Listen to this article
Download AudioPennsylvania’s Judicial Battle: A Fight for the Future
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
Understanding Pennsylvania’s Retention Elections
In November 2025, Pennsylvanians will head to the polls for an election that may seem quiet on the surface, but it carries immense weight for the state’s future. There will be no presidential or gubernatorial candidates on the ballot, yet voters will decide the fate of three members of the state’s highest court. These are known as retention elections, a unique process designed to keep judges on the bench or remove them (Inquirer.com).
A retention election is a non-partisan process where voters simply choose “yes” or “no” on whether a judge should serve another 10-year term (Votebeat.org). There are no opposing candidates, and party affiliations do not appear on the ballot. Judges in Pennsylvania’s statewide appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, initially run in partisan elections for their first 10-year term. After that, they face retention elections every decade until they reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 (Votebeat.org). This system was established in Pennsylvania in 1968 with the intention of creating a non-partisan “bulwark” against political influence in the courts (PennCapital-Star.com). The goal was to ensure judicial impartiality and to keep the judiciary separate from the often-heated world of partisan politics. However, the current political climate is testing the effectiveness of this original intent.
What is a Retention Election?
Unlike typical elections, there are no opposing candidates or party labels. Voters simply cast a “yes” or “no” vote on whether the judge should continue serving. If the majority votes “yes,” the judge remains on the bench.
Based on information from Votebeat.org
The High Stakes of the 2025 Election
The 2025 Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention elections are drawing significant attention because they could dramatically shift the court’s current 5-2 Democratic majority (Inquirer.com). Three Democratic justices are up for retention: Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht (Inquirer.com). These three seats represent a critical juncture for the court’s ideological balance.
Historically, judges win retention elections over 90% of the time, making them low-turnout and often overlooked affairs. However, Republicans are actively campaigning to vote out these Democratic judges, hoping to build a GOP-controlled court by the 2028 presidential election (Inquirer.com, Votebeat.org). If a judge is not retained, the governor can appoint a temporary replacement, but this appointment requires approval from the state Senate (Votebeat.org). Given that the state Senate is currently controlled by Republicans, confirming a Democratic governor’s picks could prove challenging (Inquirer.com). If all three Democratic justices were to lose retention, the court could be reduced to a four-person body with two liberals and two conservatives, making it difficult to reach majority decisions (Inquirer.com). This scenario could significantly weaken the voice of Pennsylvania’s top court, especially heading into the 2028 presidential election, where Pennsylvania, as a swing state, could once again play a decisive role (Inquirer.com).
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Composition
The Court’s Far-Reaching Influence
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stands as the highest court in the state, serving as the final arbiter of legal disputes and overseeing the entire state judicial system. Its decisions carry broad political and social impact because they interpret state laws and the Pennsylvania Constitution (WESA.fm). The court has played a crucial role in shaping the state’s landscape, affecting areas such as election procedures, redistricting maps, education funding, and civil liberties.
In the past decade, the court’s Democratic majority has overseen and intervened in congressional and legislative redistricting, ensuring that electoral districts are not gerrymandered for political or racial advantage (Votebeat.org, WESA.fm). Furthermore, the court allowed a case challenging the state’s education funding system to proceed to trial (Votebeat.org). The court also upheld COVID-19 mediation efforts and defended the state’s voting laws against conservative challenges, including those from Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign (Votebeat.org). A shift in the court’s majority could significantly alter decisions on these vital issues, including access to abortion, which is determined by state courts (WHYY.org, WESA.fm). Given Pennsylvania’s status as a crucial swing state, the court’s rulings can directly influence national political outcomes and shape the rights and responsibilities of its citizens (Inquirer.com).
The Politicization of a Non-Partisan Process
Despite their design as non-partisan affairs, Pennsylvania’s judicial retention elections are becoming increasingly politicized. This “politicization” refers to the growing influence of partisan politics, significant campaign spending, and the involvement of external political figures in elections that were intended to be free from such biases (Inquirer.com). This shift manifests through active campaigns by political groups to either support or oppose judges based on their perceived political leanings, rather than solely on their judicial performance.
The involvement of high-profile figures and substantial financial contributions from outside influences further blurs the lines between impartial judicial review and partisan political contests (Inquirer.com). For example, there is rumored interest from President Donald Trump’s billionaire adviser, Elon Musk, in efforts to vote out the Democratic judges (Inquirer.com). Elon Musk previously spent over $1 million in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, and a political organization he contributed to spent $1.6 million (PennCapital-Star.com). The Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April 2025 became the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with over $100 million in spending from candidates and independent groups (PennCapital-Star.com). This influx of resources and high-profile endorsements can sway public opinion, increase partisan messaging, and ultimately undermine the perceived impartiality of the judiciary, transforming retention elections into highly contested political battlegrounds (Inquirer.com).
Factors Driving Politicization of Judicial Elections
Elections designed to be non-partisan are now heavily influenced by political parties and their agendas.
Large sums of money, often from outside groups and wealthy individuals, are flowing into judicial races, as seen in Wisconsin.
High-profile individuals like Elon Musk are showing interest in influencing these elections, bringing national attention and resources.
Political groups are actively campaigning for or against judges based on their perceived political leanings, rather than their judicial performance.
Based on information from Inquirer.com, PennCapital-Star.com
Impact on African American Communities and Social Justice
Changes in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s composition could significantly affect African American communities and social justice concerns. The court’s role in issues like redistricting and access to fundamental rights makes its composition particularly impactful (WESA.fm). A shift in the court’s partisan balance could influence rulings on voting rights, potentially impacting the representation of minority communities. For instance, the court’s decisions are critical for ensuring that congressional districts are not gerrymandered politically or racially, which directly affects the political power of African American voters (WESA.fm).
Furthermore, decisions related to civil liberties, criminal justice reform, and anti-discrimination laws could be shaped by the ideological leanings of the justices (Inquirer.com). These rulings directly affect social justice outcomes and the rights of marginalized groups within African American communities. The court’s broad implications for the state’s political landscape and the daily lives of its citizens mean that any change in its makeup could have profound and lasting effects on equity and justice in Pennsylvania (Inquirer.com). Therefore, understanding the stakes of these retention elections is especially important for those concerned with the advancement of social justice and the protection of civil rights.
Voter Awareness and the Road Ahead
The provided information does not directly detail how informed typical Pennsylvania voters are about retention elections or the justices’ records. However, the increasing politicization of these elections, with external influences and partisan campaigns, suggests that voter awareness might be influenced more by political messaging than by detailed judicial performance (Inquirer.com). The non-partisan nature of these elections, combined with their lower profile compared to partisan races, likely contributes to challenges in engaging voters and ensuring they are well-informed about the judges on the ballot.
The stakes for Pennsylvania in the fall of 2025 are indeed high. Republicans view this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court, which would pave the way for very different judicial decisions (Inquirer.com). Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes (Inquirer.com). A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg, especially given that Republicans have seen their power diminished in the governor’s mansion and the state House of Representatives (Inquirer.com). It is important to remember that the state’s two appellate-level courts, one step below the Supreme Court, also have important races and retention votes in November that will further decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
