Judicial retention elections in Pennsylvania are usually quiet, nonpartisan affairs. Not this year. A normally routine process has become a high-stakes political battle over control of the state’s highest court, with national attention, six-figure spending from wealthy donors, and a flood of deceptive advertising that has left many voters understandably confused.

The question before voters is straightforward: Should three Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices — Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht — be retained for another 10 years? The answer should rest on truth and transparency, not misinformation.

The Truth About Retention

Judicial retention elections are simple. Voters check “yes” or “no” for each justice. Justices have no opponents, and party affiliations are not listed. This longstanding process is designed to keep judges independent while holding them accountable for their records and performance. Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht were elected in 2015 and are now up for retention.

Nonpartisan groups strongly urge “yes” votes. The Pennsylvania Bar Association, after reviewing their qualifications and judicial records, recommends all three justices for new terms. Andrew Duffy, president of the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, says they have “unquestionably demonstrated that they are more than worthy of a vote for retention.” Fair Districts PA, a statewide coalition focused on ending gerrymandering, stresses the importance of an independent judiciary to ensure fair districting and impartial elections.

The Deceptive

Campaign Against

Retention

Despite this support, a well-funded effort urges Pennsylvanians to vote “no.” Bankrolled by political action committees tied to billionaire Jeff Yass, including Commonwealth Partners and the Republican State Leadership Committee, this campaign relies on misleading claims and partisan rhetoric. The Philadelphia Inquirer’s board explicitly urges voters to “reject the misguided effort to push out” the three justices, while Spotlight PA, a respected nonpartisan newsroom, described the groups’ mailers as “incredibly dishonest.”

One widely circulated mailer alleged that the justices “gerrymandered our congressional districts to help Democrats win.” In reality, the distorted map pictured was a 2011 plan drawn by Republican legislators, later struck down by the court as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. When the legislature and governor failed to create a new map, the court appointed a neutral expert to draw a fair replacement. It’s hard to argue that the justices tipped the scales for Democrats given the partisan balance in the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation: 10 Republicans vs. seven Democrats.

Opponents of retention have distributed mailers that misrepresent the justices’ records in other ways, too. In fact, the justices have upheld democracy and fair elections, refusing to overturn the 2020 results. They have also affirmed human rights, including reproductive rights, despite false claims that they threaten women’s safety.

Another group, “Citizens for Term Limits,” adds to the confusion. Their mailers link to a website with no real information about the election and instead solicit personal data. And voting against retention has nothing to do with term limits — Pennsylvania judges already face mandatory retirement at age 75.

The Stakes for Pennsylvanians

If justices are not retained, Gov. Josh Shapiro could nominate temporary replacements, but they are unlikely to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate. Failure to act would leave vacancies on the court for years, creating delays, partisan deadlocks, and inefficiencies on critical cases.

The long-term risks are even greater. If the court’s balance flips to a Republican majority, past rulings could be revisited and overturned. That endangers reproductive rights, voting rights, fair districting, public education, and many other issues affecting the daily lives of Pennsylvanians.

Your Vote Matters

Low-turnout elections like this one give each vote greater impact. By voting “yes” to retain Justices Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht — as well as other judges on the Superior Court, Commonwealth Court, Court of Common Pleas, and local courts — you help preserve an independent judiciary that protects truth, transparency, and democracy itself.

Reject the lies. Vote yes to retain Pennsylvania’s judges.

Sheri Berenbaum is professor emeritus of psychology at the Pennsylvania State University in State College and Patty Satalia is retired senior producer and host WPSU-TV, Penn State Public Broadcasting.