Sujay Rajkumar

POLS 2102
Section 004
Dr. Sellers
The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections in Pennsylvania

Initial partisan elections describe a practice in which state court judges are essentially

listed in ballots as candidates indicating their political party and affiliation for their first

terms. Each subsequent term, judges go through a retention vote to see if they should stay in

office and if rejected from office, another partisan election will take place to select another

justice. Although Pennsylvania has traditionally established its supreme court justices with

partisan elections, proponents support a nonpartisan approach in electing or appointing

justices. In the best interest of Pennsylvania however, the initial partisan election system should

be maintained in order to help voters make more informed decisions and to invoke responsibility

for rulings and actions by justices at all levels of court in the commonwealth.

The primary argument concerning partisanship of justices in Pennsylvania is that it will

allow voters to make more educated decisions when checking a name off on a ballot. Most

average residents of the Commonwealth tend to be ignorant when voting for candidates running

for less popular offices. This can furthermore propagate the issue in which individual voters may

not be properly educated when voting for nonpartisan candidates. Residents, if they even decide

to vote in a nonpartisan election, may choose candidates solely based on other key factors

representing them. If a resident of Pennsylvania has not even heard of a candidate, superficial

qualities such as ethnicity or gender may bias the vote cast by said resident (i.e. a liberal female

may vote for a very conservative female judge based off of the pretense that she has a feminine

name; each individual’s political views actually do not line up leading to false representation).

Professor Michael DeBow in his paper for the Federalist Society argued in agreement that

“voters can be vastly informed of a candidate with just having an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ next to the

candidate’s name on a ballot”. Political parties allow for a meaningful platform from which
Sujay Rajkumar
POLS 2102
Section 004
Dr. Sellers
candidates can represent large majorities of citizens and due to this, many citizens tend to

maintain loyalty to their party because they understand that the platform of the party they select

will align the most to their beliefs.

Political responsibility is another important factor when considering the removal of

partisan elections. In Pennsylvania, all executive offices (governor, attorney general, treasurer,

etc.) and legislative offices (state senator, state representative) are all filled through partisan

elections as well. Any elected legislative and executive officials therefore, are generally held to

the standards of the party of which they have chosen to be a member of. Because political

parties are “vehicles by which citizens come together freely to campaign for public office,

express their interests and needs, and define their aspirations for society,” (National Democratic

Institute) they must automatically regulate any action by a party representative (either a

candidate or an incumbent) that causes negative repercussions to the ideals of the

party. Pennsylvania’s practice of partisan judicial elections allows judges at any level of court to

be held to the same party standards that politicians in other branches of government

have. Anything these judges may say or do as candidates or justices in court will reflect on his

or her respective party’s platform. Specifically, if these judges carry out any string of poor

decisions, they will be immediately reprimanded by their party (loss of support, lack of

acknowledgement, dismissal through other incumbents, etc) making retention re-election a real

issue.

The use of partisan elections by the state of Pennsylvania is a practice that should

continue to be used in order to continue the effort to provide the best possible representation in

government to the residents of the Commonwealth. Having partisan elections allows voters to be

more knowledgeable when selecting justices for all levels of court in the state by providing them
Sujay Rajkumar
POLS 2102
Section 004
Dr. Sellers
with the general basis of their stances through their party affiliations. Partisan elections also

allow a greater sense of responsibility on judges as they represent both the state, themselves and

the party they choose to run under. Partisan elections are neither perfect nor complete but they

do “provide ‘federalism's laboratory of the states’ for further testing of the rival theories of

judicial selection,” (DeBow) and are a superior system of appointing judges as opposed to the

nonpartisan election method.

Works Cited

Campbell et al., American Voter; Brody and Page, “Assessment of Policy Voting”; Jackson,
“Issues, Party Choices, and Presidential Votes”; Markus and Converse, “Dynamic
Simultaneous Equation Model.”
Debow, Michael, Diane Brey, Erick Kardal, John Sordal, Frank Strickland, and Michael B.
Wallace. "The Case for Partisan Judicial Elections." : Publications : The Federalist
Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
"FACT SHEET ON JUDICIAL SELECTION METHODS IN THE STATES."American Bar
Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
Ross, Bernard and Myron A. Levine. Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan American, 6th
edition. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing, 2000.