By Ethan Vance
staff writer | vancee@duq.edu

One day after the midterm elections on Nov. 3, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices gathered at Duquesne University to discuss topics like free and fair elections.

The Thomas R. Kline Center for Judicial Education partnered with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to host a 250th celebration of Pennsylvania’s first constitution.

“They’ve sent the contentious issue of abortion and sent it back to the states, to be dealt with under state constitutions,” said Chief Justice Emeritus Thomas Saylor. “With the participation of the legislature and the governor, some would say that’s really the federalist model that the framers had in mind.”

All seven Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices were at the event, with many speaking on discussion panels, including religious freedom, environmental and equal rights and fair and free elections.

The event started with a keynote speech from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton. He discussed topics like the death penalty.

The death penalty has faced criticism in the U.S. recently after the botched execution of Christa Pike.

“If I had my dues, we wouldn’t have a death penalty,” Sutton said. “Sadly, if you read my decisions you would wonder about that. I’m kind of a grouchy judge and just follow the law, and the U.S. Constitution clearly contemplates the death penalty.”

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was unconstitutional in the case of Furman v. Georgia. Justices voted 5-4 and said the death penalty violated the Eighth and 14th Amendments, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

However, this was walked back after Gregg v. Georgia in 1976 overruled it.

Sutton said courts must be careful when they determine the legality of important issues like the death penalty.

“I’m not saying there would never have been another execution in the country,” Sutton said. “But I am saying nationalization at the wrong time, with the wrong right, might actually undermine the clause you care so righteously about.”

The event continued later with the environmental and equal rights panel. It featured Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Christine Donohue and Daniel McCaffery, as well as Jerry Dickinson, professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh, and John Dernbach, professor of law at Widener University.

Donohue discussed her father’s time as a coal miner, the industry’s decline and how deep mining for coal affected the environment.

“There was a time in Pennsylvania where we had beautiful pristine rivers, streams and forests,” Donohue said. “As time developed, the economic raid attended to forcing and reaping the benefits of all those resources.”

McCaffery then discussed issues future generations will contend with.

“Some of the emerging issues are going to be things like data centers,” said McCaffery. “The centers, we all heard over these political ads, are very, very, very energy intensive.”

The event ended with a panel discussion on fair and free elections.

With the recent midterm elections, President Donald Trump seemed to have accepted the results, telling the New York Times that he would. Though, on Monday morning, Trump took to Truth Social to question if the election was honest.

Following the 2020 presidential election, Trump and other Republicans also claimed the election was rigged against them during multiple speeches.

“The best thing about waking up this morning was seeing the president’s first thing he said was, ‘I will honor the results,’” said Mark Alexander, a professor of law at Villanova University. “At a time where we’ve had so many challenges, I believe that for us, it’s really important.”

Other topics on the panel included gerrymandering, the practice of states redrawing congressional districts to try and favor one political party.

States like Texas and Florida voluntarily redrew their maps to gain seats for the Republicans, while California and Utah answered back with maps to help Democratic gains in the midterms, according to BallotPedia.

During the 2018 midterm election cycle, Donohue and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were tasked with redistricting the election map after former Governor Tom Wolf and the Republican-controlled General Assembly could not come to an agreement on a new one.

“This case proved to be extremely controversial and in fact the justices, majority, were threatened with impeachment,” Donohue said. “This court really showed its ability to stand up and undertake its constitutional duties in a very difficult and controversial area at the time.”

Despite the controversy, Donohue said she stood by the work she and the court did.

“Our decisions served as an important reminder that the Pennsylvania Constitution from its inception to today, provides significant protection to our citizens,” she said.