We are all tired of politics, but we cannot afford to tune it all out. This upcoming election could have serious consequences. The ballot may look quiet, but some key races will shape how justice and accountability work in the city we call home for years. I will be voting for Tsai, Neuman, Brady, and Krasner to support fairness, transparency, and reform.
Commonwealth Court: Tsai vs Wolford
This court handles appeals involving the government, including election-related disputes. Stella Tsai, a former judge on the Court of Common Pleas, has a history of protecting voters, immigrants, and civil rights. Her opponent, Matt Wolford, positions himself as a strict constructionist who believes judges should avoid “legislating from the bench.” While this phrase has been part of judicial debate for decades, it is often invoked by conservatives today to delegitimize courts that check executive or legislative overreach.
Furthermore, Wolford’s endorsement from Gun Owners of America PA should raise serious concerns. GOA opposes even basic measures like universal background checks and red flag laws, policies that make sense in today’s time. In contrast, Tsai’s judicial philosophy emphasizes equity, accountability, and the fair representation of law, values that are far better suited to ensuring that justice serves everyone.
Superior Court: Neuman vs Battista vs Wassmer
The Superior Court is Pennsylvania’s second-highest appellate court, handling most criminal appeals and private civil cases. In this race, voters have three choices: Democrat Brandon Neuman, Republican Maria Battista, and Liberal Party Daniel Wassmer.
Neuman is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, which consistently lobbies against police reform. The endorsement signals a judicial philosophy that tends to side with law enforcement over civil liberties. That should be especially concerning to students and minorities, who are often the first to feel the effects when courts defer too heavily to police testimony.
Battista, meanwhile, identifies as an originalist. Originalism, which interprets the Constitution strictly by its 18th-century meaning, sounds principled, but more often than not leads to outcomes that fail to protect modern rights, like digital privacy, which are positions that belong to a past America, not the one we live in now.
Wassmer, by contrast, has built his campaign around equality and liberty for all. Though many voters hesitate to fear “split the vote,” judicial elections are not winner-take-all political contests. These elections hinge less on party control and more on the quality and philosophy of individual jurists. Casting a vote for Wassmer is an affirmation that the judiciary should represent independent voices committed to fairness and inclusion.
City Controller: Brady vs Patrinos
The office of the City Controller is Philadelphia’s independent overseer for fiscal responsibility. It conducts audits, tracks City spending, and investigates mismanagement in the spending of taxpayer dollars.
The incumbent, Christy Brady, has years of experience inside the Controller’s office and has a reputation for knowing the mechanics of city finance. Her level of domain expertise is especially valuable for an office so heavy on technical oversight.
Her challenger, Ari Patrinos, meanwhile, also has extensive experience… in New York’s financial sector. While his experience in the financial sector is legitimate, it is less focused on municipal audit or government accounting.
District Attorney: Krasner vs Dugan
The race for the Philadelphia District Attorney between incumbent Lawrence Krasner and challenger Patrick Dugan is easily the most visible and contentious. Krasner has built his reputation on reimagining what justice looks like by reducing the prison population, overturning wrongful convictions, and refusing to treat poverty as a crime. His opponent, Dugan, is running on a traditional “tough on crime” platform. While that might sound appealing to people nostalgic for the 1990s, in reality, it means returning to an era of mass incarceration, over-policing, and systemic injustice that destroyed countless lives and communities, especially poor and Black Philadelphians.
Beyond the moral argument, the harms of mass incarceration are well-documented. Incarcerating large numbers of people leads to worse outcomes. Housing instability, in turn, increases the risk of recidivism. Krasner’s reforms are rooted in data and human decency. For students who believe in a justice system that actually values justice, the choice could not be clearer. Philadelphia deserves to keep moving forward.
The ballot may seem light, but it is no less important. These four races will set the bar for how justice operates in Philadelphia for a decade, and these candidates stand for fairness, accountability, and reform. You have the day off for this reason. Just a few minutes of informed voting can safeguard years of progress. It is what a truly savvy student would do.