In most elections, voters have a general sense of who they’re voting for. Candidates for mayor, city council, or even state and federal offices have name recognition, issue-based platforms, and plenty of media attention. Judicial elections, however, are an entirely different ballgame.
Every few years, Philadelphia voters are asked to choose from a long list of judicial candidates, sometimes with more than a dozen open seats up for grabs at once. Unlike other elections, where voters can research candidates based on policy positions, judicial races rarely attract much attention. Most candidates are lawyers, not politicians, and they generally avoid making campaign promises beyond a commitment to fairness and impartiality. This creates a major challenge: how do voters decide who is qualified to serve on the bench?
The Power of Party Endorsement
In a low-information race with an overwhelming number of choices, the endorsement of the Philadelphia Democratic Party is one of the most powerful tools a judicial candidate can secure. The party’s support can make or break a campaign, providing key resources that many judicial candidates wouldn’t be able to access on their own.
For starters, the party endorsement provides critical assistance in the petition process. To even appear on the ballot, judicial candidates must collect thousands of signatures from registered voters—a logistical challenge that can be daunting for first-time candidates. The Democratic Party, however, has an extensive network of ward leaders and committee people who can help gather signatures at polling places, community meetings, and door-to-door canvassing efforts.
But getting on the ballot is only half the battle. In competitive judicial elections, ballot challenges are a common tactic, and the party plays a major role in shaping the final list of candidates. Endorsed candidates often receive legal and financial backing to challenge the petition signatures of their opponents, potentially knocking them off the ballot entirely before voters even have a chance to weigh in.
Election Day Operations: The Party’s Secret Weapon
Perhaps the biggest advantage of a party endorsement is the massive, built-in get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation that comes with it. The Philadelphia Democratic Party has more than 3,000 elected committee people, volunteers who serve as the party’s grassroots network in every neighborhood of the city. On Election Day, these committee people are stationed at polling places, handing out sample ballots that highlight the party’s endorsed candidates—a crucial advantage in an election where most voters walk into the booth with little prior knowledge of the judicial candidates.
This ground game is particularly powerful in judicial races, where even a small boost in name recognition can translate into victory. In an election with a crowded field, where voter turnout for judicial races is typically lower than for higher-profile offices, having thousands of party-backed volunteers urging voters to support endorsed candidates can swing the results in a significant way.
The Democratic Party’s Influence on the Bench
The influence of the Philadelphia Democratic Party in judicial elections isn’t just about winning campaigns—it’s about shaping the composition of the city’s courts. Party-backed candidates have a clear advantage in reaching voters, which means that the party plays an outsized role in determining who becomes a judge and what kind of legal philosophy they bring to the bench.
Of course, not every judge who wins is backed by the party, and other organizations—such as the Philadelphia Bar Association—also play a role in vetting candidates. But there’s no denying that in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a massive margin, the party endorsement remains the single most influential factor in deciding who gets elected to serve as a judge.
For judicial candidates, securing the party’s backing isn’t just a boost—it’s often the key to victory. And for voters, understanding this process is essential to making informed decisions in elections that have long-term consequences for Philadelphia’s legal system.