…And justices for all: What's at stake in next week's judicial elections

On Nov. 4, Pennsylvania voters have the opportunity to reshape the state’s legal landscape for the next decade in high-stakes judicial elections that could determine how state courts rule on topics ranging from healthcare and abortion access to election law, congressional redistricting and voting rights. 

Perhaps the most consequential contests are the retention elections for three sitting justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where voters will have the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” for their retention on the court for an additional 10 years. Voters will also select new judges for the Commonwealth and Superior Courts and vote on whether to retain judges in those courts.

While judicial elections typically avoid much of the attention – and partisan bickering – typical of races for state legislature, Congress and the presidency, this year’s contests are receiving increased scrutiny, with both Republican and Democratic-aligned interests pouring money into mailers, ads and influence campaigns to sway voters ahead of the general election. 

City & State breaks down the key races this year for seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Commonwealth Court and Superior Court, and what they could mean for the future of the commonwealth.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

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 – are running in individual retention elections this year. 

Put simply, voters will have the option to vote “yes” or “no” on ballot questions asking whether to elect each justice to an additional 10-year term on the state Supreme Court. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has the final say on judgments related to Pennsylvania law and the state constitution, and has administrative authority over its judicial system. It also has discretion over the types of cases it hears, and can use its “King’s Bench” power to consider cases that are pending in a lower court – if it so chooses.

The high court has ruled on a range of high-profile issues in recent years. It upheld COVID-19 mitigation and lockdown measures, protected the state’s 2019 mail-in voting law and has played a major role in the selection of Pennsylvania’s congressional maps, determining in 2018 that the state’s existing map was gerrymandered in violation of the state constitution.

The three justices have been making their respective cases for retention in events and interviews leading up to Election Day. During a joint public appearance at a forum hosted by the nonprofit good government group Committee of Seventy in early September, the justices looked to distance themselves from politics and partisanship. “Our personal opinion, our personal views, our political views, our religious views are left on the wayside,” Donohue said during a Sept. 8 event. “They have absolutely nothing to do with the manner in which we can decide cases and do decide cases.”

However, despite all three justices being recommended for retention by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, that hasn’t stopped political parties and organizations from making the 2025 retention elections all about politics. 

Citing the stakes of the retention elections, both the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee have announced six-figure investments in the Supreme Court races to encourage voters to vote “yes” on Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht. Gov. Josh Shapiro recently spoke in an ad urging voters to retain the three justices, and DNC Chair Ken Martin has gone so far as to say that the stakes of the state Supreme Court race "couldn’t be higher,” and that the court is “on the front lines of decisions related to voting rights, redistricting, abortion protections and more.”

Republicans are also keeping close tabs on the race. Commonwealth Partners, a political group tied to Jeffrey Yass, Pennsylvania’s richest man and a major political donor to conservative causes, has circulated mailers asking voters to vote “no” on the ballot questions for Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht. The Pennsylvania Republican Party, meanwhile, has sought to tie the justices to COVID-19 lockdown policies and has framed the justices as threats to election law, writing in an October social media post: “We can’t afford more unchecked judicial overreach.”

All three Supreme Court justices up for retention this November have pushed back against efforts to politicize the court, and believe they should be judged on their merits and records, rather than political messaging. 

Wecht said in an interview with PCN that he and his colleagues don’t pick winners and losers: “We apply the law,” he said. Dougherty concurred. “We are standing in front of the electorate to say, ‘Look at our history. See what we've done, both on the court and what we’ve done to improve the court, and then make your decision – whether it’s a yes or no vote,’” Dougherty said in an interview with PCN, before adding: “We're not partisan. We’re not here to win the favor of the voter. We’re here to apply the law to the facts of the case before us.”

Donohue, in her own interview with the cable network, said this year’s retention election seems more partisan than past cycles. 

“The retention election has turned into a much more partisan race than it was ever intended to be,” Donohue said. “When my name will be on the ballot, it will not have a D or R after my name, it will be the simple question: ‘Should Justice Christine Donohue be retained?’ No partisan aspect to it,” she said. “If there’s going to be a discussion about this retention election, it should be about what our work actually has been.”

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

The Commonwealth Court holds a unique role in Pennsylvania’s judicial system, as it is an appellate court that largely focuses on state and local government issues. It is composed of nine judges elected to 10-year terms. 

