Progressive groups, including the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and organizations linked to George Soros, have expanded their efforts from district attorney races to local judicial elections, aiming to seat candidates aligned with their criminal justice reform agenda. This shift has sparked debate over the impact of outside funding and activist involvement on the impartiality and direction of local courts.

The strategy has heightened tensions over the future of the judiciary, with critics warning of ideological influence and supporters arguing for reforms to address systemic inequities.

The approach, described as the "Soros strategy," involves channeling significant funding and campaign resources into low-profile judicial and district attorney races. According to a report by the Center for American Institutions, Democratic-aligned nonprofits and Soros-run groups form the largest and most interconnected political and financial networks in these contests. The report notes that while both parties receive outside funding, "nothing in the Republican stable matches the Democratic Party’s network of interlocking nonprofits."

Judicial Campaigns and Outcomes

In Los Angeles, the nonprofit La Defensa, fiscally sponsored by the Soros-connected Tides Advocacy and co-founded by Eunisses Hernandez, has played a key role in backing public defenders and civil rights lawyers for judgeships. La Defensa organized a 2023 election bootcamp for five public defenders, several of whom called themselves the "Defenders of Justice." Three of these candidates won their 2024 elections, outspending their more conventional opponents and improving on previous years' results.

Pittsburgh saw a similar effort with the "Slate of Eight" in 2021, where five candidates won seats on the Court of Common Pleas. These candidates, opposed to pre-trial detention and cash bail, were assigned to civil, family, or orphans' divisions rather than criminal courts, which limited the immediate impact of their policies. Another slate contested seats in 2025, with activists described as "playing a long game" to build influence on the bench.

Controversies and Criticism

Several DSA-supported judges have faced disciplinary action or controversy. In 2025, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline suspended Judge Erika Ballou for misconduct after she ignored a Nevada Supreme Court order to return a prisoner to custody; Ballou later resigned. In Pittsburgh, former magistrate Mik Pappas, known for opposing cash bail and landlord evictions, resigned after a term marked by controversy, including a case where a released defendant fled the country.

Another Pittsburgh magistrate, Xander Orenstein, faced a state Judicial Conduct Board investigation after releasing a man accused of assault who later committed a fatal stabbing. Although the board found no illegal conduct, an impeachment effort followed. In Houston, DSA-backed Judge Franklin Bynum lost his 2022 reelection bid after being sanctioned for failing to maintain professional competence in handling cases.

"The only real solution."

— Republican state representative, on removing controversial judges

The DSA and allied groups have also supported district attorney candidates in major cities. In Austin, Texas, José Garza, a DSA member, won reelection as Travis County district attorney by a wide margin, campaigning on prosecuting wage theft, police misconduct, and supporting alternatives to incarceration. Garza's tenure has been marked by both praise from progressive groups and criticism for prosecutorial decisions, including a high-profile case dismissal due to withheld evidence, as reported by City Journal and Red Fault.

In Queens, New York, DSA-backed Tiffany Cabán ran for district attorney on a platform of ending cash bail, declining to prosecute crimes of poverty, and targeting abusive landlords, with significant grassroots support and national endorsements. These campaigns reflect a broader movement among progressive activists to reshape the criminal justice system through electoral politics.

Supporters of these efforts argue they are necessary to address systemic injustices and promote community-based solutions. Critics, however, contend that the influx of outside money and activist-driven slates undermines judicial neutrality and public trust. The Center for American Institutions report highlights concerns that such strategies "chip away at trust in judicial institutions."

Progressive groups have not directly addressed these criticisms in recent statements, but continue to organize and campaign for candidates aligned with their vision for criminal justice reform.