Imagine an election whose outcome doesn’t just determine the next two years, but the next decade. One where not just voting rights, reproductive rights, and civil rights — but democracy itself — is on the line, and candidates’ rulings have implications for the next several election cycles, and the state’s once-in-a-decade census and redistricting. One with notoriously low turnout, but historically high stakes.
Unless you live in Pennsylvania (and even if you do), you may not know a judicial election is happening right now. Alongside other critical races in Virginia, New Jersey, and California, voters head to the polls through November 4, 2025. Off-year elections are typically sleepy affairs. But before we approach the sexier midterm elections in 2026, we must ensure three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices — Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue, and David Wecht — are retained for another 10-year term, especially since election matters will come before their court in 2026.
Retention is reelection for a second 10-year term: but, rather than face Republican opponents, voters vote “yes” to keep judges on the bench if they upheld their oaths and fairly, impartially interpreted the Constitution. Judges are typically retained, mostly because voters don’t know who they are or why they’d vote “no.” But these are also low-information elections, and judicial races are on the back of Pennsylvanians’ ballots, meaning eligible voters might not vote at all.
We’ve endured nearly a year of federal abuses of power — from the dismantling of federal agencies to weaponizing the Justice Department against perceived enemies — in part because too many people didn’t vote in 2024. Now, everything we care about is on the ballot again this fall, with greater urgency. Voters have another opportunity to get this right. Whether you care about voting rights, reproductive rights, the environment, or public education — the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, like other state courts, is the backstop for democracy, and a bulwark against autocracy and federal overreach.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has the final say on Pennsylvania law. So, here are a few areas where the justices have vindicated Pennsylvanians’ rights over the past 10 years.
Voting Rights
The Justices strengthened voting rights across Pennsylvania by protecting mail-in voting and drop boxes — including during the COVID-19 pandemic — and ensuring ballots cannot be discarded due to signature mismatch or slow mail service. Voters are literally voting for the judges who decide whether their votes count.
Partisan gerrymandering is in the news now: Pennsylvanians fought this nearly a decade ago. Back in 2018, Pennsylvania had the most gerrymandered congressional map in the country: the delegation had 13 Republicans and just five Democrats, even though Pennsylvania had nearly 1 million more registered Democrats. As many as 1 million Pennsylvanians’ voices did not count. Beyond that, some districts were barely contiguous: Republicans’ brazen map-drawing efforts created GOP-held districts where as little as a parking lot connected parts of the district. One well-known example is a district resembling Goofy kicking Donald Duck.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held this obscenely gerrymandered map unconstitutional: Pennsylvania went from the most gerrymandered map in the U.S., to the fairest. The new map had nine Democrats and nine Republicans (Democrats have since lost one seat): this ruling is the reason Congresswomen Madeleine Dean and Mary Gay Scanlon represent Montgomery County. Judicial elections have consequences far beyond one race or election year: judges’ rulings have decades-long implications for fair and equal representation, and whether the rights guaranteed in theory by our Constitution can be realized in practice.
Free and fair elections are on the line: this election could determine the outcomes of the 2026 midterm elections, 2028 presidential election, and 2030 census and redistricting. Election integrity is a state issue: voting rights will come before the court in 2026 and 2028. Republicans are warming up for 2026 by challenging voting laws across Pennsylvania, and nationwide.
Judicial elections don’t just affect Pennsylvania: dozens of states elect some judges. Just last year, North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs’ election extended six months beyond Election Day due to Republican lawsuits. And we’re all affected by the makeup of Congress — it’s why Texas, California, and other states are gerrymandering right now, trying to offset each other. Frankly, whether Pennsylvania’s four flippable congressional districts are competitive in 2026 — and whether every voter’s ballot counts — starts with ensuring Pennsylvania has a Democratic Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law if those elections are challenged in court.
Reproductive Rights
Even after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Roe v. Wade, Pennsylvanians still have a constitutionally protected right to abortion. In Allegheny Health, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the use of state Medicaid funds to cover men’s health services, but not women’s reproductive health services, was unconstitutional sex discrimination, pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Equal Rights Amendment.
