Misinformation Campaign Targets Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Ahead of Retention Vote

Pennsylvania voters are facing a barrage of misleading political mailers ahead of the November 4 judicial retention elections, falsely accusing Supreme Court justices of “gerrymandering the map for Democrats.” The campaign has drawn sharp criticism from civic organizations and sparked concerns about the impact of disinformation on the electoral process.

The controversial mailers, funded by wealthy donors including Philadelphia billionaire Jeff Yass, target three sitting justices—Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht—who are up for retention votes that would grant them another 10-year term on the bench.

“The PA Supreme Court did not gerrymander a map,” clarifies Kathy Cox and Bonnie Goble, co-vice presidents of the League of Women Voters of Centre County. “It followed the law to protect voters and declared the 2011 PA congressional map unconstitutional for violating the state’s guarantee of free and equal elections.”

The case in question stemmed from a lawsuit brought by voters from all 67 Pennsylvania counties and the non-partisan League of Women Voters PA. The court ruled that the 2011 congressional map, drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature, unconstitutionally favored one party by a 13-5 margin despite the state’s nearly even partisan split in voting patterns.

Independent fact-checkers have weighed in on the controversy. Spotlight PA has labeled the mailers “incredibly dishonest,” while The Philadelphia Inquirer has characterized them as materially misleading. The Pennsylvania Bar Association, maintaining its nonpartisan stance, has recommended all three justices for retention based on their qualifications and judicial integrity.

The stakes in this retention election are unusually high. If the justices fail to secure the simple majority needed for retention, vacancies on the court could potentially paralyze its operations and jeopardize rulings on critical issues including voting rights, reproductive rights, and education funding.

“The process is designed to keep judges independent while holding them accountable,” explains Nancy Chiswick of State College. “Unfortunately, voters are being misled by a well-funded campaign backed by billionaire donors and political action committees.”

The retention elections have become a political battleground despite their intended nonpartisan nature. Unlike typical elections, retention votes offer a simple yes-or-no choice with no opposing candidates, and political affiliations are not listed on the ballot.

Adding to the confusion, some voters have reported receiving mailers that appear to imply endorsements from trusted organizations like the League of Women Voters, which maintains a strict policy of never recommending how people should vote.

For voters seeking reliable information, several nonpartisan resources are available. The League of Women Voters offers unbiased information through Vote411.org and PALWV.org, while the Pennsylvania Bar Association provides professional evaluations of judicial candidates.

Law enforcement organizations have also weighed in on the race, with Justice Dougherty receiving endorsements from the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge, the County Detectives Association of PA, and the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association Action PAC.

As the November 4 election approaches, civic leaders are urging voters to critically evaluate information sources and resist the influence of misleading campaign materials. “Reject the lies,” Chiswick advises. “A vote for retention is a vote for truth, transparency and judicial independence.”

The controversy highlights broader concerns about the influence of wealthy donors in judicial elections and the challenge of maintaining an independent judiciary in an increasingly polarized political environment.