The future of Pennsylvania’s congressional maps will be at stake this fall when voters decide whether to retain three state Supreme Court justices, even though the commonwealth is unlikely to join the rush of partisan redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has played a decisive role in the shape of Pennsylvania’s congressional maps twice in the last 10 years, throwing out the state’s maps as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in 2018 and picking maps proposed by Democratic plaintiffs in 2022 after the General Assembly and governor could not agree on a map.
The court’s decisions in both those cases are driving forces behind a Republican effort to oust three liberal justices up for retention in November.
The election has the potential to shift the balance of the court, where liberals outnumber conservatives 5-to-2.
And the results of November’s election will shape who is on the court the next time maps are redrawn following the 2030 census.
The justices — Kevin Dougherty, Christine Donohue and David Wecht — were first elected as Democrats in 2015. Voters will decide Nov. 4 whether to keep them on the court in a nonpartisan election that would be followed by a partisan race to replace ousted justices in 2027.
How does redistricting work in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania redraws its congressional and state legislative maps every 10 years after the completion of the U.S. census, which determines the number of congressional districts in each state based on population.
After the 2020 census, the state lost one of its House seats, bringing the number from 18 to 17. Redistricting begins after the census is finished and must be completed before the following congressional election.
A reapportionment commission draws maps for state legislative districts. But for congressional districts, the General Assembly draws the maps, which must then be approved by the governor like any other piece of legislation.
Pushed by President Donald Trump, red states have taken the unusual move to pursue mid-decade redistricting this year in a rush to secure more GOP seats in the House. In retaliation, California and other Democratic states are pursuing their own gerrymanders.
In Pennsylvania, the politically divided state legislature makes a similar effort highly unlikely. And Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, who would have to approve any redrawn maps, has said he is not on board with redistricting sooner.
“We’re not doing that here in Pennsylvania,” he told reporters in August. “It’s not on the table here in Pennsylvania.”
William Marx points to projected images of Pennsylvania’s old congressional districts on top, and redrawn districts on the bottom, during a 2018 civics class in Pittsburgh. Marx was a plaintiff in the Pennsylvania lawsuit that successfully challenged the Republican-drawn congressional maps. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
What role has the Pennsylvania Supreme Court played in redistricting?
In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion declaring that Pennsylvania’s congressional map — which resulted in 13 Republican districts compared with five held by Democrats — was a partisan gerrymander that violated the free and equal protection clause of the Pennsylvania constitution.
The majority opinion was signed by the three justices up for retention this year: Dougherty, Donohue and Wecht. Pennsylvania’s maps at the time were a notorious example of gerrymandering, including a district that some said resembled an outline of Disney’s Goofy kicking Donald Duck.
The court then set a process for a map to be drawn by an expert and approved by the body. The new map resulted in nine Republican districts and nine Democratic districts.
The ruling was widely panned by Republicans, and set a precedent for any future map to be challenged on state constitutional grounds.
Speaking at an event in Philly last week, Wecht defended the decision while acknowledging the steep backlash, and calls for impeachment, he faced in its wake.
“I learned that when we make a decision striking down something that is grossly improper there are going to be people behind the impropriety that are going to be very upset,” Wecht said to a small crowd gathered at an event hosted by three nonpartisan civic engagement groups and broadcast by WHYY.
In 2022, congressional maps once again went before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court when the General Assembly and Gov. Tom Wolf could not agree on a map ahead of a court imposed deadline. The court selected a map that had been drawn by Democratic plaintiffs.
State Sen. Greg Rothman, the chair of the Pennsylvania GOP, said in a statement last week that redistricting was one of the reasons the party was urging voters to reject Dougherty, Donohue and Wecht.
“The only thing we want is for the laws of Pennsylvania to be followed, and not having politically motivated judges dictate the maps,” Rothman said.
Justices David Wecht, Christine Donohue and Kevin Dougherty sit on stage during a speaking event featuring the three justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who are on the Nov. retention ballot, at Central High School on Monday, Sept. 8, 2025, in Philadelphia. (Monica Herndon/The Philadelphia Inquirer/TNS)
How will retention impact redistricting?
If voters in November choose to retain Dougherty and Wecht, both 63, they would still be on the court the next time districts are redrawn ahead of the 2032 election as part of their 10-year terms. Donohue, 72, will reach the court’s mandatory retirement age in 2027.
Chief Justice Debra Todd, who was first elected as a Democrat, and Justice Sallie Mundy, first elected as a Republican, will also be up for retention before the next redistricting cycle.
This year’s retention race offers Republicans their best shot at altering the court before the next redistricting cycle. And conservative justices may be more open to maps favorable to Republicans.
Lauren Cristella, president of the Committee of Seventy, a good government group that has pushed for an independent redistricting commission, said she believes Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court chose fair maps in 2018 and ’22.
If the justices are not retained, she said, it creates an unknown.
“We know how these justices view partisan map drawing and it’s not like we’re evaluating these justices against known other candidates,” Cristella said.
© 2025 The Philadelphia Inquirer. Visit www.inquirer.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