Environment
The Pennsylvania Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, guarantees an environmental right. Pennsylvanians have more rights than the federal Constitution affords. But ensuring clean air and clean water rests upon having justices to safeguard them.
Public Education
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court safeguarded Pennsylvanians’ right to a free and fair public education. A 2023 ruling held Pennsylvania’s school funding system unconstitutional and affirmed the constitutional right to a quality public education, regardless of zip code. Despite the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, Democratic justices can deflect federal assaults on public education.
What happens if the justices are not retained? Pennsylvania currently has a 5-2 majority Democrat Supreme Court. If three justices aren’t retained, the court will remain 2-2 until at least 2027. The court’s work, and justice, will grind to a halt. That’s because, while the state’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, can appoint new nominees, they need to be confirmed by the Senate. Pennsylvania’s Republican-held Senate, which has refused to pass a state budget for more than 100 days to prevent Democratic strongholds from receiving public transportation funding, will not confirm those nominees.
Slow justice is no justice. As we’ve observed in the federal courts since the government shutdown, we can expect similar, magnified effects if Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court loses three of its seven justices for two whole years. Republicans are trying to defang the courts for ruling against their perceived interests (and in favor of democracy and expanded rights for Pennsylvanians) over the past decade.
We should care as much about who judges are as people as we do about their rulings. Judges’ lived experiences influence their decision-making, often leading to better, fairer outcomes for litigants. Impartial justice doesn’t mean indifference.
So, who are these jurists? Justice Dougherty began his judicial career in family court, where he spearheaded an innovative, statewide Autism and the Courts initiative, as well as a diversion program so fewer children’s futures were derailed by criminal records. His colleague Justice Donohue is the daughter of a coal miner and a seamstress, and the first Pennsylvania state Supreme Court justice with a state school degree: she brings that humility to the bench. And their colleague Justice Wecht initiated a five-point plan to foster judicial ethics and transparency in the courts. As someone who has seen the best and worst of judges’ conduct behind the bench, these are exactly the type of jurists we want on the bench.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. As I explained during Montgomery County’s No Kings rally earlier this month, if you’re concerned about federal overreach, creeping autocracy, and whether we’ll have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028, state supreme courts are one of the most important backstops for democracy. Election integrity is a state issue: challenges to voting provisions, such as mail-in ballots, drop boxes, signature mismatch, voter ID, and ballot curing and provisional ballots, just to name a few — will likely come before the courts again.
Pennsylvania Republicans have consistently challenged voting laws: this will crescendo during the 2026 midterms, since Pennsylvania is a key battleground state with at least four flippable districts in play. And, the specific issue of partisan gerrymandering may come before the courts.
Jeffrey Yass, the richest man in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania’s Elon Musk), has poured millions of dollars into a misleading “Vote No” campaign targeting every mail-in voter in the Commonwealth. Because he recognizes the stakes. Justice Wecht called these mailings “outright, brazen misrepresentation” and “probably the most shameless political ad I’ve ever seen.” Our courts shouldn’t be for sale.
Why should you care about Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court election if you’re not a Pennsylvania voter? Not just because the outcome of this election will be a bellwether for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election — and our democracy. But also, because what’s happening in Pennsylvania — and recently in Wisconsin’s and North Carolina’s judicial elections — will happen elsewhere. Increasingly, wealthy interests attempt to buy our courts. Republicans have long understood the importance of the courts, much more than Democrats. They’ve invested time and money grooming candidates to run for and serve in judicial offices.
As someone who cares deeply about ensuring fair, accountable, and ethical courts, and who works almost as hard to keep good jurists on the bench as to hold abusive ones accountable, I know the stakes could not be higher this November. Voting “yes” to retain Justices Dougherty, Donohue, and Wecht is a vote for the rule of law. These justices protected democracy when it was tested, including during a global pandemic — ensuring our votes were our voices, even when we were quarantined in our houses. At a time when democracy is under grave threat, casting your ballot is a small but consequential way to ensure state courts can continue serving as a bulwark against autocracy.
Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
The post The Most Important Election No One’s Talking About appeared first on Above the Law.
