0% to 49.0%, in unofficial returns. The court is now 5-2 Republican.

Who won the North Carolina Supreme Court race in 2026?

Democratic Justice Anita Earls defeated Republican Sarah Stevens with roughly 59% of the vote. The court stays 5-2 Republican.

Who won the Washington Supreme Court elections in 2026?

Debra Stephens, Colleen Melody, Theo Angelis and Jaime Hawk, all Democrat-backed, led their races; Sean O'Donnell, the Republican-backed candidate, narrowly led Ian Birk in the fifth race as counting continued.

What do the 2026 judicial elections mean for personal injury lawyers?

They shift margins rather than control. Ohio's narrower majority makes as-applied challenges to damages caps more plausible, Texas's new bloc can grant review on its own, and Washington's no-cap regime looks secure. The bigger test comes in 2028.