Copyright Mechanicsburg Patriot News
It’s not hard to see the three Democratic State Supreme Court justices facing retention elections Nov. 4 drawing more “no” than “yes” votes and, you know, ending up disrobing. Why? Easier to vote “no.” Don’t need to know anything. “Yes” implies voter-awareness of justices and their body of work (as if). The electorate isn’t especially happy. And, Republicans, touting new registration gains, see a chance to prove Pennsylvania’s getting redder. Then again, in the half-century-plus that we’ve had retention elections — via a 1968 constitutional amendment — only one justice lost (Philly Democrat Russell Nigro, 2005, due largely to voter anger over a legislative pay raise Nigro had no role in, and reports of excessive expenses). That’s quite a record of voters doing the same thing. So, maybe this lemming-like love of “yes” continues. It’s just that this year, partisan politics hang on retention elections like TP on trees at Halloween. Ironic given retentions, with no opponents, no party affiliation on the ballot, were adopted, as the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters proposed 58 years ago, to “help keep the courts out of politics and politics out of the courts.” How’d that work out? I’m pretty sure you know. Partisan politics now drives government at every level, including the judiciary. The bottom line here is simple. Taking out three Democrats on a 5-2 Democratic court would be a bright red GOP coup; preserving the Dem edge, a big deep Democratic sigh of relief. For lots of reasons, foremost, the chance to control the court during 2028 elections. Hence, a multimillion-dollar war with “vote no” TV ads, mailers, social media, and big-dollar “vote yes” efforts in response. Which partisanship do state voters prefer these days? Justices David Wecht, Kevin Dougherty and Christine Donohue are about to find out. (An aside: each justice faces retention for a second 10-year term, but Donohue, would only be able to serve two more years since she’ll turn 75, the mandatory retirement age for Pennsylvania judges, in 2027.) Where’s the race headed, and why? A Franklin & Marshall College poll this month showed almost half of Republicans, Democrats and Independents undecided, making outcomes “unpredictable.” So, I reached out to a dozen people from both parties, across the state, familiar with the court and state politics. All experienced. All smart. I offered anonymity in exchange for blunt honesty on whether “no” or “yes” carries the day. Here are sample responses. From a Philly Democrat: “`No.’ Because the money is so overwhelming and `no’ always starts with a third (of the vote). Add in poor Philly turnout…I find this very upsetting.” From a Philly Republican: “The D’s hold the seats because they are defending more hot button issues their voters care about (abortion rights, voting rights) and because the R’s ground game without Trump in the race is much less potent.” A central Pennsylvania Independent: “The Democrats win because retention elections are designed to keep judges in office even when their decisions are wrong or unpopular.” A central Pennsylvania Republican: “I think `no’ ekes it out because a baseline number of Democrats want term limits and/or can’t distinguish PA Supremes from SCOTUS.” A western Pennsylvania Democrat: “The `yes’ side prevails. It’s very difficult to convince voters to do something they’re not used to doing.” Other “yes” proponents note a Gov. Shapiro TV ad supporting retention as effective, given Shapiro’s ongoing popularity. Other “no” predictors say voters’ moods (nearly half, 46%, see the state on the “wrong track,” according to this month’s F&M poll) mean more “no” votes. But all in all, my dozen voted 7-5 for a “yes” result, some with caveats and hedges, some with “ifs” such as Philly turnout. And one side suggestion was Donohue wins while Wecht and Dougherty lose. The takeaway? A close retention victory for all three — unless my dozen turn out to be more daft then deft. John Baer may be reached at baer.columnist@gmail.com