Imagine an election whose outcome doesn’t just determine the next two years, but the next decade. One where not just voting rights, reproductive rights, and civil rights — but democracy itself — is on the line, and candidates’ rulings have implications for the next several election cycles, and the state’s once-in-a-decade census and redistricting. One with notoriously low turnout, but historically high stakes.
Unless you live in Pennsylvania (and even if you do), you may not know a judicial election is happening right now. Alongside other critical races in Virginia, New Jersey, and California, voters head to the polls through November 4, 2025. Off-year elections are typically sleepy affairs. But before we approach the sexier midterm elections in 2026, we must ensure three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices — Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue, and David Wecht — are retained for another 10-year term, especially since election matters will come before their court in 2026.
Retention is reelection for a second 10-year term: but, rather than face Republican opponents, voters vote “yes” to keep judges on the bench if they upheld their oaths and fairly, impartially interpreted the Constitution. Judges are typically retained, mostly because voters don’t know who they are or why they’d vote “no.” But these are also low-information elections, and judicial races are on the back of Pennsylvanians’ ballots, meaning eligible voters might not vote at all.
We’ve endured nearly a year of federal abuses of power — from the dismantling of federal agencies to weaponizing the Justice Department against perceived enemies — in part because too many people didn’t vote in 2024. Now, everything we care about is on the ballot again this fall, with greater urgency. Voters have another opportunity to get this right. Whether you care about voting rights, reproductive rights, the environment, or public education — the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, like other state courts, is the backstop for democracy, and a bulwark against autocracy and federal overreach.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has the final say on Pennsylvania law. So, here are a few areas where the justices have vindicated Pennsylvanians’ rights over the past 10 years.
Voting Rights
The Justices strengthened voting rights across Pennsylvania by protecting mail-in voting and drop boxes — including during the COVID-19 pandemic — and ensuring ballots cannot be discarded due to signature mismatch or slow mail service. Voters are literally voting for the judges who decide whether their votes count.
Partisan gerrymandering is in the news now: Pennsylvanians fought this nearly a decade ago. Back in 2018, Pennsylvania had the most gerrymandered congressional map in the country: the delegation had 13 Republicans and just five Democrats, even though Pennsylvania had nearly 1 million more registered Democrats. As many as 1 million Pennsylvanians’ voices did not count. Beyond that, some districts were barely contiguous: Republicans’ brazen map-drawing efforts created GOP-held districts where as little as a parking lot connected parts of the district. One well-known example is a district resembling Goofy kicking Donald Duck.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held this obscenely gerrymandered map unconstitutional: Pennsylvania went from the most gerrymandered map in the U.S., to the fairest. The new map had nine Democrats and nine Republicans (Democrats have since lost one seat): this ruling is the reason Congresswomen Madeleine Dean and Mary Gay Scanlon represent Montgomery County. Judicial elections have consequences far beyond one race or election year: judges’ rulings have decades-long implications for fair and equal representation, and whether the rights guaranteed in theory by our Constitution can be realized in practice.
Free and fair elections are on the line: this election could determine the outcomes of the 2026 midterm elections, 2028 presidential election, and 2030 census and redistricting. Election integrity is a state issue: voting rights will come before the court in 2026 and 2028. Republicans are warming up for 2026 by challenging voting laws across Pennsylvania, and nationwide.
Judicial elections don’t just affect Pennsylvania: dozens of states elect some judges. Just last year, North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs’ election extended six months beyond Election Day due to Republican lawsuits. And we’re all affected by the makeup of Congress — it’s why Texas, California, and other states are gerrymandering right now, trying to offset each other. Frankly, whether Pennsylvania’s four flippable congressional districts are competitive in 2026 — and whether every voter’s ballot counts — starts with ensuring Pennsylvania has a Democratic Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law if those elections are challenged in court.
Reproductive Rights
Even after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Roe v. Wade, Pennsylvanians still have a constitutionally protected right to abortion. In Allegheny Health, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the use of state Medicaid funds to cover men’s health services, but not women’s reproductive health services, was unconstitutional sex discrimination, pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Equal Rights Amendment.
