Pennsylvanians often treat judicial retention races as an afterthought. Some might even need a refresher on the concept. But when it comes to the rules governing elections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already shown how influential these justices can be, and why these elections are so essential.
This November, Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht are on the ballot. Their votes have already shaped which ballots count and which do not. Voters deserve to know the justices’ records – without political commentary – before they make a choice.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) released a scorecard highlighting how these justices ruled on pivotal election law questions in recent years. At stake are issues such as whether counties must evaluate mail ballots consistently for acceptance or rejection; whether late-arriving ballots should be accepted; and whether counties may allow voters to “cure” defective ballots before they are rejected. Each of these rulings had direct consequences for how Pennsylvania’s elections were run in 2020 and beyond.
One of the most important cases was Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, decided in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. The Court altered key election procedures in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The justices approved the use of drop boxes and satellite ballot-return sites, and extended the deadline for mail ballots to be accepted for counting. As a result, ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within three days were valid.
The decision was not unanimous. Justices Dougherty and Wecht sided with the majority in accepting ballots up to 72 hours after Election Day. Justice Donohue disagreed. PILF has consistently argued that accepting ballots after the legal deadline undermines election confidence, creates uncertainty in the vote-counting process, and exposes the system to errors in an already stressful procedure.
The Court also weighed in on whether counties must evaluate mail ballots equally. On that question, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht each sided against requiring uniform standards across Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. This means that ballots with identical errors could be accepted in one county but rejected in another, injecting inconsistency into the electoral process. For voters, the consequence is straightforward: your ballot may be judged differently depending on where you live.
PILF studied the disparate ballot handling practices shortly before the 2024 Election. Counties varied across the commonwealth on their procedures to deal with ballots facing rejection. In three adjoining counties, identical errors would lead to three different outcomes. In the first, the defective ballot was mailed back to the voter with instructions to fix and return. In another, the ballot was set aside in the election office, but voters would not be alerted to their need to cure. The third county did not allow for curing at all.
Another issue was whether counties should be permitted to notify voters about ballot errors and allow them to “cure” deficiencies after submission. Once again, Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht sided against a uniform policy, leaving room for uneven application of ballot curing practices across Pennsylvania.
The records of these three justices are not mere legal abstractions. They reflect concrete decisions that affect whether your mail ballot can be fixed or discarded. Every voter in Pennsylvania has a stake in these rulings because they determine whether elections are governed by clear, uniform standards or by ad hoc rules that vary by county.
As you prepare to cast your vote this November, do not overlook these judicial races. The future of election administration in Pennsylvania depends on them. Before you go to the polls, be informed. Review the record, study the scorecard, and see where Justices Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht stand.