PA Supreme Court justices talk retention elections, court operations at Philadelphia forum

This November, voters across the commonwealth will decide whether to send three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices back to the bench for another 10 years in what are referred to as retention elections: nonpartisan contests that decide whether sitting jurists in Pennsylvania will earn another 10 years – or an early retirement. 

Those up for retention in this year’s November general election are Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht – all of whom ran as Democrats in 2015 when the trio swept the state’s election for three seats on the high court. 

The trio made a rare public appearance on Monday during a fireside chat in Philadelphia hosted by the nonprofit good government group Committee of Seventy, where the jurists discussed partisanship and the courts, while also offering a window into life at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, ranging from how cases are decided to justices interact with one another. They also weighed in on the looming retention elections that will decide their fate in just a few short months.

Below, City & State runs down some of the major highlights from Monday’s forum at Central High School in Philadelphia.

Pushing back on politicization

While judges and justices in Pennsylvania are elected in partisan elections, the three high court justices running for retention looked to downplay partisanship on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, while stressing the independent nature of the judicial branch. 

Donohue, who served as a judge on the Pennsylvania Superior Court prior to her 2015 election, said personal and political views don’t play into their legal decisions.

“Our personal opinion, our personal views, our political views, our religious views are left on the wayside. They have absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which we can decide cases and do decide cases,” Donohue said. “The fact of the matter is that there are exact rules of construction or otherwise that are in place to make certain that we are guided in our decision-making process.”

“We disagree with each other all the time,” Donohue added. “That’s a function of the interpretive process that we individually go through when we’re presented with an issue, and that’s true with our colleagues who were elected as Republicans.”

Dougherty further stressed the independent nature of the judiciary. “The constitution required us to run as a partisan, but the moment we were elected, when we put that black robe on, we hung up that partisan title,” he said. “When you look at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, you’ll never hear us say it’s ‘How many Democrats? How many Republicans?’ We say that we’re seven.”

The high court is collegial 

Donohue described a friendly, respectful environment among justices on the court, noting that she’s learned from other justices on the bench, including Justice Kevin Brobson, a Republican who previously served on the Commonwealth Court and was elected to the Supreme Court in 2021. “I learn a lot from my colleagues,” Donohue said Monday. Wecht concurred, noting that the justices on the court try to have dinner together when they meet for argument sessions. 

“We have a wonderful relationship,” he said Monday night. “We have dinner together – the seven of us – every time we get together for argument session. We don’t talk about cases at all. We talk about family stuff, what’s good on TV – we just have fun.”

Wecht added that’s a change from the past, as justices on the court haven’t always gotten along. “I think Pennsylvanians ought to be proud, or at least satisfied, by the fact that they have a Supreme Court now that’s focused on the work and not on squabbling.”

Pulling back the curtain on decision-making

The justices spent time Monday night discussing the day-to-day operations of the court, including how cases get selected and how decisions get made. 

Dougherty noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is unique in that it has the ability to choose many of the cases it hears, adding that the court gets approximately 3,000 requests to take cases per year, with the court only accepting between 5-8% of requests. 

Donohue noted that oral arguments, which are now televised and streamed, are often an opportunity to glean how justices feel about a particular issue before it gets decided on. 

“You can tell at that juncture where each of us is coming from on any particular issue. When we ask questions, those questions are very illuminative of what we’re thinking about a case. That way, we can tell what our colleagues are thinking about the case.”

Donohue said that after oral arguments are complete, the court has an administrative session to hold a preliminary vote on the outcome of a case.

“The real debate takes place in our writings,” she added, noting that majority and dissenting opinions provide the most information about where justices stand on an issue.  

Making the case for retention

Each of the three justices had differing arguments for why voters should retain them in the fall. Donohue said that another 10 years on the court would bring consistency to how the state constitution is interpreted. “What I'd like to do with the remainder of my turn is to ensure that the efforts that we have made in terms of interpreting and applying the Pennsylvania Constitution continue,” she said. “I want to be certain that the terms of extending protections that have always been there, that have not been recognized, continue to be recognized by the court that I sit on.”

Wecht noted that the Supreme Court also administers the state judicial system, and that retention would allow the justices to “continue to advance the most modern and transparent procedures” in judicial rulemaking and best practices. 

Dougherty, meanwhile, framed November’s vote as an opportunity to make sure the justices are upholding their oath. “Our system has it so that a retention vote is for Pennsylvanians, and Pennsylvanians only, to judge our judges based upon our oath to the constitution: to uphold it and to apply the law equally and fairly. I believe the three of us have done that.”