2011 Judicial Election Results
The results are in: Democrat David Wecht won a seat on the Superior Court and Republican Anne Covey won a seat on the Commonwealth Court. Wecht defeated Republican Vic Stabile, and Covey defeated Democrat Kathryn Bookvar.
The following appellate judges standing for retention were retained:
Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin; Superior Court JudgesJohn Bender and Mary Jane Bowes; Commonwealth Court Judges Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt and
Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr.
County by county results can be found at the Department of State's Election page.
More information about judicial elections is available on our frequently asked questions about judicial elections page and our how judicial elections work page.
Check back for information about what the 2011 judicial elections cost.
2009 ELECTION RESULTS
Joan Orie Melvin was elected to the Supreme Court. Orie Melvin, a sitting Superior Court judge and the Republican candidate, defeated Democrat Jack Panella, also a sitting Superior Court judge.
The top three vote-getters for the Superior Court vacancies were Judge Judith Olson of Allegheny County, attorney Sallie Mundy of Tioga County, and President Judge Paula Ott of Chester County. All three ran on the Republican ticket. After a recount, it was determined that Judge Anne Lazarus of Philadelphia County was the winner of the fourth vacancy.
The two Commonwealth Court seats were filled by Pittsburgh attorney Patricia McCullough and Harrisburg attorney Kevin Brobson, both Republicans. They defeated Democrats Barbara Jo Ernsberger and Linda Judson, both attorneys in Pittsburgh.
Two appellate court judges were standing for retention: President Judge Kate Ford Elliot of the Superior Court and Judge Dante Robert Pellgrini of the Commonwealth Court. Both were retained.
What Did the 2009 Election Cost?
The 2009 Supreme Court election between Republican Joan Orie Melvin and Democrat Jack Panella set fundraising and spending records for Pennsylvania, and may set records nationally. The numbers are staggering: the two candidates raised almost $4.67 million dollars. PMC believes the total could be much higher, though it is difficult to determine with certainty because of gaps in our campaign finance reporting requirements. Who’s footing the bill? Not just the usual suspects – lawyers, law firms, businesses, unions and political action committees -- but also some well-funded third parties, most notably the state Republican Party.
| Pennsylvania Supreme Court Election 2009 – Campaign Fundraising | ||||||||
| All Contributions by Cycle (includes in-kind contributions) | ||||||||
| Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Cycle 4 | |||||
| Orie Melvin: | $17,326.00 | $190,367.95 | $58,317.92 | $161,118.12 | ||||
| Panella: | $168,630.00 | $54,950.00 | $42,875.00 | $909,530.00 | ||||
| Cycle 5 | Cycle 6 | Cycle 7 | ||||||
| Orie Melvin: | $546,159.66 | $972,487.08 | $15,467.50 | |||||
| Panella: | $674,648.20 | $851,974.00 | $2,757.81 | |||||
| All Cycles Total: | ||||||||
| Orie Melvin: | $1,961,244.23 | |||||||
| Panella: | $2,705,365.01 | |||||||
| TOTAL = | $4,666,609.24 | |||||||
This total of $4,666, 609.24 includes in-kind contributions, which can really add up. These include media buys, donated postage, transportation, and any other non-cash donations.
The 2009 fundraising sets a record for an election for a single vacancy, and Judge Panella’s fundraising of over $2.7 million breaks the previous record of money raised for a Supreme Court campaign.
Pennsylvanians should not take pride in leading the nation in spending for judicial elections. Each dollar raised and spent raises yet another doubt in voters’ minds about whether or not justice is for sale.
WHO ARE THE CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA APPELLATE COURT JUDGES?
Tables identifying the current Supreme Court justices and the judges of the Superior and Commonwealth Courts, when their terms expire, when they will be eligible to stand for retention, and when they will be subject to mandatory retirement are available here.
PMC also prepares guides of questions that the public, civic organizations and members of the media should consider as appropriate topics for discussion with judicial candidates. We believe these questions, which cover topics including a candidate's experience and issues of judicial administration, such as court funding, juries and efforts to eliminate bias from the court system, provide a framework for meaningful discussions with judicial candidates. Candidates' responses to these questions should provide voters with information relevant to the decisions they will face in the voters' booth. For PMC's updated guide to questioning judicial candidates, click here.
Information about the 2007 judicial elections can be found here.
