Why Pennsylvania's Supreme Court election has national implications

Key Concepts

• Judicial Elections
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Retention Elections (Yes/No Votes)
• Independent Expenditures
• Campaign Finance
• Swing State Politics
• Abortion Rights
• Redistricting
• Term Limits (for judicial appointments)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retention Election: A High-Stakes Battleground

With Election Day just a week away, the upcoming Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention election is drawing significant attention, not just for its potential impact on statewide policy but also for the unprecedented level of spending involved. This election deviates from typical candidate-versus-candidate races, presenting voters with a straightforward "yes" or "no" decision on retaining three incumbent Democratic justices.

The Stakes: Policy and Power Balance

Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, has a Supreme Court that holds considerable power over critical issues such as election laws, redistricting, and abortion limits. The current court composition is 5-2 in favor of Democrats. However, with three Democratic justices up for retention, the majority on the court is effectively on the ballot.

The implications of this election are profound. As highlighted by the justices themselves in campaign ads:

• Justice Christine Donohue stated, "We don't make laws."
• Justice David Wecht emphasized, "But we make sure the most powerful people follow them."
• Justice Kevin Dougherty pointed to past actions: "We held big corporations accountable when they hurt working people."
• Justices Donohue and Wecht also asserted their role in protecting "access to abortion" and "your right to vote," even against powerful opposition.

Conversely, opposing campaigns are urging voters to "vote no on retaining the three Supreme Court justices that have not protected our rights" and advocating for "term limit the court."

The Mechanics of Retention Elections in Pennsylvania

Katie Meyer, government editor for Spotlight PA, explained the unique nature of these elections. Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court justices are initially elected in partisan races for 10-year terms. Following their initial term, they face retention elections, which are essentially yes-or-no votes. If a justice is not retained, a vacancy is created, and an interim appointment is made. This process offers a potential avenue to alter the court's ideological balance.

Unprecedented Spending and "Dark Money"

The financial aspect of this election is particularly noteworthy. Tens of millions of dollars have been poured into the race, with the exact total still difficult to ascertain as the election approaches. A significant portion of this spending comes from "independent expenditures," often made by non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors. This "dark money" makes it challenging to identify the true sources of funding and their motivations. Both Republican and Democratic-aligned groups are heavily involved, with reports of major Republican donors contributing substantial sums. The widespread advertising across television and online platforms underscores the intensity of the financial battle.

Policy Impact and Past Decisions

While justices do not pre-declare their voting intentions, their past decisions offer insight into their judicial philosophies and the potential policy impact of this election. The transcript mentions key rulings:

• The court's decisions have influenced the partisan makeup of Pennsylvania's congressional delegations, shifting from a heavily Republican delegation to a more balanced one.
• The court has upheld or overturned gubernatorial actions, such as a Democratic governor's COVID-19 restrictions, demonstrating its role in checking executive power.

These past rulings highlight the partisan interests at play, with both Democrats and Republicans seeking to influence the court's future direction.

Voter Turnout

Despite judicial elections typically seeing lower turnout than presidential elections, there are indications of strong mail-in ballot returns, suggesting a potentially high turnout for this critical retention election.

Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention election is far from a routine judicial contest. It represents a significant battleground where millions of dollars are being spent to influence the outcome of a yes-or-no vote that could reshape the state's legal and political landscape. The election underscores the growing trend of substantial financial investment in judicial races and the critical role these courts play in deciding fundamental rights and governance issues.