Författare: Richardson Dilworth Professor of Politics Drexel University

Pennsylvania’s red shift in the 2024 election wasn’t isolated to the presidential race.

Statewide races for attorney general, auditor general and state treasurer all went to the Republican candidates, and the AP declared Republican David McCormick the winner against Democratic incumbent Bob Casey in the state’s U.S. Senate race – although the very tight margin, which could trigger an automatic recount.

Pennsylvania was and still is the swingiest of the swing states. In fact, going into the 2024 election, it was the only U.S. state to have a divided legislature. Republicans had a majority in the Senate, but Democrats held a one-vote majority in the House.

Surprisingly, the composition of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, including its split control, has remained largely the same after the 2024 voting.

As a Philadelphia-based political science professor who focuses on state and local politics, I believe Pennsylvania’s General Assembly remained so stable in the face of statewide electoral upheaval for three reasons: a lack of competitive state legislative districts, the small size of those districts and the fact that some Pennsylvania voters still vote for the representative and not the party despite the country’s stark political divide.

Republican David McCormick, right, appears to have beaten three-term Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey by about half of a percentage point.
Matt Rourke/AP

Slight churn in PA Senate

Let’s look at the light churn in the state Senate first.

Democrat Patty Kim won the 15th Senate district in Dauphin County, which had previously been held by a Republican who retired.

Meanwhile, 29-year-old Republican challenger Joe Picozzi beat incumbent Democrat Jimmy Dillon in a tight race in the 5th Senate district in Northeast Philadelphia. Picozzi is poised to become the first Republican state senator to represent Philly in over 20 years.

The other senators who were up for reelection kept their seats. So, with one Democratic pickup and one for the Republicans, control of the state senate remains unchanged.

A few tough races in the PA House

All 203 seats were up for grabs in the House. While the vast majority had clear front-runners, there were some tough races. These were most notably in the “collar counties” that surround Philadelphia.

One was the 172nd House district, which covers a part of relatively Republican northeast Philadelphia but also extends into neighboring Montgomery County. This was the district where incumbent Kevin Boyle – the brother of U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle – lost the Democratic primary after he had an outburst at a bar that made news headlines. So there was no incumbent in the race. The Democratic candidate, Sean Dougherty, squeaked out a victory with a less than 500-vote margin.

Then there was the 144th House district in Bucks County, a swing county that flipped red in terms of having more registered Republican voters than Democrats just a few months before the election.

Two years ago, Brian Munroe, a Democrat, narrowly won his seat – a seat that had been held by a Republican for over half a century. He faced another competitive race in 2024 and appears to have defeated his Republican challenger, Daniel McPhillips, by about 1,000 votes.

What clinched Democrats’ one-vote majority in the state House was the race in the 72nd House district in deep-red Cambria County.

Cambria is a county in the middle of the state that favored Trump by 36 percentage points. Yet in the 72nd district, Democratic incumbent Frank Burns beat his challenger, Republican Amy Bradley, by nearly 1,000 votes.

This was a close race, but what is amazing is that it was competitive at all. In 2020, Burns won with 52.7% of the vote, despite more than two-thirds of voters in the county choosing Trump that year.

A voter casts his ballot in Pittsburgh in Allegheny County, the only county in western Pennsylvania that sided with Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
Rebecca Droke/AFP via Getty Images

Some voters still split their ticket

Probably since the 1960s, but definitely since the 1990s, Americans have become more partisan. This typically means that they are more likely to vote a party ticket and not split their ticket.

In 2020, for instance, survey data from the Pew Research Center found that only 4% of voters who supported either Biden or Trump supported a Senate candidate from the opposing party.

And, to a great extent, this was also the case in the election on Nov. 5 in Pennsylvania. In all of the statewide races, the winning and losing candidates’ percentages were within 4 percentage points of their fellow partisans up and down the ticket.

