Are we the only ones sensing a pattern here? Across the country, state judges are under increasing fire from lawmakers and outside groups angered by their rulings, their power, their tenure or simply their independence. That independence is, of course, central to the separation of powers, which defines American government, and to the legitimacy of the judicial branch in the eyes of the public. Going after judges for partisan reasons may not be a particularly new pastime, but it has become more popular as America’s politics have become more polarized and as brute tribal warfare replaces a respect for basic democratic values.

Already in 2018, lawmakers in at least 16 states are considering at least 51 bills that would diminish or politicize the role of the judiciary, according to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice. Some bills would inject more politics into the judicial selection process, or into court rulings themselves. For example, Washington State lawmakers are considering whether to require every decision by the state Supreme Court to carry a “fiscal note” estimating the cost the decision would impose on taxpayers — which effectively puts the vindication of basic constitutional rights to a majority vote. Bills elsewhere would slash funding to the courts, shorten judicial term lengths or just eliminate seats, as has happened in North Carolina. Still others would protect legislatures from the effects of court rulings, as Kansas lawmakers are trying to do in the case of school funding. In Missouri, a proposed amendment would let voters decide whether a federal law is constitutional. If they say no, state courts will be barred from enforcing that law or hearing disputes involving it or any similar state law.

Most if not all of these bills are terrible for the judiciary and harmful to democracy. But even if they don’t become law, the message they send and the publicity they generate can have real consequences. This is especially true for elected judges, who may be more wary of issuing what they perceive to be controversial or unpopular rulings, for fear of blowback. That fear isn’t unfounded. In 2010, three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court lost retention elections the year after they voted to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

Of course, electing judges, as is done in the majority of states, doesn’t just affect their behavior. Equally important, it affects how the public perceives them. One poll found that almost nine in 10 voters said campaign contributions and spending by independent groups affect judicial decisions. Almost half of state judges agree. It’s no surprise, then, that studies have found judges more likely to issue pro-business rulings when business interests donate more to judicial campaigns and less likely to rule in favor of criminal defendants when the number of TV ads related to judicial campaigns increases.