Retention or Removal? How a Quiet Judicial Election Could Reshape Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania voters: Register by Oct. 20, get your mail in ballot by Oct. 28, and make your voice heard on (or before) Nov. 4.

What’s usually a low-profile election in Pennsylvania is drawing national attention this year, with the potential to transform the state’s legal landscape. On Nov. 4, three Democratic justices on the state Supreme Court—Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht—face retention votes that could influence rulings on abortion, redistricting and voting rights for years to come. Democrats currently hold a 5-2 majority, but Republicans see an opening: If even one justice is voted out, the balance could shift, setting up a new partisan election in 2027.

To help voters navigate the election, the nonpartisan group guides.vote has released a comprehensive ‘cheat sheet’ breaking down the justices’ records and leanings on key issues (also recapped below).

Kadida Kenner, CEO of the New Pennsylvania Project and voting rights activist, warned about recent attempts to steer court rulings for political ends. “It’s really important to ensure that our congressional districts and those maps are not gerrymandered politically or racially,” she told WHYY News. “And it’ll be the state courts to determine whether or not people have access to abortion in the Commonwealth.”

What Is a Retention Election? 

Pennsylvania is one of just eight states that elects Supreme Court justices through partisan elections. In contrast, 33 states and Washington, D.C., use merit-based selection for at least some of their judicial nominations, designed to evaluate judges on their qualifications rather than party affiliation or how they may vote in the future. These systems aim to insulate the judiciary from political influence. 

But in states like Pennsylvania—where elections are explicitly partisan—judicial races are inherently political, making it nearly impossible to keep them out of the broader political fray. 

After their initial 10-year term, justices appear on the ballot for a simple yes-or-no vote to remain in office—a process known as a retention election. The justices up for retention have no opponents, no party labels and no primaries. They are restricted by the judicial code of conduct, meaning they cannot campaign as traditional candidates do. They can describe their approach to interpreting the law, but can’t discuss their opinions on past or future cases.

Retention elections offer a rare public check on judicial power, and are designed to promote judicial neutrality while ensuring accountability. Though usually quiet, retention elections aren’t immune to backlash. In 2005, Justice Russell M. Nigro became the only Pennsylvania justice ever voted out of office following public pushback over a court-approved state legislative pay raise.

After Donald Trump’s election, Republicans have increasingly targeted the courts. GOP activist Scott Presler, praised by Trump and backed by a $1 million donation from Elon Musk to his Early Action PAC, has urged Pennsylvanians to vote no on all three justices. Despite being rejected by the RNC over a sex scandal, Presler remains influential on the right, with a large social media following and a history of promoting conspiracy theories. “My ultimate goal is to have the voters of Pennsylvania elect three Republican justices,” he said in December, nearly a year ahead of the vote.

If any of the three justices are rejected, Gov. Josh Shapiro would nominate a replacement, but confirmation by the GOP-controlled Senate is required. If lawmakers refuse to act, the seat could remain vacant until 2027, leaving the court in limbo.

This liberal majority is much more activist. It is also very well-grounded by the text and history of the Pennsylvania Constitution. You have to give them that.

Bruce Ledewitz, Duquesne University law professor

What the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Has Already Changed–and What it Could Still Undo 

In a post-Roe era, state supreme courts have become battlegrounds for abortion rights, voting access and redistricting. Pennsylvania is no exception. 

Several of the court’s most recent consequential rulings—on abortion funding, mail voting and gerrymandering—have come down to narrow rulings, with the justices up for retention playing a key role in the outcomes:

On reproductive rights: 

On voting rights:

On congressional maps:

• It also played a central role in shaping Pennsylvania’s congressional maps. In 2018, the court struck down the GOP-drawn 2011 congressional map as unconstitutional by favoring Republicans, and imposed its own. In 2022, after then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the legislature’s proposed map, the court stepped in again–affirming its power in a politically deadlocked state. That role is far from over: In August 2025, Texas approved new Republican-drawn maps aimed at delivering President Trump up to five additional congressional House seats, raising the stakes for redistricting nationwide.

Beyond reproductive rights and elections, the court has issued major rulings on civil liberties and public protections: It upheld Pittsburgh’s paid sick leave law, struck down outdated disability benefit limits and expanded environmental protections under the state’s constitutional environmental rights clause.

Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht don’t always vote in lockstep–underscoring their judicial independence–but together, they’ve shaped a progressive legal legacy.

“This liberal majority is much more activist,” Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, “It is also very well-grounded by the text and history of the Pennsylvania Constitution. You have to give them that.”

A Closer Look at the Candidates

All three justices were elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2015, and are now up for retention after serving their initial 10-year terms. Each has been recommended for retention by the Pennsylvania Bar Association. 

Christine Donohue

Justice Donohue was elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after eight years on the state’s Superior Court. Before joining the bench, she spent 27 years in private practice as a civil trial lawyer and litigator. Following a formal review, the Bar Association described her as a smart, fair and well-prepared judge with a temperament and character well suited to the Supreme Court. 

