Pa. Supreme Court retention is the most important election contest that no one’s talking about

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court judicial retention election may not attract the buzz of Taylor Swift’s new album, but the outcome is far more consequential.

At issue is whether voters will keep three of the seven justices on the state’s highest court for another 10-year term, or open the door for a potential radical right-wing takeover of the court.

In normal times, this would not be a difficult decision.

But normal left town long ago, and the Supreme Court retention election has been swept up in the MAGA agenda and what White House budget director and Project 2025 coauthor Russell Vought claims is a “post-constitutional time.”

If a fair and independent judiciary were the goal for both political parties, then judges would be appointed and not elected. But that is a topic for a different day.

For now, the future of the commonwealth is in the hands of the people. The question facing voters on Nov. 4 is simple: Do Pennsylvanians want to maintain a functioning democracy with proper checks and balances?

If the answer is yes, then vote to retain Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht.

If Pennsylvanians want more dysfunction and divisive politics in Harrisburg, then vote no. But understand that removing the three justices will lead to instant paralysis. The four remaining Supreme Court justices will be divided on most issues, leaving cases deadlocked.

If the justices are not retained, Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, can nominate temporary replacements who then must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate.

Since Shapiro and the Senate can’t agree on a budget that was due on June 30, don’t expect a swift confirmation process.

In fact, the seats could sit empty until a partisan election is held in 2027.

If three MAGA justices were then elected, Pennsylvania could end up with a high court that looks and acts more like the rogue majority roiling the U.S. Supreme Court.

That could open the door for Pennsylvania to roll back abortion rights, as has occurred in a number of other states.

A more conservative state Supreme Court could also reshape voting rights, curtail mail-in voting, and allow worse gerrymandering — actions that would impact future elections.

In a battleground state, efforts to suppress votes and gerrymander districts could decide who wins the White House and control of Congress.

The current Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stood up for free and fair elections, which is one reason why the MAGA party wants to oust the three justices. But Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht have done nothing to warrant their removal.

While the three justices ran as Democrats, they do not always agree on all rulings. Their roots and career paths represent a broad swath of Pennsylvania.

Donohue, 72, who was born in Schuylkill County and graduated from Duquesne University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law, championed efforts to give young lawyers trial experience through a program known as Project LITIGATE.

Dougherty, 63, a South Philadelphia native who graduated from Antioch School of Law, spearheaded an effort to raise awareness about people within the legal system who have autism.

Wecht, 63, who grew up in Pittsburgh and graduated from Yale Law School, pushed to bolster judicial ethics and prides himself on being a frequent dissenter.

But in these chaotic times, perhaps the most compelling reason to retain Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht is that they are decent and normal jurists.

In the decade since the three justices have been on the bench, they have helped to restore calm and credibility to a dysfunctional court that had been marred in scandals involving pay raises, pornographic emails, and the construction of a family court building in Philadelphia.

So why the big push to remove them?

It is all part of the MAGA revolt.

The immediate goal is to install far-right zealots who will clamp down on mail-in voting, approve gerrymandered districts, take away abortion rights, and green-light legal assaults on issues such as environmental regulations, worker safety protections, healthcare access, and education funding.

Roughly $7 million has already poured into Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court judicial retention election. Some of the big spending is from conservative groups outside the state pushing to remove the three justices.

Of course, Pennsylvania’s richest man also has a hand in the action.

A misleading mailer sent to homes claimed the state Supreme Court “gerrymandered our congressional districts to help Democrats win.”

But the court did not create the map. The Republican-controlled state legislature drew it in 2011. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the map in 2018, declaring it a partisan gerrymander that favored the GOP.

In other words, the court did its job.

The misleading mailer was sent by the Commonwealth Leaders Fund, which has ties to Jeffrey Yass, a billionaire backer of far-right candidates and causes.

Shanin Specter, a Philadelphia attorney who donates to candidates from both major parties, told Spotlight PA that the push to politicize retention elections may influence how justices interpret the law.

A misleading mailer sent to homes claimed the state Supreme Court “gerrymandered our congressional districts to help Democrats win.” But the court did not create the map. The Republican-controlled state legislature drew it in 2011.

“I’ve never seen an effort like this before,” Specter said. “It calls into question whether our right to impartial justice is going to be upheld.”

Similarly, Elon Musk spent $25 million to influence the result of a Supreme Court race in Wisconsin earlier this year and lost.

Pennsylvania voters have a similar opportunity to tell billionaires and dark money groups that the rule of law is not for sale.

But it is going to take a lot of votes from people who care about maintaining democracy and voting rights to thwart a motivated MAGA mob.

Only about 25% of Philadelphia’s registered voters have turned out in similar off-year elections. That means a minority of voters — fueled by wealthy donors and misinformation — could decide the fate for the majority.

The politicization of the state’s high court is not an anomaly.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the president sweeping power and has continued to approve many of Donald Trump’s “emergency” motions.

In Texas, Trump urged the Republicans who control the state to redraw the congressional districts before the 2026 midterms to stop Democrats from winning back control of the U.S. House.

Democrats in California want to do the same to blunt what happened in Texas.

The naked politicization is eroding trust in the courts and other institutions, especially among young voters.

Despite all the misinformation, the three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices up for retention are not “radical left lunatics,” as Trump often calls opponents.

It is not easy for voters to know the justices’ records without sitting in court or reading their opinions — though that information is available on the court’s website.

There are other ways to get independent guidance. The Pennsylvania Bar Association has a rigorous process that includes research, investigation, and interviews by panels consisting of lawyers and nonlawyers who assess candidates based on criteria like legal ability, experience, integrity, and temperament.

The bar association completed that process and recommended retaining Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht.

Voters can also read the questionnaires the justices submitted on the bar association website or watch a video from a question-and-answer session last month sponsored by three good government groups: Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, the League of Women Voters, and the Committee of Seventy.

The Committee of Seventy is hosting a free virtual event on Tuesday about how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court impacts everyone.

The broad reach of the court underscores the importance of the retention election.

Voters have a clear choice on Nov. 4: Yes for common sense and democracy, or no if you want to hand more power to dark money and far-right billionaires.