In 2025, there is one opening on the court up for grabs, with Democrat Stella Tsai, a judge on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, facing off against Republican Matthew Wolford, an attorney who has spent stints with the state Office of Attorney General and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Both candidates come “highly recommended” by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and made their case to voters during a recent candidate forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. 

Tsai was first appointed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2016 by then-Gov. Tom Wolf, and won a subsequent election in 2017 to remain on the court. She previously worked in private practice and local government. Tsai said during the League of Women Voters Forum that she decided to run for Commonwealth Court because it “weighs in (on) some of the most important issues of our day,” citing voting rights, workers’ rights, elections, public education and the environment. 

“I have the experience, both as a judge and as a lawyer, to address the issues and the breadth of cases heard by the Commonwealth Court,” Tsai said. “I’ve made it my life’s work to ensure their legal system is fair and accessible to all Pennsylvanians.”

Wolford also brings a varied background to the race, with experience as a civil litigation attorney in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office and as counsel for the Department of Environmental Protection, before later starting his own private practice in Erie. “The reason that the Commonwealth Court is so important is because it deals with government regulation and how much government is enough government, and how much is too much,” Wolford said during the LOWV forum.  “We have a lot of regulations in Pennsylvania. The antithesis of that is personal freedoms and private property rights. So we need common-sense judges that understand how much government is enough.”

There will also be a Commonwealth Court retention election on the ballot, with Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcik seeking another 10 years on the bench. Wojcik, who was elected as a Democrat in 2015 and previously served as Allegheny County solicitor from 2004 to 2012, described himself as “fiercely independent” in a PCN interview in September. He noted that he’s issued rulings that fall on both sides of the aisle, at times ruling against Democrats like former Gov. Tom Wolf and Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“If folks say, ‘Well, he’s a Democrat judge, he just follows the Democratic line’ – I don’t, and the judges who do it right don’t,” Wojcik said.

“I think I’ve been successful and very productive on my court, and I think I’ve been a force for everything that’s right about Commonwealth Court,” Wojcik added. “I still feel I have more to give.”

Pennsylvania Superior Court 

There’s also one seat on the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the line in this year’s judicial elections. 

The Superior Court serves as an appeals court for citizens and businesses across the state, and is touted by the state’s court system as one of the busiest intermediate appellate courts in the country. 

Democrat Brandon P. Neuman, a sitting judge of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, is running against Republican Maria Battista, an attorney from Clarion County who has worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the Department of State, among other entities. Also in the race is attorney Daniel Wassmer, who is running under the “Liberal” banner.

Each candidate offered up their reasons for running during the LOVW forum. Battista highlighted the diversity of her experience: “I have the judicial temperament that is needed to handle any type of case, whether it’s a criminal case or a civil matter,” she said. She also highlighted her experience as a hearing examiner at the state level, noting that she issued hundreds of decisions similar to a common pleas judge. “Those skill sets that I had as a hearing examiner are the same types of skills you need as a judge on the Superior Court, and I am ready to serve on Day One,” Battista said. 

Wassmer, a practicing attorney and college professor, previously worked as an assistant county solicitor and has been admitted to practice law in four states. He said he could offer an independent streak that the state’s two major parties can’t. “The fact is that we need an impartial member of the public on the court – and that’s what I’m offering people,” he told the forum. 

He also pitched his own varied background to Pennsylvania voters. “I’ve been around the state handling cases. I’ve handled cases outside the state, federal court cases and whatnot,” he said. “You name it, I’ve done it, basically.”

On the Democratic side, Neuman has said he will bring a fair and impartial mindset to the bench, and has looked to distinguish himself by highlighting that he’s the only candidate of the three to come “highly recommended” from the Pennsylvania Bar Association. 

“They determined that I was highly recommended for this position because I’m fair and impartial. I write good opinions, sound opinions based on the facts that were presented to the court,” Neuman said. “This experience cannot be duplicated. This experience transcends politics no matter what party you are. This experience is the experience that Pennsylvanians should count on and expect from judges on an appellate court.”

Separate from that race, Superior Court Judge Alice Beck DuBow is seeking another 10 years on the court in a retention election of her own. DuBow, who was elected to the Superior Court roughly a decade ago, noted in a PCN interview that she has grown as a judge throughout her tenure on the bench. 

“I have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge – not only knowledge of the law, but I’ve got another 10 years of life experience – and I can use that in my decisions that I make,” DuBow said. “I’m running for another 10 years  because I think I’m even a better judge now, and I would like to continue to contribute for another 10 years.”