PA Supreme Court Race Will Shape State's Future
In 2015, Democratic judges toppled the conservative dominance of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Before this, Republicans controlled Pennsylvania’s top court 4-3. Ever since, Pennsylvanians have witnessed a complete restructuring of the balance of powers in the Keystone State. The Covid lockdowns, the controversial 2018 congressional reapportionment, and the transient mail-in ballot rules of 2020, such as the postmark controversy, remain tantamount to the charge of an activist court.
While more than the Supreme Court will appear to voters this fall, the Commonwealth’s top court may seem opaque in comparison to other local or judicial elections, since this election involves retention. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts details the retention process as follows: “After serving initial 10-year terms, those jurists who seek reelection do so through 'retention elections' in which they are not affiliated with any political party.” Judges David Wecht, Christine Donohue, and Kevin Dougherty – who ruled in favor of extended Covid business closures, the 2018 Congressional map, and changes to the Act 77 mail-in voting law – will now appear on Pennsylvanians’ ballots in November.
As recently as 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also issued “Rule 413,” which no longer requires knowledge of the immigration status of an individual in a case. As section A states, “In any criminal or delinquency matter, evidence of a party’s or a witness’s immigration status shall not be admissible unless immigration status is an essential fact to prove an element of, or a defense to, the offense, to show motive, or to show bias or prejudice of a witness.” This softness seemingly rebukes the national sentiment of Americans. A Reuters/Ipsos Poll from May showed 55% of Americans support tougher immigration enforcement, compared to 42% in opposition, a 13-point approval.
A “no” vote will allow for the opportunity to vote in new Justices to the Supreme Court. A retention vote simply permits current Justices to continue for the next decade, if the “yes” option prevails. A “no” vote will deliver choice to more Pennsylvanians as the seat will open, and a regular judicial election will occur, likely in 2027. While this may seem complicated, voting no will hold those voted against accountable, as well as serve as a stark reminder to other Justices that voters remember their actions.
While 2027 may seem distant, the opportunity to elect new judges then will provide more choice to the people of Pennsylvania. Serving a decade on a court provides anyone with ample time to appreciate and decide upon litigation; Pennsylvanians deserve fresh faces, new ideas, and judicial consistency moving forward. Voting no would aid in that process. These elections prove rather difficult to convey to the average voter. Only one Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice ever lost a retention race; Justice Russell Nigro, beleaguered by the infamous midnight pay raise of 2005, received 51% of the “no” vote, hence removing him from the Supreme Court. In reality, the Supreme Court played no role in the pay raise, yet voters selected no. This year, many judges directly decided on different flashpoint cases.
Though the Supreme Court flipped blue in 2015, Pennsylvanians now possess the power to make change next Tuesday. Voters can address the issues that plague Pennsylvania: subpar rulings on immigration, Congressional maps, or mail-in ballots. While the judicial election concept may seem foreign to many voters, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania remains a prize. Pennsylvanians must choose whether they wish to enjoy the prize of justice or the prize of progressivism.