According to guides.vote:

Area of personal interest: With increasing difficulty for young trial attorneys to get training in basic advocacy skills, she initiated an “effort by trial judges and lawyers to afford young lawyers opportunities to gain courtroom experience, especially presenting cases to civil juries.”

• On abortion, Donohue wrote, “the Pennsylvania Constitution secures the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy.” And that “includes a right to decide whether to have an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term.”
• On education, she agreed that a lower court should hold a trial on whether state officials are failing to adequately and equitably fund public education.
• On gun policy, in a dispute over a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges, Donohue wrote that “engaging in firearms proficiency training on… private residential property is not covered” in “the Second Amendment.”
• On LGBTQ+ rights, Donohue wrote, “As judges we must educate ourselves on all LGBT issues, including the insidious nature of crimes directed at members of the LGBT community.”
• On marijuana, Donohue agreed that given medical marijuana’s legal status in Pennsylvania, the smell of marijuana cannot be the sole reason for a warrantless vehicle search. She also agreed that people under court supervision should be allowed to use medical marijuana.
• On redistricting, she agreed that the state legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander.
• On voting, Donohue ruled that when a voter’s mail-in ballot is rejected because of a disqualifying mistake, that voter must still be allowed to cast a provisional ballot on election day.
• On voting, she opposed a ruling throwing out mail-in ballots that didn’t have the correct date.

Kevin Dougherty 

Justice Dougherty was elected to the state court after 14 years on the state Court of Common Pleas. Prior to his election he served as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia before moving to private practice. The Bar Association highlights his commitment to community service, support of youth programs and advocacy for excellence and diversity in law enforcement. 

According to guides.vote:

Area of personal interest: he supports having “a conversation about autism in our courts.” “If your behaviors are something you can’t control because of a neurological complexity, then maybe I [as a judge] should be a little more sensitive to that if I want to do the right thing.”

• On abortion, Dougherty agreed that a lower court must hear a challenge to a law that limited the use of Medicaid funding to cover abortions. He has not indicated whether the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to abortion.
• On education, he wrote that the court had a clear duty to consider whether Pennsylvania citizens’ Constitutional rights to “a proper public education” are being violated by inadequate funding.
• On gun policy, Dougherty wrote that a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and “outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.”
• On LGBTQ+ rights, about the decision allowing same-sex couples to adopt children in Pennsylvania, Dougherty said, “We have hundreds of thousands of children sitting in out-of-home placement, wishing they had a permanent and loving family. That one decision permitted many, many, many, many, many children to find loving homes. That’s phenomenal, the impact of one decision.”
• On marijuana, he agreed that people under court supervision should be allowed to use medical marijuana.
• On mental health issues in the justice system, he said, “We don’t have to lock people up because they have mental illness or because they are different. We need to be able to find out what the root cause is and divert them, particularly veterans. I’m a strong supporter of veteran courts.”
• On redistricting, Dougherty agreed that the state legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander.
• On voting, he agreed that when a voter’s mail-in ballot is rejected, that voter’s provisional ballot must still be counted.

David Wecht 

Before his election to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Justice Wecht worked in private practice until 2003, then served on the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas and later the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Bar Association highlights his commitment to fairness, equity and his willingness to assist others in his judicial role. 

According to guides.vote:

Area of personal interest: In light of his concern about anti-Semitism, he says we should not “eliminate or place incursions on the First Amendment…. It’s critical that we never in this country give government the power to pick and choose which speech is preferred. The remedy for hate speech is more speech.”

• On abortion, Wecht wrote that women have a “right to reproductive autonomy.” “The Pennsylvania Constitution’s ERA did away with the antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body.”
• On education, he ordered a lower court to hold a trial on whether state officials are failing to adequately and equitably fund public education. He saw validity in the claim that “distribution of state funds results in widespread deprivations in economically disadvantaged districts,” limiting “the resources necessary to attain a constitutionally adequate education.”
• On gun policy, Wecht agreed that a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
• On LGBTQ+ rights, he is a “firm believer in equality” and was “personally thrilled” when same-sex marriage was legalized.
• On marijuana, Wecht agreed that given medical marijuana’s legal status in Pennsylvania, the smell of marijuana cannot be the sole reason for a warrantless vehicle search. He also agreed that people under court supervision should be allowed to use medical marijuana.
• On redistricting, he agreed that the state legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander.
• On voting, Wecht opposed a decision allowing a voter’s election-day provisional ballot to be counted when that voter’s mail-in ballot had a disqualifying mistake, such as failure to place a returned ballot in a secrecy envelope.

Retention Elections Are no Longer Immune to Partisan Pressure

Retention elections in Pennsylvania were designed as a nonpartisan referendum on judicial performance, but in today’s hyper-partisan climate, even these races have become battles of a larger political war. 

