PENNSYLVANIA, USA — One of the more highly contested statewide elections on Nov. 7 in Pennsylvania is expected to be for a spot on the state's Supreme Court.
In the general election for Pa. Supreme Court are Democrat Daniel McCaffery and Republican Carolyn Carluccio, each of whom won their primary election for their party's nomination in May.
Each is seeking a 10-year term on the state's top court and will be replacing Justice Max Baer, who died in Sept. 2022.
Partisan control cannot change as an outcome of this election, however, in 2025, three Democratic justices that were elected in 2015 will be up for retention, at which time control of the court could change. The last time that occurred was following the 2015 elections, when it went from a 4-3 Republican majority to a 5-2 Democratic majority.
Here's what to know about each candidate up for election to the Pa. Supreme Court:
Daniel McCaffery (D)
According to McCaffery's biography on his campaign website, he is a military veteran who attended Temple University and Temple Law School on a veteran's scholarship.
In 1991, McCaffery became an Assistant District Attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, before joining a firm in 1997.
In 2013, McCaffery was elected as a Judge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and in 2019, was elected as a Judge of the Pa. Superior Court.
Currently, McCaffery resides in Philadelphia and is the supervising judge for wiretaps.
Carolyn Carluccio (R)
According to Carluccio's biography on her campaign website, she began her career as a Federal Assistant United States Attorney before serving as the first-ever female Chief Public Defender for Montgomery County and first female President Judge in the history of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
For the past 14 years, Carluccio has served as a Court of Common Pleas Judge, and was elected as President of the Montgomery Bar Association.
Carluccio notes she is "highly recommended" by the Pa. Bar Association for Pa. Supreme Court.
Her family currently resides in Blue Bell.
What's at stake
Political experts said the winner could be asked to make far-reaching political decisions in the coming years.
"Abortion has been one that has motivated a lot of voters since the Dobbs decision. The supreme court is the arbiter of what is constitutional in Pennsylvania," said Daniel Mallinson, an associate professor at Penn State Harrisburg. "There may be constitutionality questions that come with any restrictions on access to abortion that could come."
"You can speculate as to what might happen, what laws could be passed that the court would have to address, but right now I think that's really a false indicator of the worthiness of a particular candidate," added John E. Jones, president of Dickinson College and a former federal judge.
While the court has decided congressional districts in Pennsylvania, political experts say its biggest decisions may be related to next year's presidential election.
The court may be called upon to address Act 77, the election law that has allowed no-excuse mail in voting across the state.
"There's a lot of other questions that are not clear in the election code about things like what's called ballot curing. Let's say you hand in one of those mail ballots," Mallinson said. "They open it up, they find out there's something wrong on it. Can the election officials contact you and have you fix your ballot or not?"
"This court will have to end up passing judgement on some loophole and grey areas in that law that the legislature has not cured, and I don't think they will cure," Jones added.