​​​​Understanding Judicial Retention

 

Judicial retention elections in Pennsylvania ensure accountability while preserving judicial independence. After serving an initial term, judges and justices appear on the ballot for a simple “yes” or “no” vote to determine whether they will serve another term. 

​

• Nonpartisan Process: No political affiliations or challengers are listed on the ballot, focusing solely on a judge’s qualifications and performance.

• Unique to Pennsylvania: Unlike federal judges with lifetime appointments, Pennsylvania voters have a direct say in whether judges remain on the bench.

​

What Happens if a Justice Is Not Retained?

​​

Retention elections may not get much attention in the media, but their outcomes are significant for people all over Pennsylvania:

​

• Immediate Implications: A “No” vote removes a justice, leading to a temporary appointment by the governor that must be confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate does not confirm a nominee or the governor does not appoint one, the seat will remain vacant until the next scheduled election in 2027. A prolonged vacancy could impact the court’s ability to hear cases and issue decisions

• Potential for a Power Shift: If even one justice is not retained, it could change the court’s balance of power, impacting decisions for years to come and directly affecting Pennsylvania families, workers, and communities.

 

The Stakes: Why 2025 Matters

 

The 2025 retention elections will shape the future of Pennsylvania's Court, including the PA Supreme Court, which has issued rulings with wide-reaching implications for the Commonwealth. These elections will determine how the court addresses issues that impact the daily lives of Pennsylvanians: how our elections are run, the quality of public education, what happens at our workplaces, our online privacy rights, and even the air we breathe and the water we drink.

​

Examples of Impactful Decisions

 

Voting and Redistricting: The court has played a central role in ensuring fair elections, including striking down gerrymandered maps (League of Women Voters v. Commonwealth) and upholding mail-in voting laws (McLinko v. Department of State).

 

Workplace Protections: Decisions like Lowman v. Unemployment Compensation Board have clarified protections for workers in emerging industries, such as the gig economy.

 

Environmental Safety: Rulings such as PA Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth have guided the use of public resources and held polluters accountable.

The decisions made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shape the daily lives of its residents. With three justices up for retention in 2025, the outcome of these elections will have long-term implications for the rights, protections, and opportunities of everyday Pennsylvanians for years to come.