Election 2025: Pennsylvania Judicial Retention

Election Outcome and Historical Significance 

On Nov. 4, 2025, Pennsylvania voters faced a high-stakes statewide ballot: a simple yes/no vote on whether three incumbent justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would be retained for another 10-year term. The justices up for retention were Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht, all of whom had been originally elected as Democrats. 
 

The results showed all three justices retained by large margins, preserving the court’s 5-to-2 Democratic majority. According to preliminary official tallies, each justice secured “Yes” votes in the roughly 60% range, for example, one source lists about 61.4% “Yes” for Donohue.   
 

The retention of all three justices is historically significant. Retention elections in Pennsylvania rarely draw national attention, yet this cycle featured unprecedented spending, estimated at over $15 million, with Democrats outspending Republicans by approximately 4-to-1. If any justice had been voted out, the court’s balance could have shifted, potentially changing the state’s judicial trajectory around redistricting, voting rights and abortion policy. 
 

Campaign Dynamics and Voter Motivation 

What makes this retention vote especially notable is that, while technically nonpartisan, it was one of the most politicized judicial contests in recent memory. Conservative groups, backed in part by national Republican interests, targeted the three justices with “Vote No” campaigns, calling them too liberal and citing past decisions such as the court’s rejection of a GOP-drawn congressional map. 
 

On the other side, Democrats mobilized aggressively, framing the retention vote as a referendum on protecting abortion rights, preserving the integrity of elections and resisting what they portrayed as partisan efforts to reshape the judiciary. The campaigns emphasized the stakes: the court had the power to rule on redistricting and voting rights cases that could affect the 2026 and 2028 elections. Preelection polling found a relatively high undecided rate; about half of likely voters were undecided on retention just weeks before Election Day.   
 

Voter Behavior and Geographic Breakdown 

While detailed officials continue certifying county-by-county breakdowns, observers noted increased turnout in suburban and moderate areas where voters appeared motivated by concerns of an overtly political judiciary. Some voters reported choosing “Yes” in part as a rebuke of efforts to remove the justices. The large margins suggest that the pro-retention campaign effectively built a coalition that included labor unions, progressive organizations and younger voters who responded to messaging about rights and representation. 
 

Policy and Institutional Implications 

The results carry major implications for the judge-driven legal terrain in Pennsylvania. With the status quo maintained, the court will continue at five Democrats to two Republicans, ensuring continuity on decisions involving electoral maps, voting procedure disputes, abortion rights under state law and challenges to state legislation.   
 

In the short term, this outcome means that any attempt by a Republican legislature (or future governor) to push a new congressional map or tighten voting laws will likely face a court still dominated by justices elected as Democrats. In the longer term, the ruling keeps the same ideological makeup of the court heading into the 2026 and 2028 cycles, preserving the Democratic majority at least through those years.  
  

Political Dynamics and What it Means for 2026-27 

For Republicans, the defeat signifies that, despite heavy investment and an aggressive campaign, it remains difficult to oust incumbent justices in Pennsylvania, even when the election becomes partisan. Some GOP strategists privately voiced concern that the party’s aggressive campaign of “Vote No” may have galvanized turnout among Democrats and moderates who viewed the campaign as an attack on judicial independence. 
 

For Democrats, this victory brings relief and time. Had they lost even one justice, the governor would have had the power to appoint a temporary replacement, and the court’s balance could have affected post-2026 redistricting and voting rights battles. Now, the party can focus its efforts on governance and public policy, while treating the next open seat in 2027 as a strategic priority. 

Risks and What to Watch 

Despite the success, several challenges remain: 

• Perception of politicization: The partisan nature of the judicial retention ballot risks eroding public trust in the court’s independence. Future campaigns may further politicize the process. 
   
• Coalition shifting: If voters hold the justices accountable for rulings perceived as controversial (on criminal justice, property rights or election law), future retention fights might be more competitive. 
   
• Operational pressure: The court already faces major caseloads tied to redistricting after the 2026 election. The public will pressure the retained justices to deliver timely, rigorous decisions while managing heightened public scrutiny. 
   

The Bottom Line 

Pennsylvania’s 2025 Supreme Court retention vote represents a quietly seismic moment for the state’s governance. Voters affirmed the three sitting Democratic affiliated justices, allowing the court’s 5-to-2 liberal majority to persist and ensure continuity in one of the nation’s most pivotal judicial arenas. In doing so, the electorate signaled that they pay attention to institutions that regulate elections, rights and representation and remain willing to engage in what many once saw as low-profile ballots. 

---

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING 2025 ELECTION RESULTS. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.