Understanding the Retention Election Process

In Pennsylvania, the process for justices on the Supreme Court-and the statewide appellate courts-consists of two separate stages: an initial partisan election, followed-after 10 years-by a non-partisan "retention" election.

Here's how it works:

Initial Election

A candidate runs in a standard partisan election. For the Supreme Court this means statewide, running with a party label.

If elected the justice serves a 10-year term.

Retention Election

Rather than facing a new opponent when the 10-year term is up, the incumbent justice goes on the ballot and asks voters simply: “Should this judge be retained for another term?”

There is no party affiliation on the ballot question. It is a straight “Yes” or “No” vote.

If the majority votes “Yes”, the justice serves another 10-year term, unless they reach mandatory retirement age.

If a majority votes “No”, the justice’s term ends at its natural expiration. A vacancy is created and is filled temporarily by gubernatorial appointment (subject to the state Senate’s approval). Later, in the next odd-numbered year, an election is held to fill the seat for a full term.

Additional Key Technical Rules

There is no limit on the number of terms a justice may serve (so long as re-elected/retained) — but there is a mandatory retirement age of 75.

The retention process was designed to reduce political campaigning for incumbents and focus on performance rather than party.

Why These Retention Elections Matter

At first glance, a "yes/no" vote on judges might seem obscure compared to the high-profile legislative or executive races, but the elections hold significant consequences in Pennsylvania.

Impacts on the Court's Balance & Influence

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rules on redistricting, voting rights, education funding, labor laws, criminal law, and much more. The ideological/partisan balance of the court therefore matters.

A "No" vote can sometimes shift the balance on the bench because retention elections are one of the rare instances when voters can remove justices without waiting for a full contested election.

In the current context (2025), three justices — Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht — are up for retention. All were originally elected as Democrats, contributing to a 5-2 Democratic majority on the court.

If one, two, or all three are voted out via "No," the court could shift toward a more evenly divided bench, even gridlock — which would slow decision-making and reduce the ability of the court to set majority precedent.

A Rare and Elevated Campaign Environment

Historically, justices in Pennsylvania have been retained overwhelmingly. It is very unusual for a justice to be voted out. Since the current retention system was adopted-in the 1968 constitution-only one statewide judge, Supreme Court justice Russell Nigro, has ever failed a retention vote, in 2005.

In 2025, though, retention has become markedly more contentious. Outside political groups are spending millions on ads and mailers and campaigns to try and sway these retention votes.

Because retention elections tend to be low-profile, especially in off-year elections, voters might sometimes not be fully aware of their existence, which makes outreach and education very important.

Key Questions to Ask as a Voter

With so much at stake in these retention races, here are some practical questions and considerations for voters:

What do I look at to decide on "Yes" or "No"?

When you're looking at a justice up for retention, consider:

Legal record: opinions they have written or joined; how they have voted on important cases.

Their temperament, fairness, integrity, and how they have handled high-profile cases: many bar associations review these factors and issue recommendations.

Whether a "No" vote would create a vacancy and then a temporary appointee, possibly until the next contested election-which may reduce transparency.

What happens if I vote "No"?

The justice will continue serving until the end of that year (December 31st).

A vacancy is created. The governor may nominate a replacement. That nominee must be approved by the state Senate (two-thirds approval threshold in many cases).

The full election for the seat doesn't take place until the next odd-numbered year, in this case, 2027. Until then the appointee has the seat but doesn't necessarily have the same electoral mandate.

What if I vote “Yes"?

The justice merely embarks on another complete 10-year term and maintains continuity on the court.

Since the retention vote is non-partisan on the ballot, the decision is nominally based on performance and not direct party labels.

Why This Year Is Especially Critical-2025

There are several reasons why the 2025 retention elections for Pennsylvania's Supreme Court attract heightened attention and why they could be a turning point.

High Stakes for Policy and Elections

Pennsylvania is a key battleground state in national politics. Judicial decisions here can affect elections-via voting laws and districting-worker rights, abortion, business regulation, and more. The composition of the Supreme Court thus has outsized significance.

Having three justices, all Democrats, up for retention in one election cycle creates the possibility for a huge shift all at once-not just one seat. That raises the stakes.

Campaign Dynamics Are Intensified

These retention races are no longer low-key. According to reports, one justice (Dougherty) had raised well over US $1 million by mid-September in the lead-up to the vote. Outside spending is already in the millions.

These races are viewed as pivotal by groups aligned with both sides, as some urge “Yes” for retention to preserve continuity, while others urge “No” to reshape the court.

Since retention historically was non-partisan and quiet, this shift towards high-stakes campaigning is noteworthy, and it signals the increasing partisan overlay even in judicial elections.

Potential for Court Gridlock

If sufficient justices lose retention, the court could fall into a situation with fewer than seven active members-if the seats remain vacant-or an even ideological split. That raises the potential for tie votes-2-2 in a four-member bench if three are removed-which do not establish binding precedent and can weaken the court's ability to function effectively. For litigants, this means increased uncertainty: if cases are split, the lower court's ruling might stand but no statewide precedent will be set. That can slow down legal clarity and delay resolution of important issues. What Voters Should Do Because retention elections require informed voting, here are some things you can do: Find out who is up for retention Up for retention in 2025 are at least three Supreme Court justices and judges on the lower statewide appellate courts. Review performance and recommendations Check the ratings from state and local bar associations for each justice. These often contain useful information on a justice's record and temperament. Understand the broader stakes Think beyond just "Should this judge stay?" Ask: what happens if they're not retained? Who might fill the seat? How might the court's balance shift? Be aware of campaign materials and messaging Because these races are increasingly contested, you may see mailers, ads or messaging urging you to vote “Yes” or “No.” Some of it can be misleading or incomplete. It’s wise to check multiple sources. On election day, carefully check your ballot The retention question may be listed under a separate judicial section. Note the names of judges who are standing for retention and indicate your choice clearly. Common Misconceptions & Pitfalls Here are some things that many voters misunderstand about retention elections: “No party label means no politics”: Although the ballot doesn’t bear the party label, these races are more and more influenced by partisan campaigns, money, and messaging. The idea is non-partisan, but in practice there is heavy political overlay. “A ‘No’ vote means immediate replacement by a new justice”: Not quite. If a justice loses their retention election, they go through the rest of the year and the governor then fills the post with an interim appointment with Senate approval, with the election for the next full term in the next odd-year election. In other words, there’s frequently a period of uncertainty. “These races don’t matter because they’re obscure.” Many assume judicial retention is low impact — the opposite is true. These justices make decisions that shape policy, rights, and daily life in Pennsylvania. “Judges run again like normal”: In most elections you have multiple candidates; in retention you get only the one incumbent and a Yes/No vote. That means less campaigning by alternatives, but also less voter familiarity. Final Thoughts The retention election on the ballot this fall for a seat at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not a mere technical legal footnote but rather a meaningful moment at which voters have the capacity to check or continue the tenure of justices who decide major legal questions in the commonwealth. Judicial retention may be quieter than big-ticket races, but its impacts echo in the way courts interpret rights, shape policy, and manage the fairness of the system. Whether you lean into deep legal details or simply want to make a clear informed choice, it’s well worth understanding what’s on the ballot.