Environment
The Pennsylvania Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, guarantees an environmental right. Pennsylvanians have more rights than the federal Constitution affords. But ensuring clean air and clean water rests upon having justices to safeguard them.
Public Education
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court safeguarded Pennsylvanians’ right to a free and fair public education. A 2023 ruling held Pennsylvania’s school funding system unconstitutional and affirmed the constitutional right to a quality public education, regardless of zip code. Despite the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, Democratic justices can deflect federal assaults on public education.
What happens if the justices are not retained? Pennsylvania currently has a 5-2 majority Democrat Supreme Court. If three justices aren’t retained, the court will remain 2-2 until at least 2027. The court’s work, and justice, will grind to a halt. That’s because, while the state’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, can appoint new nominees, they need to be confirmed by the Senate. Pennsylvania’s Republican-held Senate, which has refused to pass a state budget for more than 100 days to prevent Democratic strongholds from receiving public transportation funding, will not confirm those nominees.
Slow justice is no justice. As we’ve observed in the federal courts since the government shutdown, we can expect similar, magnified effects if Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court loses three of its seven justices for two whole years. Republicans are trying to defang the courts for ruling against their perceived interests (and in favor of democracy and expanded rights for Pennsylvanians) over the past decade.
We should care as much about who judges are as people as we do about their rulings. Judges’ lived experiences influence their decision-making, often leading to better, fairer outcomes for litigants. Impartial justice doesn’t mean indifference.
So, who are these jurists? Justice Dougherty began his judicial career in family court, where he spearheaded an innovative, statewide Autism and the Courts initiative, as well as a diversion program so fewer children’s futures were derailed by criminal records. His colleague Justice Donohue is the daughter of a coal miner and a seamstress, and the first Pennsylvania state Supreme Court justice with a state school degree: she brings that humility to the bench. And their colleague Justice Wecht initiated a five-point plan to foster judicial ethics and transparency in the courts. As someone who has seen the best and worst of judges’ conduct behind the bench, these are exactly the type of jurists we want on the bench.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. As I explained during Montgomery County’s No Kings rally earlier this month, if you’re concerned about federal overreach, creeping autocracy, and whether we’ll have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028, state supreme courts are one of the most important backstops for democracy. Election integrity is a state issue: challenges to voting provisions, such as mail-in ballots, drop boxes, signature mismatch, voter ID, and ballot curing and provisional ballots, just to name a few — will likely come before the courts again.
Pennsylvania Republicans have consistently challenged voting laws: this will crescendo during the 2026 midterms, since Pennsylvania is a key battleground state with at least four flippable districts in play. And, the specific issue of partisan gerrymandering may come before the courts.
Jeffrey Yass, the richest man in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania’s Elon Musk), has poured millions of dollars into a misleading “Vote No” campaign targeting every mail-in voter in the Commonwealth. Because he recognizes the stakes. Justice Wecht called these mailings “outright, brazen misrepresentation” and “probably the most shameless political ad I’ve ever seen.” Our courts shouldn’t be for sale.
Why should you care about Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court election if you’re not a Pennsylvania voter? Not just because the outcome of this election will be a bellwether for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election — and our democracy. But also, because what’s happening in Pennsylvania — and recently in Wisconsin’s and North Carolina’s judicial elections — will happen elsewhere. Increasingly, wealthy interests attempt to buy our courts. Republicans have long understood the importance of the courts, much more than Democrats. They’ve invested time and money grooming candidates to run for and serve in judicial offices.
As someone who cares deeply about ensuring fair, accountable, and ethical courts, and who works almost as hard to keep good jurists on the bench as to hold abusive ones accountable, I know the stakes could not be higher this November. Voting “yes” to retain Justices Dougherty, Donohue, and Wecht is a vote for the rule of law. These justices protected democracy when it was tested, including during a global pandemic — ensuring our votes were our voices, even when we were quarantined in our houses. At a time when democracy is under grave threat, casting your ballot is a small but consequential way to ensure state courts can continue serving as a bulwark against autocracy.
Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
