Just when you thought it might be safe to head to the polls next year, Pennsylvania appears poised for another high-stakes political contest — one that could determine the state’s direction for years to come.
This time, control of the state Supreme Court is potentially at stake, with the seat of at least one, and very likely two, of its seven justices up for grabs.
Justice Christine Donohue must step down because she reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75 next year. And it is widely expected that Chief Justice Debra Todd also will leave the court, rather than ask voters to retain her for another 10-year term.
“At the present time, the Chief Justice is not planning to seek retention in 2027,” said Stacey Witalec, a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, which handles court system communications.
Todd, the state’s first female chief justicecould change her mind. Jurists slated for retention next year have until Jan. 4 to file a declaration of candidacy if they want to appear on the ballot.
But if Todd chooses not to seek retention, the partisan make-up of the court will be at stake next year.
Both Todd and Donohue were elected as Democrats and have been part of a 5-to-2 majority that includes justices Kevin Dougherty, Daniel McCaffery, and David Wecht.
But if Republicans were to win two seats next year, their nominees would join Justices Sallie Updyke Mundy and Kevin Brobson in a new four-member GOP-backed majority. (That assumes voters approve retention for Mundy, who will also face an up-or-down vote next year.)
Such existential battles have become familiar since 2015, when Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht were elected together.
“The phrase I keep going back to in my head is ‘Groundhog Day,’” joked Michael Quatrini, a Pittsburgh-area lawyer. “It seemed like nothing happened for 100 years until 2015. And this has been a 10-year period in which so many things have happened.”
Six of the court’s seven justices have joined it in the past decade. Other than Todd, who was elected in 2007, the average justice has served 8 years.
The field of 2027 contenders is far from settled. Commonwealth Court Judge Matthew Wolf announced his bid shortly after last week’s midterm elections. He was previously elected as a Democrat to serve on Commonwealth Court, a statewide appellate court that hears cases involving state and local governments and public agencies.
A second Commonwealth Court Judge, Michael Wojcik, is also widely expected to run. A Democrat, Wojcik has roots in western Pennsylvania and previously served as the solicitor for Allegheny County.
Other candidates from both parties are rumored to be considering bids, including a handful of jurists currently serving on state Superior Court, which hears civil and criminal appeals, and Commonwealth Court alike.
Drawing the battle lines
Quatrini was the treasurer for Vote Yes for Fair and Independent Courts, a political committee which in 2025 spent $5.8 million urging voters to retain Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht. He can hazard a guess about the issues voters will have on their minds in 2027.
“With at least one female justice and potentially a second coming off the court, I do think there will be a focus on protecting the right to choose,” he said.
Data centers, which transformed the debate in the midterm electionscould play a role as well: The courts may well be called upon to decide how much power local officials have to regulate construction.
A key concern for both political parties, meanwhile, will be the role any justice elected next year will have drawing the map for state Senate House and Senate districts
Under the state constitutionafter each U.S. Census, those lines are drawn by a five-member commission, four members of which represent the House and Senate caucus of each party. Those members are supposed to select a fifth as a chairperson, but because they are evenly divided by party, they typically fail to do so, and the state Supreme Court selects one instead. (Congressional districts are drawn separately, through bills passed by the legislature.)
The last redistricting commission, convened following the 2020 Census, was chaired by former University of Pittsburgh chancellor Mark Nordenberg, who was selected by a Democratic-aligned court majority. The resulting map was regarded as a boon to Democratswho went on to gain control of the state House the following year.
Asked about the stakes in 2027, state Republican party spokesman James Markley provided a statement that did not mention redistricting. But he asserted that “It’s even more important now that Republicans challenge the balance of power on the court because Democrats have a trifecta of representation in the legislature and governor’s mansion.”
The election will come on the heels of a 2026 nationwide redistricting drama, in which both parties sought to redraw Congressional maps in some states, seeking a last-minute advantage in the midterms.
“Twenty or 30 years ago, if you brought up redistricting, people would think, ‘This is the most boring topic possible,’” Quatrini said. “But stuff we never thought could happen just did.”
‘Pennsylvanians will make the right choices’
Democratic candidates for the Supreme Court have benefited from a coalition of support that includes big-spending unions, trial lawyers, and other advocacy groups. But that doesn’t mean they will always have the edge.
A 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race involved $100 million of spendingmore than $18 million of which was traced to political committees backed by Elon Musk in support of Republican Brad Schimel. Closer to home, Democrats keep a wary eye on Jeffrey Yass, a Philadelphia-area hedge fund manager and one of the country’s largest Republican donors.
Pennsylvania Republicans, meanwhile, have complained that their candidates have been outgunned by well-heeled attorneys and labor unions. In the years since 2015, Republicans have railed against a court ruling that forced a redrawing of Congressional boundariesas well as decisions on mail-in ballot proceduresas business groups have criticized the court for creating a “judicial hellhole” by granting plaintiffs considerable leeway in choosing where to file lawsuits.
That decision has been hailed by plaintiff’s attorneys as a win for victims and court access. Liberal groups, meanwhile, have cheered the court’s support of causes that include local paid sick leave laws and its openness to giving constitutional protection to reproductive rights.
Either way, “The election of 2015 was an earthquake,” said Bruce Ledewitz, an emeritus professor of law at Duquesne University. The three-Democrat sweep of Supreme Court elections that year was, he said, the “equivalent of President [Donald] Trump’s takeover of the U.S. Supreme Court: It changed the trajectory of the court.”
In one sense, Democrats have seen that margin erode after Wecht broke with his party, citing concerns about antisemitism “among activists, leaders and even many elected officials.” And Ledewitz noted that partisan affiliation “does not always track” with decisions: He cited a 2013 ruling’s expansive reading of state environmental protections, written by then-Chief Justice Ron Castille, who was elected as a Republican.
Lisa Benzie, who leads the trial-lawyers group Pennsylvania Association for Justice, says that’s how the law should work, with judges deciding cases without regard for partisan agendas.
“We’re confident, like we are with juries, that Pennsylvanians will make the right choices” in an election, said Benzie. But she lamented that judicial elections, and the court system itself, had become so politicized.
“Maybe we can turn down the temperature,” she said, before adding, “Maybe that’s not a possibility for 2027.”
Tom Riese contributed to this story.
Source: www.wesanews.org
