Pa. election 2025: What to know about the state Supreme Court retention races

What questions do you have about the 2025 elections? What major issues do you want candidates to address? Let us know.

In Pennsylvania’s 2025 election, voters will confront judicial choices that often fly under the radar. But this year, the spotlight is shining brightly on the most consequential of these races, which will determine whether three justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will remain on the bench. While these judicial retention votes usually attract little public interest, this year’s election is unfolding in a highly politically charged environment, with national implications for voting rights, redistricting and abortion access.

To retain or… not so much?

Rather than choosing between candidates, voters will be presented with a “yes” or “no” question for each justice: Should this justice be retained for another 10-year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? All three were first elected in 2015 as Democrats and are now seeking to continue their service amid partisan efforts to either preserve or upend the court’s ideological makeup.

Since the current system was adopted in 1968, only one statewide judge, Justice Russell Nigro in 2005, has ever been voted out of office. If the three justices are ousted, the results would be immediate. A vacancy would allow Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro to nominate a replacement, but that appointee would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate. A deadlock or refusal could leave seats open until the next judicial election in 2027, potentially stalling or disrupting major decisions by the court.

The current balance of the court — five Democrats and two Republicans — has played a significant role in shaping Pennsylvania’s political and legal landscape. In recent years, the court has issued decisive rulings on election laws, legislative maps, public health authority and civil liberties. Advocates on both sides of the retention campaign acknowledge that changing even one vote on the bench could influence outcomes in closely contested cases.

A coordinated campaign by conservative activists and political donors has brought rare visibility to this off-year vote. These groups argue the court has overstepped its bounds in rulings on mail-in voting, redistricting and pandemic-related mandates. In response, progressive and pro-democracy organizations have launched their own outreach efforts, warning that the court’s independence is under attack and urging voters to vote “yes” across the board.

Who’s running?

Justice Kevin Dougherty

Justice Kevin Dougherty, a Philadelphia native, was elected to the state Supreme Court in the 2015 election. He earned his undergraduate degree from Temple University and a law degree from Antioch School of Law. Dougherty began his legal career as a prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office before entering private practice, where he focused on family law and criminal defense. In 2001, he was appointed to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, where he spent more than a decade — primarily in the Family Division — and eventually became its administrative judge, managing assignments and reforms in one of the city’s busiest judicial sectors.

Since joining the Supreme Court, Dougherty has taken a visible interest in mental health and accessibility within the judicial system. He has led initiatives to create sensory-friendly courtrooms for neurodivergent individuals and helped establish the statewide Office of Behavioral Health within Pennsylvania’s courts.

Earlier this year, Dougherty authored a decision protecting a lesbian mother’s parental status and, thereby, affirming the state’s recognition of legal parentage for children born through assisted reproduction. Last year, Dougherty wrote the decision that upheld a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges, calling it “outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.”

In another 2025 case, Dougherty wrote a majority opinion that overruled a lower court’s decision, allowing a case against a Philadelphia police detective who was charged with tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and public records to go forward. Notably, Dougherty partially dissented from a majority ruling limiting legislative power during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that a law that allowed the legislature to override a governor’s emergency powers was unconstitutional on its face.

Some activists hoping to remove Dougherty from the bench point to his brother, John Dougherty, a former union leader who was convicted on federal charges in 2023. The Pennsylvania Bar Association recommended him for retention, praising him for being “well prepared,” “smart” and possessing “a temperament and demeanor that is respectful and professional.”

Justice David N. Wecht

A Maryland native who grew up in the Pittsburgh area, Justice David N. Wecht holds both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. He began his legal career in Washington, D.C., clerking for a federal judge and practicing at a private law firm before returning to Pittsburgh, where he founded the Wecht Law Firm in 1996.

Wecht’s path to the judiciary began in 1998 when he was elected as the register of wills and clerk of Orphans’ Court in Allegheny County. He was elected to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in 2003 and served as the administrative judge of the Family Division. In 2011, he won a seat on the state Superior Court, and in 2015, he was elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In addition to his judicial work, Wecht has spent decades teaching law as an adjunct and visiting professor at Duquesne University, the University of Pittsburgh and international institutions in China and Israel.

On the Supreme Court, Wecht has authored several high-impact opinions. In 2017, he wrote the majority decision that allowed underfunded school districts to challenge Pennsylvania’s school funding system — a case they later won, which led to record spending on education in the commonwealth. He upheld Gov. Tom Wolf’s emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and in 2019, defended Pittsburgh’s right to mandate paid sick leave for private workers. Wecht was recommended for retention by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which praised him as having “well written” legal opinions, “discharging his duties as a justice with fairness” and giving “careful consideration to oral arguments.”

Justice Christine Donohue

Justice Christine Donohue, born in Coaldale, is a graduate of East Stroudsburg University and Duquesne Law. She spent over two decades as a civil litigator before joining the bench, representing both individual clients and corporate interests. Prior to her Supreme Court tenure, she served on Superior Court and held several judicial oversight roles, including on the Judicial Conduct Board, the Court of Judicial Discipline and the Pennsylvania Bar’s House of Delegates.

On the Supreme Court, Donohue has authored major opinions on voting rights and reproductive access. In 2022, she wrote the opinion upholding Pennsylvania’s no‑excuse mail voting law, rejecting lower court decisions that had struck it down. Last year, Donahue authored the decision that a voter whose mail-in ballot is rejected because of a disqualifying mistake must be given the opportunity to submit a provisional ballot on Election Day. In 2024, she wrote a majority opinion that reversed the Commonwealth Court’s upholding of a 1982 law that banned the use of Medicaid funds for abortion, arguing that it violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the state Constitution. That case is still in the hands of the lower court and could rise back to the Supreme Court.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association has recommended her for retention, calling her “well-prepared,” “smart and fair,” “of impeccable character” and adding that she possesses “a fine judicial temperament that is well suited for the Supreme Court.” However, if retained this November, she may only be able to serve two more years before her state-mandated retirement at age 75 in 2027.