As a voting rights organization, we are vehemently opposed to any additional barriers that would make it more difficult to register to vote, and also to make it more difficult for our voices to be heard at the ballot box.

The current administration has initiated a comprehensive effort to overhaul our elections — from the DOJ’s sweeping requests to review state voter rolls to an executive order seeking to make it harder to register to vote and cast a ballot.

One such effort was Trump’s executive order which attempted to tighten rules for U.S. elections and threatened funding cuts to states that do not comply. Another effort was the introduction of the SAVE Act, “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act,” on January 3, 2025. This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections  Read our statement about the SAVE Act bill here.

Our commonwealth must do more to make the process more convenient and easier to access for all eligible voters, especially in communities of color, so that every voice is heard and every vote is counted.

As a voting rights organization, we will continue to support and advocate for the expansion of voting rights to make it easier for eligible Pennsylvanians to register to vote and vote in every election – twice a year.

PA Pro-Voter Legislation

This year House Speaker Joanna McClinton introduced a bill that would make voting easier and more convenient by allowing two weeks of early in-person voting and same- day voter registration. Nearly 70 representatives stepped up to support the measure.

True early voting means voting using the same voting system that you would use in your county on Election Day, not by mail or absentee ballot. Allowing early in-person voting would relieve long lines at polling locations and give community members with challenging work schedules or family situations the chance to choose the time that works best for them. Early in-person voting helps senior citizens and those with disabilities, especially those who use wheelchairs or walkers, allowing more time to accommodate their needs.

Same-day voter registration makes it possible for our community to register when they are most engaged. Same-day voter registration also ensures that our community members have their voices heard by enabling real-time corrections to inaccurate voter rolls.

Pennsylvania’s strength is its diversity. The state must establish and expand best practices for language access in counties that are not under Section 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 to serve the growing number of residents in our community whose first language is not English or who have a lower proficiency in English.

The state needs to continue to provide more resources for county election operations so that they can purchase and implement electronic poll books to improve election security and accuracy by relying on real-time data, and so counties can increase the pay for poll workers to attract and retain qualified individuals.

PA Voting Rights Act

A Pennsylvania state Voting Rights Act (VRA) would ensure protections for historically disenfranchised communities who have been underrepresented and underserved in the Commonwealth throughout history.

State VRAs can fill the gap to ensure that all communities of color have the means to enforce their equal voting rights; make it possible for disenfranchised communities that are spread out to enforce their right to an undiluted vote. An electoral system can dilute the voting rights of communities of color whether they are residentially segregated or geographically dispersed.

Pennsylvanians deserve protection from any additional barriers to voting. A state law would ensure all voters in Pennsylvania can equitably participate in democracy by expanding access, removing barriers, and improving protections.

Passing a Pennsylvania Voting Rights Act is urgent to make sure Pennsylvania’s government is accountable to the needs and interests of our communities, by protecting the right to vote.

Key voter protections of a strong PA VRA:

Pre-clearance requires local governments to prove that changes to voting policies and district maps would not harm voters of color before they can go into effect.

Expanding language access requires local governments to provide voting materials in more languages, increasing accessibility for voters who prefer languages besides English.

Dismantle barriers to voting such as closing polling places or aggressively removing voting registrations, or creating unfair voting districts. These practices disproportionately affect the votes of communities of color.

Creating a database of election information helps develop best practices and makes it easier to enforce rules against discrimination.

Instructing judges to interpret laws and rules in the most pro-voter, pro-democracy way possible.

Federal Voting Rights Act

Protections in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 have been weakened by legislative action and judicial decisions like, Shelby County v. Holder. 

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County, states have pushed forward discriminatory changes to voting practices, such as changing district boundaries to disadvantage select voters, instituting stricter voter identification laws, and changing polling locations with little notice. 

These laws especially disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, low-income people, transgender people and people with disabilities. Voters are more vulnerable to discrimination now than at any time since the Voting Rights Act was signed into law more than fifty years ago. 

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would strengthen voting rights by expanding and strengthening the government’s ability to respond to voting discrimination.

Check out a fact sheet here.

Learn more about the different courts here

PA Voters are Powerful

Voters in Pennsylvania are powerful. Pennsylvania is one of only seven states where voters elect ALL their judges and justices in partisan elections. 

