Had voters chosen not to retain any of the justices, GovernorJosh Shapiro could have appointed a temporary replacement until 2027 — with approval from two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate[4] — when an election would have been held for a permanent replacement.[5] If all three justices were not retained and the Senate did not approve Shapiro's nominees, the court would be split with two Democrats and two Republicans, which The Philadelphia Inquirer claimed could leave the court "unlikely to reach majority decisions and could weaken the voice of Pennsylvania's top court going into the 2028 presidential election, when the swing state could decide the next president yet again."[6]
The justices themselves were not permitted to directly campaign. Instead, they engaged in a statewide speaking tour where they pledged to exercise their judicial power without partisan bias.[8]The Philadelphia Inquirer said that over $14 million had been raised in support of retention,[9] while the Brennan Center for Justice estimated that $7.5 million has been spent by liberal political action committees on TV ads in support of a 'Yes' vote to "protect elections and preserve abortion rights". They also claimed that the race was the second most expensive retention election in U.S. history.[10][11]
Deborah Gross, executive director of the non-profit Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, claimed that the significant spending 'perverts the intent of the retention process' by focusing on party affiliation rather than the justices' records. Talking to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, Gross said, "[i]f someone is not doing their job properly, if they're not showing up for court, if they're doing bad acts, if they have judicial conduct issues. Those are reasons why someone should not be retained."[12]
The Democratic National Committee announced a "six-figure investment" into the Pennsylvania Democratic Party to help support retaining the 3 judges,[13] with DNC ChairKen Martin issuing a statement saying that "[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court is on the frontlines of decisions related to voting rights, redistricting, abortion protections" and that "[t]he stakes couldn't be higher."[13]
The state and national chapters of the ACLU spent $500,000 on a mail campaign to inform voters about the race "and what it means for their civil rights and civil liberties." The organization's website did not make an explicit case for or against retaining any of the judges.[14]
Conservative activist Scott Presler told Fox News that his PAC, Early Vote Action, was targeting Bucks County — which voted Republican in 2024 for the first time in almost four decades — by sending 100,000 text messages as part of a campaign that recognizes Charlie Kirk’s birthday. Presler also stated that the group was producing stickers that say 'I voted in honor of Charlie' with a "really classy photo" of Kirk with his hands together in prayer.[15] Bucks County chose to retain all 3 justices by over 20 points.[1]
Multiple PACs affiliated with Republican businessman Matthew Brouillette and funded almost entirely by billionaire Jeff Yass — a registered Libertarian — spent millions on social media ads, mailers, and text messages opposing retaining all 3 judges, telling voters they should “term limit the woke Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”[16][17]
Mailer controversy
The Commonwealth Leaders Fund, a Yass-affiliated PAC, was criticized by the advocacy group Fair Districts PA after they sent out mailers claiming that the "liberal Supreme Court gerrymandered our congressional districts to help Democrats win." The mailers also featured an outdated image of 2 congressional districts from a map that was drawn up by the Republican-controlled state legislature in 2011 and later overturned for partisan gerrymandering that disproportionately benefitted the Republican Party.[16][18]
The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania declined to endorse for or against retention, though they criticized the leading 'No' campaign PACs for misleading voters by including inaccurate information on their campaign mailers.[20] In 2017, the group argued in a lawsuit that Republican-gerrymandered maps violate the state constitution's guarantee of free and fair elections. The state Supreme Court, which included the 3 justices up for retention, ruled in favor of the claim.[10]
Election logistics
The voter registration deadline was set for October 20, 2025, two weeks before the election.[21] With limited exceptions, ballots had to be received by 8pm on election day to be counted.[22]Pennsylvania permits the use of mail-in ballots,[21] including no-excuse postal votes, allowing any registered voter to request a mail-in ballot.[23][21] However, state law prohibits pre-processing of received mail-in ballots, meaning election officials had to wait until election day to begin ballot curing.[24]
Republican activists and politicians urged voters to cast mail-in ballots before election day, despite Donald Trump's repeated support for a ban on mail-in voting.[25] The Pennsylvania Republican Party encouraged voters to request an absentee ballot, posting on Twitter that "if there is even a 1% chance that you might miss the 2025 Election, sign up for a mail-in ballot today! It's quick and easy!"[25]
Increased Republican support for mail-in voting was also seen in the New Jersey gubernatorial election, where unsuccessful Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli boasted that "more Republicans [have] return[ed] vote-by-mail ballots than ever before."[26] Similarly, the California Republican Party urged the use of mail-in ballots to vote against Proposition 50, a ballot measure that permitted redrawing the state's congressional districts.[25]
Despite all three justices originally running as Democrats, retention elections are considered nonpartisan, meaning that ballots do not feature a candidate's party affiliation.[27]Votebeat spoke to a voter who expressed frustration over this, saying that they weren’t immediately sure if the justices were Republicans or Democrats. Chris Borick, a professor of political science at Muhlenberg College, told Votebeat that the removal of partisan designation on a retention ballot can confuse voters.[28]
Chester County provisional ballots
On election day, NBC News reported that independent and unaffiliated voters in Chester County were forced to cast provisional ballots after poll books listing only Republicans and Democrats were delivered to polling sites, meaning that independent voters didn't appear as registered voters, and their ballots were only counted after election officials were able to prove their eligibility.[29][30] A county spokeswoman later confirmed that voters registered as Libertarians or Greens were also forced to cast their votes with provisional ballots.[31]
