Particle.news
Download on the App Store
3 ARTICLES
·
9h ago

Democrats Ramp Up Spending as Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retention Fight Enters Final Stretch

A late surge of outside spending has transformed a routine retention vote into a test of the court's direction.

A sign is posted in opposition to retaining Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices in the November election, in Berwyn, Pa., Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin speaks at a Lancaster County Democratic Party event in support of the party's candidates for state Supreme Court, Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2025, in Lancaster, Pa. (AP Photo/Marc Levy)
Christine Donohue, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice running for another term, acknowledges applause after speaking to the crowd at a Lancaster County Democratic Party event, Oct. 29, 2025, in Lancaster, Pa. (AP Photo/Marc Levy)
Christine Donohue, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice running for another term, speaks to the crowd at a Lancaster County Democratic Party event, Oct. 29, 2025, in Lancaster, Pa. (AP Photo/Marc Levy)

Overview

  • Voters on Nov. 4 will decide yes-or-no retention for Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht, each seeking up to 10 more years on the bench in a nonpartisan ballot.
  • Spending has reached at least $9.1 million as of Oct. 30 and is on track to exceed $15 million, with Democrats airing Gov. Josh Shapiro’s TV ad and hosting national party events to counter GOP 'term limit' messaging.
  • If one or more justices are rejected, the court could fall to a 2–2 split with vacancies likely unfilled until 2027 because interim appointees require two‑thirds approval in the Republican-led Senate.
  • Groups tied to a network associated with billionaire Jeffrey Yass have spent about $2 million, while ACLU, Planned Parenthood, labor unions and trial lawyers are backing the justices with late advertising.
  • The outcome could shape rulings on abortion, voting rules, redistricting and environmental law, including precedent from Donohue’s opinion that expanded the state’s Environmental Rights Amendment.