Pennsylvania reelects Supreme Court justices, extending Democratic majority on its highest court
Pennsylvania voters re-elected Supreme Court Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht, preserving the court’s 5-2 Democratic majority. Their retention secures Democratic influence over key issues including voting rights, abortion, redistricting, and election laws ahead of upcoming state and national contests
Harrisburg: All three of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices who sought reelection Tuesday will get another term, ensuring Democratic jurists keep their majority on the presidential battleground state’s highest court — one at the centre of pivotal fights over voting rights, redistricting and elections.
The result shapes the makeup of the seven-member court through the next presidential election in 2028. The three justices had been elected as Democrats, and voters were deciding whether to extend the court’s Democratic majority. Rejecting all three could have plunged the court into a partisan deadlock if the state’s politically divided government could not agree on temporary appointees to fill in.
Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht won new terms, with support from the Democratic Party and allies including Planned Parenthood, labour unions, trial lawyers and a constellation of progressive groups.
In a statement, Donohue said the result shows that “Pennsylvanians have trust in the independence of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and, additionally, appreciate the importance of a stable Pennsylvania Supreme Court.” Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro — considered a potential White House contender in 2028 who is up for reelection next year — appeared in ads for the justices and lobbied for their retention.
Pennsylvania “sent a resounding message by voting to retain all three Supreme Court Justices who will continue to defend the rule of law, safeguard our elections, and protect our constitutional rights,” Shapiro said in a statement.
In addition to voting rights, Democrats leaned heavily on the protection of abortion rights in a state where abortion remains legal.
All three were running in what is called a retention election, in which voters are asked to vote “yes” or “no” on whether to give current justices another term. They were not identified by party on the ballot. Terms are 10 years, though age limits can shorten that time on the bench.
Reelecting them extends the Democratic majority, currently 5-2.
The court could again be called on to settle partisan battles over election laws ahead of next year’s midterm contests to decide the governor’s office and the US House majority. Democrats need to gain just three seats in the 2026 elections to take control of the House.
Traditionally, a retention campaign is an under-the-radar election. But in an era of increasingly polarised judicial elections, spending in the race was on track to exceed USD 15 million, far surpassing previous spending in a retention election.
While not all spending or financial sources have been disclosed publicly, Democrats easily outspent a Republican campaign by as much as four-to-one. President Donald Trump didn’t campaign against the justices and only weighed in on social media on Sunday night, urging Republicans to vote “no.” Defeating all three justices could have left the bench in a partisan 2-2 stalemate for two years, including through next year’s elections.
In recent years, the court has made major decisions around voting and elections, necessitated in part by the politically divided and often stalemated state government.
The justices in 2018 threw out a GOP-drawn map of Pennsylvania’s congressional districts as unconstitutionally gerrymandered and, four years later, again picked new boundaries after a stalemate in government.
The court turned away GOP challenges to Pennsylvania’s expansive vote-by-mail law, which became a focal point of Republican efforts to overturn Trump’s loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Republican justices dissented.
The justices also rendered verdicts in cases involving abortion rights and public school funding.