But a few Democrats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives won in their elections despite the fact that they are in relatively deep-red parts of the state. This includes Frank Burns in the 72nd district and also Robert Matzie in the 16th district in Beaver County. Beaver County sits on the western edge of the state between Allegheny County and Ohio in strongly Republican country – it voted for Trump by 21 points. Yet, Matzie beat his Republican challenger, Michael Perich, by more than 1,500 votes.

Voters in Beaver County overwhelmingly chose Trump, but some split their tickets on a down-ballot state House race.
Jeff Swensen via Getty Images

Small districts, microcommunities

Part of the explanation for why at least some Democrats can buck the red wave is Pennsylvania’s relatively small state House districts.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members in 203 districts. Since the state population is about 13 million, each district has close to 64,000 people in it. Compare that with the Ohio legislature, where each of the 99 state House districts has about 119,000 people. In New York state, each state House district has about 134,000 people.

As a result, Pennsylvania’s small House districts can capture microcommunities that are politically distinct from their surrounding areas. Take, for instance, Matzie’s 16th district in Beaver County, on the border with Ohio. The district went overwhelmingly for Trump, but it also includes a small portion of the county that lies close to Pittsburgh and includes the old industrial town of Aliquippa. It’s not a Democratic stronghold, per se, but it’s more Democratic than the rest of the county and elected a Democratic mayor, Dwan Walker.

Similarly, the 72nd district is in Cambria County, which went to Trump by 36 points, but the district itself includes Johnstown, which is the largest city in the county. Johnstown’s population of about 18,000 represents about a third of the district, and residents lean slightly more Democratic. Like Aliquippa, it also has a Democratic mayor.

A 203-member Pennsylvania House of Representatives is expensive, especially since each legislator has a reasonably generous budget that includes money for staff and a district office. But these smaller districts can provide more fine-grained representation for Pennsylvanians, who, despite the red shift, are more likely to be registered Democrats than Republicans – though Democrats certainly feel like a minority for now. Läs mer…

On Oct. 28, 2024, just over a week before Election Day, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a civil lawsuit against Elon Musk to stop his US$1 million voter sweepstakes from continuing in Pennsylvania. Musk, through his America PAC, has been giving $1 million to registered voters in key battleground states who pledge their support for the First and Second amendments.
According to the America PAC petition page, at least 13 people have been awarded $1 million through the giveaway – four of them in Pennsylvania.

The first hearing in the case was scheduled for Oct. 31, 2024, before a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas judge, but Musk did not show up, and his lawyers requested the case be moved to federal court instead.

The Conversation U.S. asked Richardson Dilworth, a professor of politics at Drexel University, to explain what’s known about the lawsuit and whether it could make any difference in the election outcome in Pennsylvania.

What do we know about the lawsuit?

Krasner is accusing Musk and his pro-Trump America PAC of running an “illegal lottery” in Philadelphia and throughout Pennsylvania.

To be eligible to win the $1 million giveaway, a person must be a registered voter in one of seven swing states and sign a “petition” pledging their support for the First and Second amendments to the U.S. Constitution – which protect freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, among other rights. Participants can also receive $47 for each registered voter they refer who signs the petition.

It is a federal crime to pay people to register to vote, and the Department of Justice warned Musk and his America PAC that the giveaway could result in a criminal investigation. But it was just a warning – the federal government has not taken any legal action.

Pennsylvania, one of the seven swing states where the giveaway is offered, does not make it illegal to pay people to register to vote. So state officials, including county district attorneys such as Krasner, can’t sue Musk or his PAC on that basis.

But Pennsylvania does have laws that govern lotteries operating in the state. And Krasner is claiming that Musk and America PAC are running what amounts to a lottery, and that it is an illegal lottery because it violates state regulations that govern lotteries.

Musk’s lawyers filed to move the case to federal court. But the federal district judge it was temporarily assigned to could decide to send it back to state court. The Washington Post reported that it’s not immediately clear when the next hearing will be.

Is paying Philadelphians cash to get them to vote or register to vote unheard of?

Not really. For example, the Philadelphia Citizen, a news and opinion website, held lotteries for voters in 2015, 2017 and 2021. Prizes ranged from $1,000 to $10,000.

