Voters will soon get their say on Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court
On November 4, 2025, three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices, Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht, will be on the ballot for retention. These aren’t contested races. Voters are simply asked “yes” or “no” on whether each justice deserves another ten years in power.
Most of the time, these retention votes are rubber stamps. But this year is different. The record of these three justices is clear: they failed us during Covid, they fueled distrust in our elections, and they have refused to protect our daughters’ right to safety and fairness in schools and sports.
It’s time to hold them accountable.
Covid: The Court That Looked Away While Pennsylvania Suffered
When the pandemic hit, Pennsylvanians turned to the courts for protection from unchecked executive power. Cases included small businesses, emergency declarations, and school mask mandates, and these three justices ducked, delayed, and let Governor Tom Wolf rule by decree.
Small businesses challenged Wolf’s sweeping shutdown orders. The court ruled 4–3 to uphold him, resulting in thousands of family-owned restaurants, gyms, salons, and shops closed for good, while Walmart and Home Depot thrived.
When the legislature tried to end Wolf’s rolling disaster declarations, the justices sided with Wolf. They allowed him to extend emergency powers unilaterally, dragging out restrictions long after other states reopened.
Parents and districts fought the statewide school mask mandate. The justices refused to intervene for months. Only in December 2021 did they strike it down. By then, kids had already endured nearly two years of lost learning, social disruption, and developmental harm.
The result was devastating. Children fell behind academically and emotionally. Families were torn apart as parents struggled to balance work with remote school. Churches, weddings, funerals, and community gatherings were crushed under arbitrary limits. Small businesses were devastated beyond recovery.
The justices had countless opportunities to act. Instead, they looked away until the damage was permanent.
Elections: Enabling Mail-In Chaos and Blocking Transparency
Pennsylvanians didn’t ask for universal mail-in voting. It was pushed through by Act 77 in 2019, and when that law was challenged, the Supreme Court had a chance to shut it down. Instead, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht upheld it in full, cementing a system that has since been plagued with inconsistencies, delays, and mistrust.
When Act 77 was challenged on constitutional grounds, the justices sided with the establishment and kept it alive. They ignored clear language in the state constitution that only permits limited absentee voting. This single decision opened the floodgates for mass mail voting in Pennsylvania.
In McLinko v. Degraffenreid, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 5–2 to uphold Act 77, which expanded no‑excuse mail‑in voting across the state — despite constitutional concerns about bypassing proper amendment processes. This set the stage for massive mail‑in voting expansion.
When challenges questioned Act 77’s constitutionality, the court didn’t rein it in — they defended it. They ignored longstanding precedents requiring constitutional amendments for such expansions. That decision removed barriers to mass mail‑in voting with little accountability.
Counties across the state have faced Right-to-Know requests for basic election information, like ballot chain of custody, drop box surveillance, or adjudication logs. Again and again, the Supreme Court sided with counties that refused to comply, leaving citizens and watchdog groups in endless, expensive legal battles just to see how their elections are run.
In Previte v. Erie County Board of Elections (2024), the Commonwealth Court partially reversed efforts to access scanned images of ballots via right-to-know requests. That means residents were denied basic details on how elections were administered.
Separately, the ACLU’s right-to-know request to Fulton County for election audit records (including contracts, emails, and financials) met county resistance — prompting a lawsuit. The Supreme Court’s absence of enforcement keeps the public in the dark.
Instead of enforcing accountability, these justices turned Pennsylvanians into plaintiffs. Residents and small nonprofits have spent years in court just to pry loose public records. Meanwhile, the justices protect the very bureaucracies that mishandled elections in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
The result has been a mail-in voting system that lacks broad public trust. Counties have been shielded from scrutiny, and ordinary citizens have been left exhausted by endless legal fights instead of being empowered by their courts.
This isn’t election integrity. It’s judicial cover for a broken system.
Redrawing Legislative Lines: Taking Power Out of Voters’ Hands
In Carter v. Chapman (2022), when the legislative and executive branches failed to agree on a new congressional map, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t simply review a proposal, it stepped in and imposed its own district plan. The Court granted special authority to a special master, set a compressed timeline, and on February 23, 2022, formally adopted the Carter Petitioners’ submitted map over other options.
This was more than just judicial intervention. It was judicial overreach. Redistricting has always been the responsibility of elected lawmakers, not appointed judges. But by cutting the legislature out of the process entirely, the Court replaced democratic accountability with unchecked authority.
The consequences are real and lasting. The Court’s imposed plan will shape Pennsylvania’s congressional representation for a full decade, tilting how communities are grouped, how voting blocs are counted, and often who holds power. Voters didn’t choose these boundaries, judges did.
This wasn’t an act of neutral stewardship, it was full-blown judicial activism. Lawmakers were sidelined, and trust in fair representation was eroded. It left many Pennsylvanians with a bitter truth: representation now comes from the bench, not the ballot.
Girls in Sports and Private Spaces: Silence That Speaks Volumes
When it comes to protecting girls’ fairness in sports and privacy in locker rooms, bathrooms, and schools, these justices have been absent.
The Pennsylvania legislature passed the Save Women’s Sports Act in 2025 to keep competition fair, but the courts have offered no clarity or defense for female athletes.
In cases tied to privacy, like locker room challenges, the judiciary has consistently punted or deferred, leaving girls exposed and parents voiceless.
Across Pennsylvania, girls are losing their right to safe, fair spaces. And the state’s highest court has refused to lift a finger to protect them.
The Choice in November
The pattern could not be clearer. Time and again, these justices have shown that they are not defending the people of Pennsylvania. They are defending the system that benefits them.
Retention is not automatic. Voters have the power to reject these justices and say enough is enough.
If Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht are retained, they will shape Pennsylvania’s future until the mid-2030s.
This isn’t about party labels or judicial decorum. It’s about accountability.
Pennsylvania deserves judges who will defend its people, not hide behind the system while families, businesses, elections, and children pay the price.
On November 4, 2025, Pennsylvanians will decide whether this record deserves another ten years. Pennsylvania deserves better.
Ada Nestor is the co-host of the The Conservative Voice radio show in Philadelphia and writes Reflections from the Edge on substack. You can reach her on X at @AdaNestorWC.