Chester County posted on social media that "supplemental poll books" were sent out to 230 polling sites, allowing voters to vote normally throughout the afternoon and evening.[29] A judge later extended polling hours in the county until 10pm rather than 8pm to allow impacted voters to cast non-provisional ballots.[32]
Two weeks after election day, Spotlight PA confirmed that roughly 11,200 of the 12,600 provisional ballots used in Chester County were counted in the final tally.[33] The newspaper also reported that the Republican Committee of Chester County challenged around 1,400 provisional ballots, some of which were missing signatures from voters or poll workers.[31]
In a hearing on November 17, 2025, the Republican Committee dropped most of their objections, with the exception of ballots received in unsigned envelopes, and ballots that had no envelopes at all.[33] The Chester County Board of Elections, who held the hearing, voted 2-1 to accept ballots where the voter had not signed the envelope in the correct place, as well as signed ballots that were received without envelopes. The board also voted unanimously to reject three unsigned ballots without envelopes.[31] Some 300 other provisional ballots were rejected for other reasons, including a number of ballots filled out by unregistered voters.[33]
That same day, Chester County officials announced they had hired a law firm to investigate the missing poll books.[34] According to CBS News, investigators will interview county staff and examine current election processes prior to making their final recommendations for improvement at a public meeting scheduled to be held sometime in January 2026.[35]
Shall Christine Donohue be retained for an additional term as Justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
Results
Choice
Votes
%
Yes
2,231,527
61.80%
No
1,379,599
38.20%
Total votes
3,611,126
100.00%
Results by county
Yes
80–90%
70–80%
60–70%
50–60%
No
70–80%
60–70%
50–60%
Background
Christine Donohue was first elected in 2015, and assumed office the year after. Prior to being elected, Donohue served on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, as well as on the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board and the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline. She also served as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners. Before that, she served as a civil trial lawyer and litigator for nearly three decades.[36]
In 2024, Donohue voted with the majority to order lower courts to reconsider the legality of barring Medicaid recipients from receiving abortion services.[37]
"The Pennsylvania Constitution secures the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term."[36]
—Justice Christine Donohue
In 2022, Donohue wrote the majority opinion in the case which upheld Pennsylvania's no-excuse mail voting law. The law allows Pennsylvania voters to apply for mail-in ballots without providing a reason why they need to vote by mail. That same year, she sided with the majority in a case that determined Pennsylvania's school funding system was unconstitutional because it disadvantaged lower-income school districts.[38]
Like both other judges up for retention, Dougherty sided with the majority in the 2024 abortion ruling and the case that deemed Pennsylvania's school funding system unconstitutional.[68]
In 2024, Dougherty authored the decision that upheld Stroud Township's restrictions on where gun ranges can be located.[36] Dougherty also spearheaded the creation of the Office of Behavioral Health, who seek to improve outcomes for those in the criminal justice system with behavioral or mental health issues.[69]
"Mental health challenges are no longer a quiet issue on the sidelines; they are a full-blown crisis affecting every part of life in Pennsylvania."[69]
—Justice Kevin Dougherty
Dougherty has also led initiatives to create more inclusive courtrooms for people with sensory issues.[70]
Wecht sided with the majority in the 2024 abortion ruling, writing a concurring opinion, and stating that he agreed with the Majority that, "under the Equal Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, a sex-based distinction is presumptively unconstitutional."[73]
"The Pennsylvania Constitution’s [Equal Rights Amendment][c] did away with the antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body."[36]
The justices were retained by large margins, with over 60% of the votes on all three ballot questions being in favor of retention. Fifteen counties[d] that voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election chose to retain all three justices.[1][77]
Anti-retention campaigners heavily targeted Bucks County, which the Democrats had carried for 8 consecutive elections before it was won by Trump in 2024 by less than three hundred votes.[78][15] The county voted to retain each of the justices with margins of over 20 points.[1]
In Northumberland County, which Trump carried by 40 points in 2024, voters chose to retain only one justice, Kevin Dougherty.[1] In York County, another Republican stronghold, voters chose to retain both Dougherty and Christine Donohue.[1] In Union County, where a Democratic candidate has not been backed at the presidential level since 1832, all three justices were retained by an average of approximately 8%.[79][1]
Despite the heavy spending, many voters reported that they had seen little political messaging leading up to the election.[28] Speaking to Votebeat, some voters in favor of retention said they wanted to send a message to Donald Trump when casting their ballots, though few voters claimed to be familiar with the justices' specific rulings.[28] A representative from One Pennsylvania, a progressive non-profit, said the vote was a rejection of Jeff Yass and "the MAGA agenda."[80]
After the election was called, Justice Donohue released a statement saying that the result shows that "Pennsylvanians have trust in the independence of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and, additionally, appreciate the importance of a stable Pennsylvania Supreme Court."[81] Governor Josh Shapiro called the results "a resounding message" of support, and that "the good people of Pennsylvania will always stand for freedom."[80]
Former U.S. Attorney GeneralEric Holder, who endorsed all three justices for retention, stated that the result "demonstrates that an engaged citizenry is more powerful than the billionaires and special interests,"[82] while DNC chair Ken Martin, who actively campaigned in support of retention, said the election was a victory for reproductive rights and voting rights, claiming that "Pennsylvania delivered a message on behalf of the entire country: No matter how rich you are, and no matter how much power you think you might have, our courts are not for sale."[80]
↑Kalra, Avani (November 3, 2025). "This Republican Mega-Donor Is Changing Local Elections In Pennsylvania". NOTUS. Retrieved November 27, 2025. Yass-funded groups are now pouring millions into the state's Supreme Court retention race taking place on Tuesday, a typically low-key race in which incumbent candidates run without a party affiliation.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Government 
