Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Billy Corriher


Billy Corriher is the state courts manager for the People's Parity Project, which works to build a justice system that values people over profits, and a writer whose work focuses on democracy and the courts. He has written about these issues for ThinkProgress, The Hill, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times,, Newsweek and the Raleigh News & Observer. From 2012 to 2017, he worked on issues around judges and judicial nominations at the Center for American Progress. He is the author of Usurpers: How Voters Stopped the GOP Takeover of North Carolina’s Courts,” published in 2021.

Corriher earned his bachelor's degree in political science with a minor in journalism from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his law degree from Georgia State University in Atlanta.

Only a few states require judges to sit out cases involving their campaign contributors. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's new liberal majority has expressed support for strengthening recusal rules. Will other states follow its lead?
With tens of millions of dollars flowing into high-court elections, Republicans did better in partisan races in two states, while Democrats held on to their majorities elsewhere.
With party control of several high courts at stake and races driven by issues ranging from abortion to voting rights, the party committees and special interest groups are on the way to setting spending records.
Ethics rules require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving relatives or their own partisan or political interests. But it doesn't always work out that way.
As state courts prepare to weigh in on accusations of gerrymandering, lawmakers across the country are hard at work trying to change those courts’ ideological balance.
Judges shouldn’t hear cases involving their campaign donors. Though some lawmakers are addressing the issue, only a few states have ethics rules that require judges to avoid hearing such cases.
Political partisanship is playing out across the country as lawmakers move to change how their states’ supreme courts are elected.
Across the country, legislators are trying to gain more control over their states' courts. Many of the efforts are from Republicans aiming to diminish the role of judicial nominating commissions.
Millions of dollars were spent on races for the Michigan, Ohio and Illinois high courts. The elections could impact a host of cases.
In recent years, Republican-led legislatures have been adding state supreme court seats and working to change nominating rules, aiming to bolster conservative majorities.