At Philly event, Pa. Supreme Court justices ask for 10 more years amid GOP campaign to oust them

Three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices dismissed suggestions that their decisions were political as they made their case for retention Monday in Philadelphia.

In a rare public speaking event Justices Kevin Dougherty, David Wecht, and Christine Donohue spoke about their work over the last 10 years on the state Supreme Court as they face a campaign from the Pennsylvania GOP to oust them from the bench.

The conversation, moderated by Cherri Gregg of WHYY at Central High School in Philadelphia, covered the operations of the court, justice’s special projects, and the challenge of remaining impartial. The justices repeatedly reminded listeners of their independence as they expressed frustration that their retention race had been politicized.

“It’s almost embarrassing that we, sitting justices, are resorting to come here and play politic,” Dougherty said before asking the audience to grant him and his colleagues 10 more years on the bench.

Dougherty, Wecht, and Donohue each won their seats on Pennsylvania’s highest court when they ran as Democrats 10 years ago. Although retention races are nonpartisan, the justices’ involvement in several high-profile decisions from redistricting to voting rights to covid orders has drawn ire from Pennsylvania Republicans, who are seeking to oust them from office this year.

Anti-retention campaigns are rare in Pennsylvania. Only one Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice has ever lost a retention campaign. But Republicans have a key opportunity this year to flip the majority-liberal bench to conservative if they oust all three justices.

“It’s laughable for these justices to claim they don’t want politics in the courts when they’ve spent their careers as partisan Democrats, making blatantly political rulings,” state Republican Party spokesperson James Markley said in a statement, citing rulings on covid shutdowns and election issues. “And now they expect a reward with another decade on the bench? No thanks. Voters deserve better. It’s time to bring fairness and integrity back to the highest court in our Commonwealth.”

If Wecht, Donohue and Dougherty are ousted, their seats would likely remain vacant until the 2027 election.

Democrats are eager to keep the justices on the bench. State courts have become a key battleground nationwide as left-leaning litigants have sought greater protection at the state level than is offered in the U.S. Constitution for rights such as abortion. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been no exception to that trend, and Donohue said she’d seek to continue analyzing protections available under the state constitution if retained.

“I want to be certain that the seeds that we’ve sown in terms of extending protections that have always been there but have not been recognized under the Pennsylvanian Constitution continue to be recognized,” said Donohue, who will serve two more years if retained before reaching the court’s mandatory retirement age.

After a 2018 ruling in which the state Supreme Court struck down Pennsylvania’s congressional maps, some Republicans were already calling for Wecht’s ouster.

“We took away a flamboyantly gerrymandered map that was an insult to democracy,” Wecht said. “I learned that when we make a decision striking down something that is grossly improper there are going to be people behind the impropriety that are going to be very upset.”

The court, however, has also frustrated those on the left. Most recently the justices refused to rule on the merits of cases that questioned the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s law barring mail ballots from being counted without a date and signature on the outer envelopes before the 2024 election.

Throughout Tuesday evening’s discussion the justices reiterated that, though they came into office as Democrats, that ideology did not follow them to the bench.

The proof, Dougherty insisted, can be found in 10 years’ worth of rulings.

“I believe our writings speak for themselves that we have taken stances that some may consider adverse to those quote-unquote labels,” he said.