The upcoming retention election for three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices has ignited a rare intensity in a process usually marked by low voter engagement. Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht—who were once elected as Democrats—are now at the center of a well-orchestrated campaign aimed at their removal. National attention has been drawn as both sides prepare for the decisive vote on November 4.
Adding fuel to the fire, former President Donald Trump weighed in on social media, urging voters to decisively reject the justices. In a statement on Truth Social, Trump accused the judges of gerrymandering and proclaimed, “It is time for Justice. Vote ‘NO, NO, NO’ on retention of these woke Judges.” His rhetoric connects the justices’ judicial actions to significant political events, including impeachment and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These justices are completing their first ten-year terms, and Pennsylvania law mandates that voters have the final say in whether they will serve another decade. This retention election does not pit the incumbents against challengers but instead presents voters with a straightforward choice: “yes” or “no” for each judge.
The stakes are high for both political factions. Republican groups contend that the justices have overstepped their bounds, claiming they have favored Democrats through key decisions related to redistricting, voting laws, and pandemic restrictions. Their criticisms largely stem from notable rulings by the court, such as the striking down of the congressional map and policies during COVID-19, which resonate strongly with Republican voters seeking accountability.
In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the state’s congressional district map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered. Justice Wecht, part of the majority in that decision, defended it publicly, stating, “We took away a prized possession of some highly partisan actors.” This ruling contributed to a shift in power dynamics within the U.S. House, drawing wrath from Republican operatives.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the court faced immense pressure, with justices reiterating their commitment to uphold public safety measures instituted by Governor Tom Wolf. Justice Wecht clarified that their rulings did not endorse any specific policy but acted within their judicial responsibilities. “The court expressed no opinion as to whether the governor’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes wise or sound policy,” he stated.
The court has also been pivotal in maintaining Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail-in voting, which played a significant role in the 2020 election outcome. Republican lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of mail-in ballots were ultimately dismissed, fueling accusations of election interference from Trump and his supporters.
State Treasurer Stacy Garrity has labeled the justices “leftist activists,” asserting their decisions led to chaos and a lack of accountability. While Republican leaders amplify these claims, defenders of the justices argue that their decisions adhere to established legal standards. The Pennsylvania Bar Association endorsed all three justices, highlighting their qualifications and commitment to judicial integrity, including recognition for Justice Donohue’s work on women’s rights and equality.
Public remarks from the justices indicate a desire to transcend partisan divisions. Justice Donohue emphasized that personal views are set aside once in office. Dougherty echoed this sentiment, asserting that their election stripped them of partisan labels. Nevertheless, the backlash from GOP factions persists. Activist Scott Presler has led grassroots efforts to encourage a “NO” vote, asserting the justices bear responsibility for numerous grievances that resonate deeply with conservative voters.
A historical precedent looms as Pennsylvania has rejected a sitting Supreme Court justice only once since 2005. Analysts note the financial stakes are considerable, with over $8 million in campaign funding already committed to the process, which has raised the visibility of the election significantly. Polling expert Berwood Yost notes an uptick in voter engagement this cycle, likely driven by the unprecedented spending.
The potential political fallout from Tuesday’s election could be significant. Should voters reject any of the justices, a vacancy would prompt Governor Josh Shapiro to appoint a temporary successor, potentially upending the balance of the court. A complete rejection would leave the court in deadlock, complicating rulings on pressing issues like abortion, election laws, and educational funding at a time of heightened partisanship in the legislature.
Political experts like John Kennedy have suggested this situation reflects broader trends in judicial polarization nationwide. Key issues such as redistricting and voting rights remain high on the political agenda and impact the public’s perception of judicial legitimacy.
With both Republican and Democratic leaders mobilizing their bases, the retention vote serves as a barometer for Pennsylvania’s electorate sentiment about the judiciary’s role in politicized matters. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the court’s direction and influence state policy for years to come.
"*" indicates required fields
