Dougherty, Dems sweep Pa. Supreme Court race

AND SO from the ashes of yet another nobody knows/nobody cares statewide judicial election come results open to interpretation about state politics and the state's political future.

Three Democrats with strong union backing, including Philly Judge Kevin Dougherty, swept three open seats on the state's highest (and sometimes highly embarrassed) court.

Their win in what national court-watchers call the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history, topping $15 million, gives Democrats majority control of the seven-member court beginning in January.

So, are Democrats and unions clawing back?

Is the stage now set for long-term Democratic gains in Harrisburg?

Or is it simply that judicial politics, like the rest of politics, is mostly about the money?

It's likely no coincidence that the top three vote-getters in a seven-candidate race were also the top three fundraisers.

It's even possible that holding the top three ballot positions got them votes from voters without a clue.

But it's mostly the money.

Democrats outraised and outspent Republicans by far, as did independent spending groups backing Democrats, which in itself raises questions.

The Democratic dough came from trial lawyers and unions, while once-touted GOP funding from the feared conservative Koch Brothers remained but a rumor.

"They outspent us 5-to-1, or something like that," said state Republican Chairman Rob Gleason, "to stop the erosion of union benefits."

The race had lots of TV ads and mailers but little public interest.

Says Gleason, "It's been crazy; I'm for merit selection."

With 80 percent of the vote counted, Democratic Superior Court Judges David Wecht and Christine Donohue, both of Allegheny County, were, along with Dougherty, easily leading three Republicans and an independent candidate, Philly Common Pleas Judge Paul Panepinto.

Dougherty's win expands the reputation, if not the fact, of the political power of his brother, John "Johnny Doc" Dougherty, who heads Philly's electricians union and who becomes chief of the Philadelphia Building and Construction Trades Council on Dec. 1.

And Democratic court wins are good for unions.

Republicans control both state House and Senate and are pushing laws that unions oppose, such as reducing public pension benefits, privatizing state stores and preventing automatic collection of dues and political contributions from public-sector union members.

When these issues get to the high court, as they almost certainly will, unions (reasonably) believe it's to their advantage if it's a high Democratic court.

Come January, it will be.

Then there's the long term.

Democrats whine about Republicans in the Legislature and on the Supreme Court skewing legislative districts to GOP advantage.

If the Supreme Court, final arbiter of redistricting, maintains a Democratic majority through 2020, it can effectively determine the shape and size of new House and Senate seats following that year's census.

Democratic Party state chairman Marcel Groen put it this way: "The No. 1 issue [in the race] was redistricting . . . people have a right to competitive races, and competitive races lead to a good Legislature."

On one hand, it is semi-stunning that Democrats swept in an off-year election that usually favors Republicans and in judicial races that generally favor Republicans.

On the other hand, the court was under Republican control during scandals over campaign abuse and pornography swapping.

But it's really more the money.

And so we're left with at least the perception that our high court is peopled with folks who garner enough funds from special interests to win elections that too few people vote in.

And that perception's just not open to interpretation.

The possible good news? A merit-selection bill is out of committee and poised for action in the House.

Email: baerj@phillynews.com

Blog: ph.ly/BaerGrowls

Columns: ph.ly/JohnBaer