Unfortunately, these crucial judicial elections often suffer from low voter turnout, typically around 27% in odd-year general elections, a stark contrast to the 77% turnout in the 2024 November general election. This apathy is often fueled by misinformation and disinformation campaigns. 

Ensuring historic electoral participation in the 2025 judicial races is essential, especially given the low civic education surrounding these elections and the vital role judges play in defending democracy.

In 2025, three PA Supreme Court justices, plus one Commonwealth Court judge and one Superior Court judge, face nonpartisan retention votes. These occur every ten years for appellate judges and justices. 

Maintain the Court’s Independence

The PA Supreme Court’s authority and independence have been under attack for over seven years from some members of the PA legislative branch and well-funded anti-democracy campaigns:

2018 Impeachment Attempt: Some PA legislators attempted to impeach only the four Supreme Court justices who ruled against the 2018 congressional map due to gerrymandering. This attempt failed, and the Court approved a less gerrymandered map, which had significant consequences for our elections and voters.

2019-2021 Judicial Gerrymandering Attempt (HB 38): With impeachment unsuccessful, legislators tried to gerrymander the judiciary through a Constitutional amendment ballot question. House Bill 38 would have restricted voters to electing only one judge/justice by legislatively drawn districts instead of statewide. After a three-year advocacy campaign, HB38 failed to garner enough support.

Anti-Retention Election Campaign (2025): Unable to impeach or restrict voter powers, “dark money” from individuals like Elon Musk and Jeffrey Yass launched a well-funded anti-retention election campaign to remove the three Supreme Court justices on this year’s retention ballot who voted to dismantle the 2018 gerrymandered congressional maps.

Why it Matters?

The 2025 judicial election is particularly important as it precedes the 2030 U.S. census and the reapportionment of voting districts. Reapportionment affects the number of representatives in both the federal and the state legislature could shift depending on whether their population grew or declined.

Our appellate courts are expected to hear cases concerning the constitutionality of districts, ensuring the Commonwealth’s Congressional districts are free from gerrymandering and protecting our voting rights.

There are several types of voting districts:

Congressional districts define who represents you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Pennsylvania currently has 17 congressional districts.

State legislative districts define who represents you in the PA House and Senate. There are 50 PA Senate districts and 203 PA House districts.

These judges and justices will likely hear cases on district constitutionality, aiming to prevent gerrymandering and protect voting rights in Congressional districts.

Learn more about redistricting from our friends at Fair Districts PA.

Three seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are up for a retention election on November 4.

A retention election is simple: Voters are asked to vote Yes or No as to whether to give each justice another ten-year term.

The Court has seven justices; currently five are Democrats, and two are Republicans. The three justices up for re-election are all Democrats. If at least two of the justices fail to win retention, that could shift majority control. Both parties have been preparing for a hard-fought election.

The Court decides questions of state law that can have significant impact.

In recent years, among other decisions the Court ruled that warrantless searches are not justified if they are based solely on the smell of cannabis; that citizens have a right to vote by provisional ballot if their mail-in ballot is disqualified for a failure to return it in the required secrecy envelope; and that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being forced to hand over their digital passwords.

To help you understand this election, we have partnered with guides.vote to provide background on the justices’ written opinions and votes in key cases before the Court, along with their public statements, education, and previous work experience, to indicate how they might rule on key issues in the future.

Click here to see the voter guide about PA Supreme Court Candidates

Christine Donohue

Justice Christine Donohue was elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2015. She earned her bachelor’s degree from East Stroudsburg University, and her law degree from Duquesne University School of Law. She was in private law practice for 27 years at a civil trial lawyer and litigator. She was elected judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in 2007.

Area of personal interest: With increasing difficulty for young trial attorneys to get training in basic advocacy skills, she initiated an “effort by trial judges and lawyers to afford young lawyers opportunities to gain courtroom experience, especially presenting cases to civil juries.”

On abortion, Donohue wrote, “the Pennsylvania Constitution secures the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy.” And that “includes a right to decide whether to have an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term.”

On education, she agreed that a lower court should hold a trial on whether state officials are failing to adequately and equitably fund public education.

