Scott Presler Rallies Pennsylvania Voters to Oppose Retention of Three Democratic Supreme Court Justices Ahead of Election

---

As Pennsylvania approaches its pivotal November 4 judicial election, political activist Scott Presler is mobilizing a statewide campaign urging voters to reject the retention of three Democratic justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. His appeal—focused on Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht—has intensified discussion about judicial accountability and the long-term political balance of one of the nation’s most closely watched high courts.

Presler’s message, delivered through a coordinated ground and digital effort, underscores the lasting consequences of judicial retention votes. He warns that another decade of what he describes as "activist rulings" could shape the state’s political, social, and legal direction for years to come.

The Retention Vote and Its Significance

In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court justices serve ten-year terms before facing a retention election, where voters cast a simple "Yes" or "No" ballot to decide whether they should remain in office. These elections often fly under the radar, attracting less attention than partisan contests. However, this year’s vote has drawn unusual intensity, largely due to Presler’s effort to bring national attention to the Pennsylvania judiciary.

The three justices up for retention—Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht—each joined the court during a Democratic surge in the mid-2010s. Their rulings have frequently tilted the court’s ideological balance to the left on key issues such as redistricting, election law, and workers' rights. With all three facing simultaneous retention votes, the stakes for both parties are unusually high.

If any of the justices were voted out, Governor Josh Shapiro would appoint replacements, subject to confirmation by the state Senate. The court currently holds a 5–2 Democratic majority, meaning that even one vacancy could alter both the tone and direction of future rulings.

Presler’s Ground Game and Message

Scott Presler, a conservative activist renowned for his voter registration and grassroots mobilization drives, has built an extensive network across Pennsylvania in recent years. Once best known for organizing large-scale clean-up events in major cities, Presler has expanded his focus to electoral organizing, emphasizing turnout, election integrity, and down-ballot awareness.

Addressing voters online and at in-person rallies held across the state—from Erie to Scranton and suburban Philadelphia—Presler framed the judicial retention vote as a referendum on accountability rather than partisanship.

He has pointed to several high-profile Supreme Court decisions in Pennsylvania as evidence of what he calls “judicial overreach.” Among the decisions cited by Presler’s campaign are rulings on mail-in voting procedures during the 2020 election, interpretations of the state constitution in redistricting disputes, and high-cost judgments affecting business liability.

Presler’s team argues that these rulings have had downstream economic effects, influencing everything from business investment confidence to election administration costs across Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. The campaign has also emphasized the long-term consequences of retaining the justices, claiming their decisions could shape legal precedent for another generation.

Broader Historical and Political Context

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court holds unique power in shaping not just state but national politics, particularly because of its outsized role in election law. The court’s controversial 2018 decision to redraw congressional maps, striking down a Republican-backed plan as unconstitutional gerrymandering, had major implications for the U.S. House of Representatives balance in subsequent elections. That ruling, written by Justice Donohue and joined by Justices Dougherty and Wecht, was celebrated by Democrats and challenged by Republicans as judicial intrusion into legislative territory.

Presler’s effort taps into a broader national debate about state supreme courts as de facto policy-making bodies. In many states, judicial retention or election campaigns rarely attract widespread attention. Yet in recent years, as state courts increasingly rule on politically charged issues—from abortion rights to environmental regulation—they have become central battlegrounds for both parties.

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, the oldest appellate court in the nation, has often found itself at the heart of such disputes. With decisions touching on voting access, pandemic restrictions, and school funding, its reach extends well beyond the confines of ordinary legal interpretation.

Economic and Legal Implications

From a business standpoint, Pennsylvania’s judicial climate carries tangible repercussions. The state’s economic stakeholders—ranging from small manufacturers to energy firms and health care institutions—often cite legal predictability as a core factor influencing investment and expansion decisions. Critics of the current court majority argue that several rulings have contributed to perceptions of instability or bias against corporate defendants.

Independent analysts note that Pennsylvania consistently ranks near the midpoint of nationwide “judicial fairness” indexes compiled by business advocacy organizations. However, in recent years, the trend has seen a gradual shift toward a more plaintiff-friendly environment—a pattern seen in other industrial states like Illinois and New Jersey.

Legal academics have also observed that retention votes rarely unseat justices. No Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice has lost a retention election since 1968. Presler’s campaign, therefore, represents an attempt to break a historical norm, both mobilizing voters and testing whether modern digital activism can overcome entrenched judicial incumbency.

Voter Awareness and Mobilization Challenges

Despite heightened political engagement in recent elections, judicial retention contests often suffer from low voter awareness. Many voters skip the judicial section of the ballot altogether, and those who do vote frequently base their choices on ballot name recognition rather than judicial record.

Presler’s campaign appears designed to change that dynamic. Through targeted social media posts, email lists, and in-person canvassing, his team is attempting to elevate the judicial issue to the forefront of public consciousness. Volunteer-led efforts are distributing simplified voter guides highlighting what they describe as “key defining votes” by each justice, presented in terms accessible to non-lawyers.

Political observers suggest that turnout among suburban and rural voters could determine the margin in these retention votes. Urban counties like Philadelphia and Allegheny typically favor incumbents, while outlying counties—where Presler’s grassroots presence is strongest—could see heavier “No” votes if mobilization succeeds.

Comparing Regional Judicial Races

Pennsylvania is not alone in seeing high-stakes judicial politics this year. States like Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio have witnessed judicial elections drawing national attention due to redistricting and election law disputes. However, Pennsylvania’s retention system—where judges face simple yes/no votes rather than direct contests—makes it uniquely uncertain how public sentiment will translate into outcomes.

Unlike states where partisan balance can shift rapidly through contested elections, Pennsylvania’s system rewards longevity and judicial continuity. As a result, major ideological changes often occur slowly or through rare moments of widespread public frustration.

Presler’s mobilization effort aims to create such a moment, positioning Pennsylvania as a bellwether for whether judicial retention can realistically serve as a mechanism for voter-driven reform. Political scientists note that if any of the three justices fail retention, it could set a national precedent, influencing judicial election strategies across other states that use similar systems.

The Road to November 4

With only days remaining before the election, both sides are intensifying their messaging. Judicial advocacy groups have issued statements defending the integrity and qualifications of the three incumbents, warning against what they characterize as politically motivated attacks on judicial independence. They argue that removing experienced justices could disrupt continuity on the state’s highest court and undermine public trust in an impartial judiciary.

Meanwhile, Presler and his supporters maintain that accountability—not ideology—is the central issue. They frame their campaign as a civic duty call, urging Pennsylvanians to thoroughly evaluate judicial records rather than approving retention by default.

The outcome of these votes will not only determine who interprets the state constitution over the coming decade but also signal how far public engagement can extend into the judiciary—a branch often regarded as insulated from the political winds sweeping through state capitals.

Looking Ahead

Regardless of the result on November 4, this election marks a watershed moment in Pennsylvania’s judicial history. If voters reject any of the three Democratic justices, it would echo well beyond state borders, reigniting national conversations about the transparency and accountability of state courts.

Whether Scott Presler’s movement will translate into measurable electoral impact remains uncertain. But his campaign has already achieved one undeniable result: drawing unprecedented public attention to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a judicial body that, for most of its storied history, has wielded immense power largely outside the public spotlight.