Pa. election 2025: What to know about the candidates for Commonwealth Court

From Philly and the Pa. suburbs to South Jersey and Delaware, what would you like WHYY News to cover? Let us know!

In the Nov. 4 2025 election, Pennsylvania voters will cast ballots for a new judge on the Commonwealth Court, one of the state’s two intermediate appellate bodies. Voters also decide if one of the current judges should remain on the court for another 10 years.

The Commonwealth Court is unique among state courts in the United States as it is one of only a few specialized intermediate appellate courts in the country and unique in its singular focus on government and administrative law.

The statewide contest for the open Commonwealth Court seat pits two seasoned legal professionals — Matthew Wolford, a Republican environmental attorney from Erie, and Stella Tsai, a Democratic judge from Philadelphia — against each other in a race that could shape how the court interprets state agency power and individual rights for years to come.

The seat is open following the retirement of Judge Ellen Ceisler in January, and this election could shift the ideological balance of a court on which judges elected as Republicans currently outnumber the Democrats 5-to-3. The court usually has nine members.

The court rules on disputes involving state and local government, regulatory agencies and other matters tied to public policy, including election laws, education funding, environmental regulations, labor issues and zoning decisions. Because the Commonwealth Court frequently hears cases in which the state itself is a party — especially in challenges to executive agency rules or municipal decisions — its judges often indirectly shape policy, meaning the court has an outsized impact on Pennsylvanians.

For example, it was the Commonwealth Court that ultimately ruled that Pennsylvania’s system of public grade school education violated the state constitution and led to a record budget.

“People don’t realize how much this court affects their lives,” Wolford said. “It’s an extremely important court as far as I’m concerned, because it deals with Pennsylvania government, state and local government.”

Tsai agrees on the court’s importance, noting that it often has the final say in many cases.

“The Commonwealth Court weighs in on some of the most important issues of our day: voting rights, free and fair elections, public education, workers’ rights, workers’ comp — you name it — before any of those cases get to the Supreme Court,” she said. “And not all those cases make it to the Supreme Court.”

With one seat up for grabs this year, observers say the stakes are unusually high.

All three candidates boast decades of experience, sterling legal credentials and “highly recommended” ratings from the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Here’s a look at who is running in Pennsylvania’s 2025 election, their background and their views on the court:

Republican Matthew Wolford

On the Republican side, Matthew Wolford emerged from the May primary as the nominee after defeating Joshua Prince with roughly 62% of the vote. Wolford is a veteran environmental attorney whose career spans more than three decades, including stints in the state Office of Attorney General, where he prosecuted environmental crimes, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, where he litigated matters for commonwealth agencies. In 1999, he opened Wolford Law, a solo practice in Erie where he represents private individuals, organizations and companies on environmental compliance, litigation and regulatory issues.

His candidacy is backed by the state Republican Party and he holds a “Highly Recommended” rating from the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which praised his decades of environmental practice and described him as “respectfully fair, prepared, and possessing legal expertise in the environmental field.”

Wolford has touted his experience appearing before the Commonwealth Court over the last four decades.

“I’ve been in front of the Commonwealth Court since 1988,” he said in a recent interview with PCNTV.

Wolford embraces a philosophy of judicial restraint — interpreting laws as written and avoiding unnecessary constitutional rulings.

“If you can resolve a dispute without resorting to a constitutional analysis, then you should,” he said.

Wolford also frames his campaign around concern about regulatory excess.

“I think we can all agree that there is a certain amount of government we need and is good,” he said. “We want good roads. We want police and fire protection. We want clean air and clean water. But if you regulate more than what’s necessary, then what happens is your personal freedoms and private property rights, which belong to the people, then get unnecessarily encroached upon. And so we need good judges in the Commonwealth Court who are mindful of that, and so sort of be mindful of too much government overreach and overregulation.”

Wolford says his hands-on knowledge of administrative processes will help him find that balance.

“The Commonwealth Court is often deciding whether regulations stay within the bounds of the law,” he said. “My background in rulemaking and state agency practice helps me understand those cases at a deeper level.”

Wolford has picked up endorsements from several law enforcement organizations, including the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association, the state chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, Gun Owners of America and Conservative Latinos PA.

