Why Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court justice retention race is so contentious – 90.5 WESA

Report on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retention Election and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Judicial Retention and SDG 16

An upcoming election in Pennsylvania will require voters to decide on the retention of three Supreme Court Justices: Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht. This process, while designed to be a non-partisan evaluation of judicial performance, has become a focal point of political contention. The outcome holds significant implications for the state’s progress toward several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which emphasizes the need for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• The retention vote is a mechanism intended to balance judicial independence with public accountability.
• Justices, originally elected as Democrats in 2015, now face a vote on their performance after a 10-year term.
• The politicization of this process challenges the core tenets of an impartial judiciary as envisioned in SDG 16.

2.0 Key Judicial Issues and Their Connection to Sustainable Development

The debate surrounding the justices’ retention is linked to several of their key rulings, which directly impact various SDGs.

2.1 Gender Equality, Health, and Well-being (SDG 5 & SDG 3)

• A significant ruling by Justice Donohue has been interpreted as establishing a right to abortion under the state constitution. This directly relates to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and its target of ensuring universal access to reproductive health and rights.
• The court upheld the governor’s COVID-19 shutdown measures, a decision central to public health policy and the advancement of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). This ruling, however, drew criticism for its economic impact.

2.2 Economic, Environmental, and Community Sustainability (SDG 8, 11, 13, 15)

• The court’s decisions on business shutdowns during the pandemic highlight the tension between public health and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
• The court’s role in determining environmental protection frameworks is critical for achieving SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
• Rulings that have impeded local gun-control efforts impact progress toward SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), specifically its goal of ensuring safe and inclusive human settlements.

2.3 Reduced Inequalities and Strong Institutions (SDG 10 & SDG 16)

• The court’s jurisdiction over voting rights is fundamental to ensuring inclusive societies and achieving SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• The broader criticism that the justices act as political agents rather than impartial arbiters raises concerns about the judiciary’s role as a strong and independent institution under SDG 16.

3.0 Campaign Dynamics and Institutional Transparency

The campaign for and against retention reflects a deep political polarization that threatens judicial independence. The funding sources behind these campaigns are a key factor in the debate over institutional integrity.

• Pro-Retention Funding: Support for the justices comes from trial lawyers, unions, and various left-leaning advocacy groups.
• Anti-Retention Funding: Opposition is funded by conservative advocates, including groups bankrolled by billionaire Jeff Yass, and organizations tied to national political parties.
• This influx of partisan funding into a judicial retention election undermines the goal of creating accountable and transparent institutions as promoted by SDG 16.

4.0 Potential Outcomes and Risks to Governance

The result of the retention vote presents significant potential consequences for the stability and functionality of Pennsylvania’s judicial system.

4.1 Consequences of Non-Retention

1. If any or all justices fail to be retained, their seats will become vacant at the end of the year.
2. The governor may appoint interim replacements, but such appointments require a two-thirds confirmation from the state Senate, a difficult threshold to meet in the current political climate.
3. Seats could remain vacant until a new election in 2027, creating a prolonged period of institutional instability.

4.2 Implications for Legal Precedent and Institutional Stability

• The loss of all three justices would leave the court with only four members, split evenly between two justices who ran as Democrats and two who ran as Republicans.
• This 2-2 split significantly increases the risk of deadlocked opinions, which would prevent the court from establishing legal precedents.
• Such a scenario would severely weaken the judiciary, creating legal uncertainty on critical issues affecting all SDGs. A non-functioning high court represents a direct failure to maintain an effective institution, fundamentally compromising the objectives of SDG 16 and jeopardizing the legal frameworks that support all other development goals.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article’s central theme is the judicial retention election in Pennsylvania, focusing on the structure, function, and political nature of the state’s Supreme Court. It discusses the importance of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law, the process for ensuring judicial accountability, and the influence of politics and campaign finance on these institutions.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The article explicitly mentions that the Supreme Court justices “can decide reproductive and voting rights” and notes that an opinion by one of the justices “has all but enshrined abortion as a right under the state constitution.” This directly connects the court’s function to issues of reproductive rights, which is a key component of SDG 5.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The article highlights a past ruling where the justices upheld “Gov. Tom Wolf’s Covid shutdowns.” This decision relates to the state’s ability to implement public health measures during a health crisis, connecting the judiciary’s role to the management of national health risks.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article is fundamentally about a mechanism for judicial accountability—the retention vote. It explores the theory that this “non-partisan process” allows voters to “evaluate them purely on the basis of their ability,” which is a core principle of an accountable institution.
2. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The retention election is a form of participatory decision-making. The article also touches on the court’s power to decide on “voting rights,” which is essential for representative governance. The discussion of low voter awareness highlights challenges to making this process truly participatory.
3. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article discusses the potential for a split court if the justices are not retained, which “increases the risk of split opinions.” This would mean the court “couldn’t establish a precedent,” leaving “key legal issues might remain unsettled for years,” thereby undermining the stability and effectiveness of the rule of law.
4. Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. The article details the funding behind the campaigns for and against retaining the judges, mentioning support from “trial lawyers,” “unions,” and “conservative advocates… bankrolled by Jeff Yass, a hedge-fund billionaire.” This discussion of money in judicial elections points to the risk of financial influence over judicial institutions.
5. Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The article directly links the court’s decisions to this target by stating that the justices’ rulings can determine “reproductive rights” and citing a specific opinion that has “all but enshrined abortion as a right under the state constitution.”
6. Target 3.d: Strengthen the capacity of all countries… for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks. The article refers to the court’s role in a major national health crisis by noting that Republicans criticized the justices “for upholding Gov. Tom Wolf’s Covid shutdowns.” The court’s decision affirmed the executive’s legal authority to impose public health measures, which is a key aspect of managing health risks.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Public awareness and participation in judicial elections (Implied for Target 16.7): The article implies this indicator by citing a poll showing that “one-third of likely voters don’t know how they will vote.” This figure serves as a direct measure of voter engagement and awareness, which is crucial for a participatory and representative process.
2. Influence of campaign financing on judicial elections (Implied for Target 16.5): The article points to this by identifying the sources of funding for both sides of the retention campaign, including unions, lawyers, advocacy groups, and billionaires. The amount and origin of this funding can be used as an indicator of the potential for financial influence over the judiciary.
3. Stability and functionality of the highest court (Implied for Target 16.3): The article suggests this indicator by describing the potential outcome of a failed retention vote: a four-member court with an “even number” that “increases the risk of split opinions.” The inability to “establish a precedent” would be a measure of institutional dysfunction and a weakening of the rule of law.
4. Legal and constitutional protections for reproductive rights (Implied for Target 5.6): The article points to judicial opinions as a key indicator. It specifically mentions an “opinion by Donohue has all but enshrined abortion as a right under the state constitution,” indicating that the content and precedent of court rulings can be used to measure the status of reproductive rights.

Summary Table of Findings

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: wesa.fm