By Madison Madison Kwiecinski

Living in the political realm that we are in 2023, it is easy to picture how issues on the national stage can oftentimes feel distant from the average voter, or how it is easy for some people to lose sight of the value an individual vote can hold. However, one upcoming local election in Pennsylvania, that some voters may not even be aware of quickly approaching, has the potential to have ramifications that are felt across the country in next year’s Presidential election.

In less than one month’s time, Pennsylvania voters should be visiting their local polling station to cast a ballot in favor of either Democrat Dan McCaffery or Republican candidate Carolyn Carluccio for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Whichever judge is elected to the position next month has the potential power to shape the course of the 2024 presidential election by helping decide critical lawsuits over voting issues.

After 2020, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court voted to dismiss a lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump alleging Philadelphia officials violated state election law while tallying ballots, it has become clear the Supreme Court in each state has the potential power to decide critical questions in regards to election scrutiny.

In addition, since 2020, Act 77 has been a contentious piece of legislation in Pennsylvania that has already been deemed something the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will have to evaluate. Act 77 is the legal standing for PA allowing voters to cast their ballot via mail-in-voting.

Dan Mallinons, as Associate Professor of Public Policy at Penn State University said to USA TODAY, “The state Supreme Court often ends up being the final arbiter of these kinds of disputes,” and he has a very valid point. The party with the final say in these debates holds a benefit in the upcoming elections.

McCaffery the Democratic candidate for the seat, has addressed the fact that is it plausible that if Trump lost the 2024 race election fraud allegations may be seen by the Supreme Court in PA again, and has said that, “If he has a matter in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and I’m on it, he will get a fair and final opportunity to present his case fairly, and then I will make an impartial decision on the merits of the case.”

Carluccio has taken a different stance, having previously publicly criticized Act 77 saying it has been bad for the Commonwealth. She has also stated, however, that she would apply the law if she were on the court since, “election laws must be applied consistently.”

“I am not an activist judge,” Carluccio stated once when clarifying her position on the way in which she would rule on the court. “I cannot emphasize that enough. It is not my role, nor should it be any judge’s role to change the law or to write the law or to implement policy.”

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court currently has a 4-2 Democratic majority, following the death of democratic justice Max Baer last year. This means that if Republican Carluccio is elected, the overall balance of the court will not change but the margin between the two parties will narrow.

However, just because the majority  justices on the court belong to the same political party does not mean they will always take the same side on highly contentious political issues. For example, the court has a current 3-3 split on the issue on counting ballots that have not been dated or were dated incorrectly. This means this issue will likely be decided by whichever candidate wins the upcoming election.

The election will take place on Nov. 7, and although the Democrats on the court cannot lose their majority in this election, it does have the potential to tighten the balance to an extent where the next Supreme Court justice appointed after this would have the potential to flip the scales.

Carluccio and McCaffrey have been their parties’ prospective nominees since they each won their respective primary in May.

Pennsylvania is a swing state where many divisive issues have made or may soon make their way to the Supreme Court. For example, abortion has been a debate nationwide lately since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is soon supposed to take on a case deciding Medicaid coverage for abortions in the state.

However, in regard to the debate, Carlussio has stated, “I’ve consistently indicted…I know the law in Pennsylvania is that a woman’s right to choose, a woman;s reproductive rights, are protected under Pennsylvania law, and I have no interest in taking that away. I will be applying that law. I’ve never said anything other than that,”

McCaffery has made some bold allegations in reward to how his opponent is portraying her beliefs in a way that panders to her base.

“My opponent ran as a pro-life, pro-gun candidate, and then right after the primary season’s over she scrubbed all references to pro-life and pro-gun from her website.” McCaffery stated. “I think that’s what really drove this discussion, because a lot of people saw that and they started asking questions about, why would you bring it up and actively campaign as a pro-life candidate, and then basically erase it from your platform and deny that it’s an issue.”

Carluccio has similarly made criticisms of McCaffery, seeming to refer to him as an “activist judge” who meshes his party with his politics too much.

Regardless, it is up to the Pennsylvania voters to weigh the pros and cons of each of these candidates before casting their ballots on Nov. 7. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will soon fill this vacant spot, adding power to one of the two parties on the court prior to this Presidential election season.