Pennsylvania Supreme Court Election Targeted by Anti-Voting Disinformation Campaigns

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Retention Vote Draws National Attention and Controversy

Few states wield as much electoral influence in American politics as Pennsylvania. After being the epicenter of legal battles following the 2020 presidential election—facing more lawsuits than any other state—Pennsylvania now finds itself at another critical juncture that could reshape the nation’s political landscape.

This November, Pennsylvania voters will decide whether three Democratic state Supreme Court justices should retain their positions for another decade. The outcome could dramatically alter the court’s composition ahead of the 2028 presidential election and potentially undo several landmark rulings that have protected voting rights in the state.

Democrats currently hold a 5-2 majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The retention election will determine if Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht remain on the bench. If any are removed, special elections to fill their seats would be held in 2027, potentially flipping the court to Republican control just as the next presidential contest approaches.

Since gaining their majority in 2015, the court’s Democratic justices have issued several consequential rulings safeguarding fair elections. They blocked former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his 2020 defeat, struck down a Republican congressional gerrymander widely regarded by experts as one of the nation’s most egregious, and upheld Pennsylvania’s no-excuse mail-in voting law, preserving ballot access for nearly 9 million registered voters.

The stakes of this judicial retention vote have attracted millions in outside spending and triggered a wave of national interest. Lauren Cristella, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Pennsylvania government watchdog Committee of Seventy, told Democracy Docket, “All of our politics, I think, are now national. We’re injecting a lot of national issues that we’ve seen around elections and controversies around mail-in voting into this election.”

A particularly concerning development has been the circulation of misleading campaign materials. In early September, voters began receiving mailers claiming “The liberal Supreme Court gerrymandered our congressional districts to help Democrats win.” According to reporting by Spotlight PA, these mailers feature a congressional map from 2011—the very map the court’s Democratic majority struck down in 2018 as an unconstitutional Republican gerrymander.

The deceptive materials reportedly originated from the Commonwealth Leaders Fund, a political action committee with connections to Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass, who has a history of funding conservative causes throughout the state.

Another misleading mailer urges voters to “vote no to term-limit the PA Supreme Court,” seemingly designed to confuse voters about the nature of the retention vote. “It’s adding to the noise and the confusion,” Cristella explained. “People aren’t very familiar with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. And they’re not very familiar with the fact that we elect judges.”

Pennsylvania Republicans have intensified efforts to secure “no” votes on the justices’ retention. At a state party meeting in June, conservative activist Scott Presler—known for promoting QAnon conspiracy theories and organizing “Stop the Steal” rallies—conducted voter registration training focused on the retention election.

“If we get a simple majority vote, you will remove three Democrats from the Supreme Court in one single election,” Presler told attendees, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of such an outcome.

The heightened partisanship surrounding judicial races reflects a national trend. Earlier this year, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election became the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history, demonstrating how these once-obscure races have become battlegrounds in America’s cultural and political divisions.

“You’ve got a state government that is approaching four months late on a budget that feels dysfunctional, a national government that just shut down,” Cristella noted. “It’s not screaming, ‘Trust us, engage, be enthusiastic participants.’ Add this new level of partisanship and deceptive tactics and lies, it makes it all the much harder.”

As Pennsylvania voters prepare to cast their ballots in this consequential retention election, the outcome could reverberate far beyond the state’s borders, potentially influencing the integrity of future national elections and the constitutional guardrails that protect them.