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.