Democrat Stella Tsai

Court of Common Pleas Judge Stella Tsai ran uncontested in the Democratic primary. Tsai is currently a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas where she was appointed to in 2016 and then elected in 2017. She has presided across the Criminal, Civil, Orphans’ Court and Family Divisions. Her campaign emphasizes her breadth of experience handling trials involving land use, trusts, wills, custody disputes and general commercial litigation.

She says that experience “has equipped me with the skills and insights necessary to address the often complex social, economic and governmental issues facing our Commonwealth.”

Born in Harrisburg to immigrant parents, Tsai grew up in central Pennsylvania and earned her bachelor’s degree in political science from Penn State University in 1985 and her Juris Doctor from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where she currently teaches. Prior to joining the bench, she was a business litigation partner at Archer & Greiner, focusing on regulatory compliance, land use and legal ethics. She also served as the chair of administrative law in the Philadelphia Law Department from 2000 to 2003.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association rated Tsai as “Highly Recommended,” citing her long and diverse legal career, extensive trial experience in both state and federal courts, similar respect among peers and clear, thoughtful legal writing as well as her “history of civic and pro bono activities.” Tsai previously won the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Sandra Day O’Connor award.

Tsai has served nearly a decade as a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, hearing civil, family and orphans court cases. In her race, she emphasizes “integrity, transparency, consistency” in court and providing access to justice.

“I’m the only sitting judge in this race,” Tsai said in a recent interview with PCNTV. “And I understand the challenges facing individuals and working families. It’s been my life’s work to ensure that our legal system is fair, just and accessible.”

Tsai’s judicial philosophy centers on judicial independence, ensuring the courts are nonpartisan and also free from influence from interested parties.

“Once you get elected, that’s it, we are no longer Democrats, Republicans or whatever,” she said in an interview. “Being a judge, you have to recognize that people may be upset with you, but you have to do the right thing.”

Tsai previously served as counsel to Philadelphia’s Civil Service Commission, helped rewrite the city’s zoning code and now teaches a litigation remedies course at the University of Pennsylvania.

She also brings a personal story rooted in democratic ideals.

“My parents grew up in Taiwan under martial law,” she said. “I’ve known from childhood how critical and important our democracy is and to make sure that it functions appropriately. And that’s why to me, the thing about judicial independence resonates with me.”

Tsai’s endorsements include a host of labor groups, as well as the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Conservation Voters of PA and Planned Parenthood.

The winner will begin serving a 10‑year term in January 2026. As is typical in Pennsylvania, after their initial term, the judge would face a nonpartisan retention vote for a second term.

Retention vote | Democrat Michael Wojcik

Also on the ballot this year is a retention vote for Judge Michael Wojcik, a Democrat who has served on the Commonwealth Court since 2016. Unlike contested judicial elections, retention votes in Pennsylvania are simple “yes” or ”no” questions asking voters whether a judge should serve another 10-year term.

If retained, Wojcik would continue serving until at least 2036. If voters choose not to retain Wojcik, his seat would be filled through appointment by the governor and confirmation by the state Senate until the next judicial election.

Now approaching the end of his first term, Wojcik is asking voters to keep him on the bench.

“I think I’ve been a force for everything that’s right about Commonwealth Court,” he said. “I still feel I have more to give, and I would love to have the citizens and voters of Pennsylvania grant me the privilege of another 10 years to continue my work.”

Wojcik earned his undergraduate degree from Juniata College and his Juris Doctor cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Before joining the court, Wojcik held various legal positions including Solicitor for Allegheny County from 2004 to 2012, and senior counsel at Thorp Reed & Armstrong from 2012 to 2014. In earlier years, he practiced in private firms and served as solicitor to the Allegheny County controller, among other roles.

Wojcik’s judicial philosophy centers on independence, restraint and fidelity to the law rather than politics. He repeatedly stresses that judges must apply established standards of review and leave personal views at the door, describing himself as a rule-of-law jurist, guided by process rather than ideology.

“The only thing that matters is in my position as an intermediate appellate judge, my scope and standard review, and that’s the prism through which I view every case I do,” he said. “I’ve ruled against both Gov. Wolf and Gov. Shapiro, even though we share the party. They’re in the political sphere; my job is much different … I do the job with neither fear nor favor.”

He received a “Recommended” rating from the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which praised his “well-reasoned, concise, and clear“ opinions and his “excellent character, judicial temperament, high integrity and firm intellect.”