The Citizen created the lottery not to help any particular candidate but as an experiment in simply encouraging Philadelphians to vote – particularly in odd-year city elections when voter turnout tends to be the lowest. Based on the terms and conditions, which can still be found on their website, the Citizen appears to have been more careful than Musk was in following state law.

As for Musk’s America PAC giveaway, details of how it works – including how winners are selected – are murky. The terms and conditions do not appear to be anywhere on the PAC website, and I couldn’t find anything on the X accounts of Musk or the America PAC either. If Musk has published them anywhere, they’re not easy to find.

Besides the Citizen’s lottery, another similar practice that’s common in Philadelphia during election cycles is when Philadelphia’s party officials – ward leaders and committee people – are given “street money,” also called “Election Day money” or “Get-out-the-vote money.”

The money comes from different levels of the Democratic Party – from Philadelphia’s Democratic City Committee to presidential nominees. The funds are meant to encourage local partisans to get out the vote for chosen candidates, which ostensibly also encourages people to register to vote. The party workers can do whatever they want with the money – it’s intended as a stipend for their efforts.

Even though the sums of money given to these folks is relatively small, typically a few hundred dollars apiece, it can add up given there are roughly 3,500 Democratic and Republican committee people.

This is not a lottery, and money is not directly being given to people to register to vote or to vote at all. It is given to people whose job includes trying to get people to register to vote if they are likely to support specific candidates. But Musk’s America PAC giveaway also doesn’t actually pay people to register to vote, but rather makes voter registration a requirement of eligibility.

Finally, it is not uncommon for stores in Philly to give away things like coffee or donuts to people who come in with an “I voted” sticker. This practice is ostensibly paying people to vote, though it’s one no one seems to care much about.

Why is this case being filed in Philly and not another part of the state, or another state?

I’d argue it has a lot to do with Krasner’s personality.

Krasner has a higher national profile than most district attorneys. His election received national attention because he is probably the city’s most liberal district attorney ever elected, and he received support from national PACs, including one affiliated with George Soros, a billionaire donor associated with liberal causes.

Also, Pennsylvania is arguably the most crucial swing state and one very likely to be decided by the thinnest margin. Both campaigns are desperate to win Pennsylvania.

There is no evidence that I’m aware of that Krasner is acting as a partisan. There certainly seems to be legitimate legal grounds for his complaint. However, if he is successful, it would likely benefit Democrats.

District Attorney Larry Krasner stands between his lawyers after a hearing in Philadelphia over a lawsuit he filed against Elon Musk and his $1M giveaway.
Drew Hallowell via Getty Images

Could the lottery or its injunction actually sway the election?

The lawsuit states that America PAC has received over 280,000 signatures from people who are registered voters in Pennsylvania. It’s not clear how many of those people were already registered to vote.

But even if the lottery increases voter registration in the state, it might not make a difference in terms of how Pennsylvanians vote or even whether they vote. If a person is persuaded to register to vote only because someone paid them, will they be motivated to spend the time and energy to go to the polls?

Also, the Krasner suit alleges that the lottery winners have disproportionately been people who signed up at Trump rallies – an argument for why he believes it’s deceptive. Krasner’s complaint contends that it’s a violation of consumer protection because “though Musk says that a winner’s selection is ‘random,’ that appears false because multiple winners that have been selected are individuals who have shown up at Trump rallies in Pennsylvania.” So, if the lotteries have been juicing enthusiasm among people who were already going to vote for Trump, they won’t have much impact on the actual election outcome.

It’s also possible that the lottery and petition signatures are not about the 2024 election but about collecting lists of names and other information about potential voters that can be sold or otherwise used for future elections. Krasner’s complaint mentions that the lottery and petition are collecting personal information.

As for the possible injunction, the next hearing has not yet been scheduled. With Election Day so near, and so many votes already cast, it’s hard to imagine that halting the giveaway now would have a notable impact anyway.

But given the likely very small margin of victory – Biden won Pennsylvania in 2020 by a little over 80,000 votes – even small shifts in voter outcomes can alter the outcome. Läs mer…