Lifelong Lebanon County resident John Tice has seen the polarizing TV and digital ads trying to sway voters over the fate of three state Supreme Court justices on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Republican-aligned groups argue that the justices up for retention this year, all elected as Democrats in 2015, are “radical” and have let their political loyalties influence their rulings. The GOP is urging Pennsylvanians to vote “No” to remove the justices.
Democrats, meanwhile, have flocked to the judges’ defense with direct mail and ads urging a “Yes” vote on the retention questions, stressing that keeping them on the bench is important to maintain a judiciary that will uphold abortion access and voting rights.
Tice, a 69-year-old Republican, said none of the messages has won his vote.
“I’m never a fan of the extremes,” he said Friday during his regular visit to the Lebanon Farmers Market. “ When I see how polarized things are, that pretty much — I just shut down because that’s not my style.”
This year’s retention election could reshape Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, where Democrats currently hold a 5–2 majority. On the line is the future of three justices: Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht. They’re each seeking a second term on Pennsylvania’s highest court.
Spending on Pennsylvania’s judicial retention election is projected to top $15 million, according to the Associated Press — potentially making it the most expensive in state history. Pro-retention groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood could outspend opponents by as much as 4-to-1.
Despite the record spending statewide, many voters still don’t know about the retention election.
“ I haven’t heard anything about it,” said 25-year-old Dawlton Smith, of Lebanon.
He’s not alone. About one-third of voters said they were undecided on each of the justices when Franklin & Marshall College posed the question in their October poll.
Smith said he’s an independent who mostly learns about news through YouTube or TikTok. Those are the platforms candidates need to leverage if they hope to reach young voters, he said, though he noted the heightened polarization of politics has turned him away from trying to stay informed.
Statewide vs. local
Longtime youth and community activist Angela Bates, of Harrisburg, hosted an event in the city last month to help young voters between the ages of 18 and 25 learn more about candidates and issues on this year’s election ballot.
Bates said no one mentioned the retention election. Attendees, she noted, were more focused on Harrisburg’s mayoral race and contests for other local offices.
Marlene Deiss, 82, said school board races are the big issue in her hometown in Schuylkill County, but she said she has urged her friends to vote to retain the Supreme Court justices.
“ I feel like there’s a lot of people that don’t know the consequences,” she said. At the top of Deiss’ mind was the fact that if all three justices are removed, the court will be tied — with two Democratic and two Republican justices.
If Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht are not retained, Deiss said she doubted that Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, could agree with the GOP-led Senate on replacements who would serve until the next municipal election year, 2027. Indeed, after Chief Justice Max Baer died in 2022, his seat was left vacant by Shapiro and his Democratic predecessor, Tom Wolf, until the 2023 election.
The three justices have ruled on a range of high-profile cases that the GOP is using to target them, such as their support for a redrawing of the state’s congressional map and the state’s no-excuse mail-in ballot law.
Personal stakes
Some voters have dug deep into the retention election and researched past rulings that impact their day-to-day lives.
One 2022 case specifically impacted Hans Zuckerman, a 42-year-old physician in Lebanon. The state Supreme Court overturned a 20-year-old rule that restricted medical malpractice lawsuits to the county where the injury occurred.
That ruling, coupled with others that Zuckerman believes were influenced by traditional Democratic interest groups, is driving him to vote against the three justices on Election Day.
“ It drives physicians out of the state. It makes it much more difficult for patients to access their physicians,” Zuckerman said. “I thought that was a particularly egregious decision.”
But David Alexander, a Harrisburg attorney who works for the commonwealth, said he thinks the judges have been fair and impartial in interpreting the law.
“ They’re not looking at who’s the president and kind of dictating how decisions should be made,” Alexander said. “Look, the law says X, Y and Z. (They’re) going to apply the law regardless of what people want the law to be.”