In 2018, the state Supreme Court found Pennsylvania’s congressional map unconstitutional. Mail addressed to three judges accused of detainment pins blame for the map on the state Supreme Court. (US Government)
A group of voting rights watchdogs urged a conservative PAC backed by Republican financier Jeffrey Yass to rescind and apologize for a campaign mailer that falsely blamed the state Supreme Court for an unconstitutionally rigged congressional district map.
The 2011 Republican-controlled congressional redistricting map drawn by Congress drew national attention for its oddly shaped districts, including one called “Goofy kicks Donald Duck” due to its resemblance to Disney cartoon characters.
The map appears on a mailer sent last month to homes across the commonwealth urging voters to “term limit the liberal Supreme Court” as Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht run for retention next month.
The nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania was the lead plaintiff in a 2017 lawsuit challenging the Legislature’s map. The case ultimately ended with the Supreme Court ordering the state to do so apply your alternative before the 2018 midterm elections.
“We litigated this case, resulting in a court ruling that resulted in a map that was fairer, cleaner, more appropriate and more constitutional,” Susan Gobreski, president of the Women’s League of Pennsylvania, said in a call with reporters Thursday.
Gobreski and others say the Postal Service is misleading and threatens judicial independence.
“Everyone has the right to an opinion, but no one has the right to lie to voters and call it democracy,” Gobreski said. “They really should pull those mailers and apologize to the voters.”
The Postal Service shows a 2011 map with two multi-county districts in red. Next to the map is a message: “The Liberal Supreme Court gerrymandered our congressional districts to help Democrats win.”
In fact, the court first ordered the General Assembly to draw a map that passed constitutional requirements by not placing partisan interests above neutral lines, which would avoid dividing counties and municipalities. When the Legislature and then-Gov. Democrat Tom Wolf did not agree to the alternative, the court presented its own.
GOP challenged the court map in federal court but failed to overthrow it. Redistricting resulted in a net gain for Democrats in three congressional districts, flipping the state’s 12-6 Republican-majority representation in the House to a 9-9 tie.
With the election just three weeks away, the League of Women Voters is urging voters to do so look for reliable information about judges and the choices made by nonpartisan organizations like herself and the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which has an independent a committee that evaluates every candidate for a statewide judicial office. He rated all three as “recommended to keep.”
Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a retired U.S. district judge, said judicial retention elections, which coincide with municipal elections, are generally characterized by low turnout and voters often know little about judges or their histories.
Jones noted that the only time a Pennsylvania judge lost a vote to retain his seat was in 2005, when voters responded to a midnight wage escalate approved by the General Assembly earlier that year by broadly voting against the incumbents. Judge Russel Nigro was not elected by a slim majority, while Judge Sandra Schultz Newman was retained with 54% of the vote. Retained vote margins typically range from 60% to 75%.
“It had nothing to do with Judge Nigro’s bona fides as a judge, but rather with the prevailing political climate,” Jones told the Capital-Star. “I am concerned that if the three judges subject to a retention vote are simply unelected based on party affiliation, we will not get to the heart of what a retention election should be.”
Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht were elected Democrats in 2015, defeating three Republican candidates in the only election in the Court’s more than 300-year history to elect three up-to-date justices. A defeat in this year’s retention elections would result in a competitive election in 2027 and a chance to tilt the Court’s ideological balance in favor of conservatives.
The shipment was paid for by the Commonwealth Leaders Fund, the political action committee of which Matthew Brouilette is treasurer affiliated with two other groups spending money to influence the election of the Supreme Court.
Yass, founder of the trading firm Susquehanna International Group, has donated $1.25 million this year to his pro-school Students First PAC, campaign finance reports show. Last year, Yass donated $16 million to a PAC chaired by SIG general counsel Geoff Bushko.
This year and last, most of the money went to Brouilette’s PAC, the Commonwealth Children’s Choice Fund. Campaign finance records show that the Children’s Choice Fund contributed nearly $12 million to the Commonwealth Leaders Fund in 2024, most of which was spent on the presidential election.
According to campaign finance reports, the last of which was due Sept. 15, the Commonwealth Leaders Fund has spent about $185,000 this year on expenses labeled “direct mail” or “mailing.” Reports for the remaining groups, Commonwealth Partners and Citizens for Term Limits, whose names appear in retention election ads and mailers, were not available online.
A spokesman for Susquehanna International Group, which called Yass for comment, said it had no comment. Commonwealth Partners, which manages the PAC, did not respond to a request for comment.
In recent years, spending on Supreme Court elections in Pennsylvania and elsewhere has set up-to-date records year after year. Candidates in the 2015 election that elected Donohue, Dougherty and Wecht spent $15.8 million. That figure was surpassed in 2023, when incumbent Justice Daniel McCaffery and his Republican opponent spent more than $19.5 million, including nearly $4.5 million from Yass’ PAC.
That same year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race broke a national record with more than $100 million spent, including nearly $30 million from Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.
The high political spending associated with Pennsylvania’s judicial elections distorts the intent of the judicial retention process, said Deborah Gross, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a nonprofit that advocates for access to the courts.
Pennsylvania adopted its system for selecting and retaining lawyers for subsequent terms after the constitutional convention of 1967, which modernized the founding document of the community. This followed decades of criticism of the judicial and judicial selection process that had been ongoing since 1850.
The up-to-date system would combine direct election by the public with nonpartisan and uncontested re-election, which would spare incumbent judges the hassle of campaigning while allowing the public to decide on judges’ fitness to continue serving based on their previous terms.
Gross, however, said the system is not intended to take into account judges’ interpretations of the law.
“If someone doesn’t do their job properly, if they don’t show up in court, if they behave badly, if they have problems with the court proceedings. These are reasons why someone should not be hired,” Gross said. “Judges do their job by interpreting the law.”
Jones, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, presided over landmark cases challenging the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools and Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage. Jones declared both unconstitutional.
“I think it’s problematic when lawyers are judged on one or two cases,” he said, adding that most voters don’t have the time or resources to read a judge’s entire record. “They are prone to potentially reactionary voting. It is fueled by perhaps misleading advertising and simply a lack of knowledge about judges.”
The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania is considering how to respond to Commonwealth Leaders Fund mailers, executive director Amy Widestrom said, noting that some voters have already received absentee ballots and are making decisions.
In addition to the bar association ratings, it was hosted by the league and Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts a “fireside chat” with the three judges, which can be viewed on YouTube. The league has been working on this as well aggregate trusted information regarding judicial elections.
“There’s a lot of really good, unbiased information out there, and I know it’s hard to find, so we try to collect it all on our website and our partners do the same,” Widestrom said.
