This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.
Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.
These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.
The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.
While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.
I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.
Retention elections
Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.
The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.
Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.
Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.
Politicization of the state courts
Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?
Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.
This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.
State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.
This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.
In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.
Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.
The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.
That was one seat.
Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.
And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”
This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.
The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025
Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. 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.
Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.
A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.
But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.
Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.
Daniel J. Mallinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