 On gun policy, in a dispute over a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges, Donohue wrote that “engaging in firearms proficiency training on… private residential property is not covered” in “the Second Amendment.”

On LGBTQ rights, Donohue wrote, “As judges we must educate ourselves on all LGBT issues, including the insidious nature of crimes directed at members of the LGBT community.”

On marijuana, Donohue agreed that given medical marijuana’s legal status in Pennsylvania, the smell of marijuana cannot be the sole reason for a warrantless vehicle search. She also agreed that people under court supervision should be allowed to use medical marijuana.

 On redistricting, she agreed that the state legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander.

 On voting, Donohue ruled that when a voter’s mail-in ballot is rejected because of a disqualifying mistake, that voter must still be allowed to cast a provisional ballot on election day.

 On voting, she opposed a ruling throwing out mail-in ballots that didn’t have the correct date.

Kevin Dougherty

Justice Kevin Dougherty was elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2015. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Temple University, and his law degree from Antioch School of Law. An assistant district attorney in Phila. County from 1990 to 1995 and then in private law practice, he served from 2001 to 2015 in the Phila. County Court of Common Pleas.

Area of personal interest: He supports having “a conversation about autism in our courts.” “If your behaviors are something you can’t control because of a neurological complexity, then maybe I [as a judge] should be a little more sensitive to that if I want to do the right thing.”

On abortion, Dougherty agreed that a lower court must hear a challenge to a law that limited the use of Medicaid funding to cover abortions. He has not indicated whether the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to abortion.

On education, he wrote that the Court had a clear duty to consider whether Pennsylvania citizens’ Constitutional rights to “a proper public education” are being violated by inadequate funding.

On gun policy, Dougherty wrote that a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and “outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.”

On LGBTQ rights, about the decision allowing same-sex couples to adopt children in PA, Dougherty said, “We have hundreds of thousands of children sitting in out-of-home placement, wishing they had a permanent and loving family. That one decision permitted many, many, many, many, many children to find loving homes. That’s phenomenal, the impact of one decision.”

On marijuana, he agreed that people under court supervision should be allowed to use medical marijuana.

On mental health issues in the justice system, he said, “We don’t have to lock people up because they have mental illness or because they are different. We need to be able to find out what the root cause is and divert them, particularly veterans. I’m a strong supporter of veteran courts.” 

On redistricting, Dougherty agreed that the state legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander. 

On voting, he agreed that when a voter’s mail-in ballot is rejected, that voter’s provisional ballot must still be counted.

David Wecht

Justice David Wecht was elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2015. He earned his bachelor’s degree in history and political science from Yale University and his law degree from Yale Law School. He was in private law practice from 1989 to 2003, and then was a judge in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas until 2012. He was elected judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in 2012.

 Area of personal interest: In light of his concern about anti-Semitism, he says we should not “eliminate or place incursions on the First Amendment…. It’s critical that we never in this country give government the power to pick and choose which speech is preferred. The remedy for hate speech is more speech.”

On abortion, Wecht wrote that women have a “right to reproductive autonomy.” “The Pennsylvania Constitution’s ERA did away with the antiquated and misogynistic notion that a woman has no say over what happens to her own body.”

On education, he ordered a lower court to hold a trial on whether state officials are failing to adequately and equitably fund public education. He saw validity in the claim that “distribution of state funds results in widespread deprivations in economically disadvantaged districts,” limiting “the resources necessary to attain a constitutionally adequate education.”

On gun policy, Wecht agreed that a city’s restriction on the location of gun ranges is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

 On LGBTQ rights, he is a “firm believer in equality” and was “personally thrilled” when same-sex marriage was legalized.

On marijuana, Wecht agreed that given medical marijuana’s legal status in Pennsylvania, the smell of marijuana cannot be the sole reason for a warrantless vehicle search. He also agreed that people under court supervision should be allowed to use medical marijuana.

On redistricting, he agreed that the state legislature’s 2011 redistricting plan was an unconstitutional gerrymander.

On voting, Wecht opposed a decision allowing a voter’s election-day provisional ballot to be counted when that voter’s mail-in ballot had a disqualifying mistake, such as failure to place a returned ballot in a secrecy envelope.