In Pennsylvania, state Supreme Court justices are up for retention vote every 10 years after they are first elected. Instead of pitting candidates against the judges, these retention elections provide a depoliticized way for voters to choose yes or no on whether they want judges to continue serving on the bench for another decade.
However, this year’s retention elections in the Keystone State have quickly turned political as dark money PACs spend millions to get rid of the three Democratic incumbents up for retention. Billionaire Jeffrey Yass, the richest man in Pennsylvania, has ties to groups running TV ads and inundating voters’ mailboxes with messages urging Pennsylvanians to vote “no” on retaining the three state Supreme Court judges in November. These disinformation ads tell voters to “defend our democracy” and “term limit the liberal Supreme Court,” while misleading voters about the process.
One ad even claims that the judges up for retention gerrymandered Congressional districts to favor Democrats while showing a map that was actually gerrymandered by the Republican-controlled legislature and thrown out by the state Supreme Court. This deception is being used to trick voters into handing over control of Pennsylvania’s highest court.
However, this story hasn’t made national news in the same way that the Wisconsin Supreme Court race did earlier this year, when Elon Musk’s America PAC poured millions into it through a promise to give $100 to voters to sign a petition in opposition to “activist judges.” But it continues a dangerous trend of billionaires trying to buy elections and mislead voters to hand-pick who they want in power.
By removing the justices they don’t like in Pennsylvania, the group behind these ads aims to clear the way for judges who will protect their wealth and political agenda. This would allow them to dictate our rights and freedoms, including the potential to attack reproductive rights for women throughout the state.
In 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that reproductive rights are protected under Pennsylvania’s Constitution. The court also sided with workers in cases that have defended union rights and mandated fair labor treatment. So it’s perhaps no wonder why groups with ties to a billionaire are trying to reshuffle the deck to their favor.
In the current era of contested elections on the state level by conspiracy theorists and their backers, having allies on the courts could only help their causes in interfering with the voting process in the future.
An advantage to Pennsylvania’s system of retention elections is that the judges’ parties are not disclosed, and voters are meant to focus on their prior track record to that point. Because the three judges up for retention have a long history of fairness, the nonpartisan Pennsylvania Bar Association has already recommended “yes” votes for all three Supreme Court justices up for retention.
This trend of billionaire interference in local Supreme Court elections demonstrates the extent to which the wealthy will go to advance their own political interests.
Their wealth does not give them the power to play with our elections like it were a board game. Voters will decide whether these three judges should be retained or not, based on their track record to date, rather than on obvious lies regarding retention elections.
Our elections are not for sale.