The court’s current Democratic majority was won in 2015 in what was then the most expensive state Supreme Court election in U.S. history—over $16 million was spent , about $29 million today. At the time, the Democratic candidates focused on economic justice and precedent-based jurisprudence, largely avoiding polarizing social issues. That was before a 2024 abortion funding case reopened the long-dormant Equal Rights Amendment–and before state courts emerged as key defenders against the Trump administration’s agenda.

With states like Texas redrawing congressional maps to benefit Trump, judicial control in a purple Pennsylvania has taken on national urgency. GOP-aligned groups are ramping up voter outreach while Democrats are fundraising aggressively.

“This is our chance to put up another roadblock to MAGA extremism in our state,” one Democratic party official said in an email to Spotlight PA. 

As the judicial candidates are not allowed to campaign for themselves, it creates an opening for outside activists to shape the narrative, like conservative influencer Scott Presler, who has been registering voters at truck stops and farmers markets. 

The rising stakes are reflected in the soaring cost of judicial races. In Wisconsin’s April 2025 Supreme Court race, more than $100 million was spent–$20 million from Elon Musk alone. In 2023, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Daniel McCaffrey’s race came close to matching the combined 2015 spending record, with nearly $20 million spent, much of it by Democratic groups emphasizing the court’s role in post-Roe abortion battles. 

Also on the Ballot

In the Pennsylvania Court system right beneath the Supreme Court are the Superior Court, which handles most criminal civil appeals, and the Commonwealth Court, which hears cases involving state and local government agencies. Both of these lower courts have key elections on Nov. 4– two retention votes and two partisan open-seat races.

Up for retention are Judge Michael Wojcik (D) of the Commonwealth Court and Judge Alice Dubow (D) of the Superior Court. Vying to replace outgoing judge Ellen Ceisler (D) on the Commonwealth Court are Stella Tsai (D) and Matt Wolford (R). Competing to take Judge Daniel McCaffrey’s (D) seat on the Superior Court are Brandon Neuman (D), Maria Battista (R) and Daniel Wassmer (L).

For a full breakdown of all judicial candidates, Spotlight PA has published a comprehensive guide.

How to Vote

Pennsylvania does not offer same-day voter registration or early voting. To vote in the Nov. 4 election, you must register by Oct. 20. An individual is eligible to vote if they are a U.S. citizen, over the age of 18 and have lived in the state for at least 30 days prior to the election. 

To register online, fill out and submit the form here. To register by mail, download and print the form here, then send it to or drop it off at your county registration office, where you can also go to register in person. Your form must be received by Oct. 20. 

All Pennsylvania voters are eligible to vote by mail, thanks to the state’s no-excuse mail voting law upheld by the state Supreme Court. You can apply for a mail ballot until Oct. 28, and must return it by Nov. 4 at 8 p.m. Find your county election office mailing address here.

Although the state does not offer early voting statewide, some counties may provide mail-in ballots and applications to fill out in person up to 50 days before Election Day. Check with your local election office to confirm whether this option is available. 

If you want to vote in person, your only option is to head to the polls on Election Day, Tuesday Nov. 4, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. You’ll only appear in the poll book at the district where you’re registered, so plan accordingly, and find your local polling place here. 

If you are a college student living in Pennsylvania you can register to vote using your school address as long as you’ve lived there for at least 30 days before Election Day. If you’re from Pennsylvania but go to school in another part of the state, you can stay registered at your home address, but must apply for a ballot if you won’t be there to vote in person. 

Students can make a huge difference by helping others get election-ready. Share voting info on social media or in school group chats and campus clubs. The Pennsylvania Department of State offers voting resources made just for students here, including printable posters and even a ready made PowerPoint presentation. 

Why Your Vote Matters

In recent years, efforts to reshape state courts into partisan tools have intensified. President Trump has targeted judges and election officials nationwide, while Republican aligned groups ramp up spending in state judicial races. If even one or two Democratic justices are ousted this fall, the court’s ideological balance could flip before the 2028 presidential election, where the court may play a key role in deciding its legality. 

“Pennsylvanians have enjoyed better access to the ballot because of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the justices that currently sit there,” activist and CEO Kadida Kenner said to WHYY News. “We are now closer to having more equity-funded public schools because of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”

Voters need only to look to Wisconsin to see the power of a single seat. In April, Susan Crawford won a record-breaking election to the state’s Supreme Court. Her victory was a rejection of President Trump’s administration, aggressive masculinity and right-wing attacks on reproductive freedom. It marked a turning point, as voters came out in force to defend their rights and reshape their court’s future. “Wisconsin voters spoke up and spoke out, came out in record numbers,” Kenner said. “Pennsylvania’s going to have to have that same type of energy to overcome any campaigns and attempts to disrupt the independence of our state court.”