Voting signs go up in Harrisburg on November 4, 2025. (Photo by Whitney Downard/Pennsylvania Capital-Star)
At first glance, Tuesday’s state Supreme Court election results seem unremarkable compared to any other statewide judicial retention vote in the past 19 years, Pennsylvania political observers said.
Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht, first elected as Democrats in 2015, won voter approval to continue serving on the state’s highest court for another 10 years. According to unofficial records, each did so, winning more than 60% of the vote, which is similar to margins in other recent statewide elections.
This happened despite concerted efforts by conservative groups to persuade voters to limit the Supreme Court’s terms and portray the judges as liberal activists who legislate ex officio.
“Even though there was an effort to make them look more partisan, they looked very much like they always do,” Berwood Yost, director of the Franklin and Marshall College poll, told the Capital-Star.
But beneath the surface, the results may reveal signs of change amid voter dissatisfaction with political gridlock and a sense that fundamental rights are under attack.
Judges Pa. won retention on the state Supreme Court for a 10-year term
The results show that in the Supreme Court race, at least one of three justices retained his seat in the 17 districts held by President Donald Trump last year.
“If you look at the yes votes and compare them to Kamala Harris, the average difference is about 15 points,” Yost said, noting that the margins in partisan elections for seats on the high courts and commonwealth courts were smaller.
A year after GOP victories in the presidential and congressional elections, Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Greg Rothman said in a statement that the party is not discouraged by Tuesday’s losses and will refine its strategy for next year.
“We knew this was going to be a difficult election cycle, but if we have a choice between fighting or running, we will always choose to stand and fight,” Rothman said. “We must better communicate our founding principles of freedom, security, prosperity and opportunity for all, and our vision for the future.”
If the “vote no” campaign backed by groups linked to Montgomery County billionaire Jeff Yass were successful, the justices could be the first since 2005 to lose their retention bids.
Instead, Democrats responded with a counteroffensive, likening it to the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, in which the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, pumped in about $30 million of his own money in a failed attempt to split the Democratic majority there.
“The Democrats had a strong argument,” said Muhlenberg College political science professor Christopher Borick. “They told voters: ‘protect reproductive rights’ and ‘don’t let billionaires decide for you.’
By comparison, the “vote no” campaign was less persuasive, said Penn State political science professor Daniel Mallinson. He said messaging from the conservative organization Commonwealth Partners, which has close ties to Yass and a number of Yass-funded pro-school choice political action committees, was unclear.
Get our top stories delivered straight to your inbox every morning. Sign up now for the Pennsylvania Capital-Star Morning Guide.
In states with similar retention elections, judges are most often removed in response to scandal, real or perceived. In 2009, voters kicked three Iowa Supreme Court justices off the bench after the court voted to legalize same-sex marriage. In the only Pennsylvania case, Judge Russell Nigro lost a 2005 reelection bid amid a backlash after lawmakers held a midnight vote to give himself and the judges raises.
“People just need a clear and specific reason to get rid of a judge otherwise,” Mallinson said.
Tuesday’s victory by Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht in the Pennsylvania marquee race in the off-year election has been part of the Democratic campaign throughout the voting period. Among other statewide lower court and commonwealth court races, Democrats won a swing state that state party chairman Eugene DePasquale called “the busiest of swing counties.”
He emphasized Democrat Danny Ceislera defeat for incumbent Bucks County Sheriff Fred Harran, who caused a stir in suburban Philadelphia County by striking a deal to support federal authorities in immigration enforcement. In Erie County Democrat Christina Vogel he defeated incumbent County Executive Brenton Davis by almost 25 points.
“We won most of the Dallastown school district. We beat Moms for Liberty in Cumberland County. We went through school districts all over Allegheny County,” he said. “It was much deeper than just a victory in the deep blue areas of Pennsylvania.”
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said the party’s successes across the country, including gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia, bode well for the 2026 midterm elections.
“The Democratic Party runs on gas, no brakes. We’re not going to slow down now,” Martin said. “And to all the Republicans who have cowardly knelt before Trump all year long while defrauding families, consider this: We’ll get to your jobs next.”
Borick said there are only judicial races left to play, and there is no guarantee that will happen again in Pennsylvania next year. He added that world events, economic conditions and changing policies of the Trump administration will influence voters’ views.
And Democrats’ past success in state Supreme Court races is not indicative of future results, Borick said, pointing to the 2023 election of Democratic Justice Daniel McCaffery, which will be followed by a GOP win in 2024.
But if Democratic campaigns focus on issues like affordability, health care and reproductive rights and downplay social and cultural issues, Borick said, “It could be repeated if done right in 2026.”
