On a particularly cold morning last week, more than 50 people filled the gallery of the Allegheny County Courthouse where Common Pleas Judge Dwayne Woodruff announced his plans to run for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Former Pittsburgh Steelers (Woodruff's old teammates) stood shoulder-to-shoulder with local lawyers and politicians. Others pushed their way to the front, vying for prime spots to take pictures with their smartphones.

"I've never seen this many people come out for a Supreme Court announcement," said Shawn Flaherty, Woodruff's former law partner.

But, unlike the packed announcement last week, state Supreme Court elections tend to have low turnouts. In 2009, the most recent Supreme Court election, a little more than 215,000 votes were cast in Allegheny County. That's fewer than one-third of the county's registered voters.

"One of the reasons for that is other elections are more glamorous," says Sam Hens-Greco, chair of the 14th Ward Democratic Committee. "Court elections are sort of mysterious. If people knew the impact [the Supreme Court has], we'd probably have a greater turnout."

And that might just happen this year. For the first time in the state's history, there are three seats up for grabs, and a dozen candidates have already jumped into the race.

"It's probably going to have the biggest long-term impact of any race out there," says Hens-Greco, whose 14th Ward committee is planning a candidate forum at Chatham University on Jan. 25, with all candidates scheduled to appear. "It's rare that you get three seats open in one year. The three people who get elected will probably be sitting on the bench for some very important decisions."

Pennsylvania and Illinois are the only two states with Supreme Court races this year. Analysts say this, combined with scandals involving the court in recent years, will bring national attention to the state race.

click to enlarge The Allegheny County Courthouse gallery was filled for Judge Woodruff's announcement

"Because the court has been in the news so much lately, unfortunately in a negative way, perhaps there will be more attention brought to this race," says Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a court watchdog organization. "It also most likely will gain national attention. Chances are, national political parties and interest groups will be following it and pouring in lots of money."

Jurists chosen in the 2015 election will be set to preside over some of the most important cases of this generation, analysts say. But getting voters excited about Supreme Court races, when many still don't understand what the judges do, could continue to pose a challenge.

"It's going to face future controversies involving the Marcellus Shale boom, the right to vote, the right to clean air and clean water, the rights of people to face a jury of their peers," says Superior Court Judge David Wecht, one of the candidates. "When the legislative branches of government are in gridlock like they are now, most disputes of great conflict end up in the court, and the Supreme Court is the court of last resort."

The recent controversy surrounding Pennsylvania's Supreme Court began in 2012 when former Justice Joan Orie Melvin was indicted for using legislative and judicial staff for campaign work. She was convicted following her trial, in 2013, and sentenced to three years' house arrest.

Then, last year, Justice Seamus McCaffery resigned after he was linked to the statewide pornographic email scandal. McCaffrey was just one of several dozen state officials and employees who used the state's email system to exchange the inappropriate missives.

These two incidents and the retirement earlier this month of Justice Ronald Castille have led to the court's three vacancies.

"The Supreme Court does not enjoy a good reputation," says state Superior Court Judge Anne Lazarus, another candidate. "A number of its members have left under somewhat dubious circumstances. No matter who is lucky enough to be awarded an opinion on the court, our Supreme Court should be one of integrity."

In addition to bringing attention to the upcoming election, the state Supreme Court's poor reputation is also what drew candidates like Lazarus and Woodruff.

"We need to make sure that doesn't happen again," says Woodruff, who was elected to the Court of Common Pleas in 2005. "I want to influence the court toward integrity and justice."

Another reason so many candidates have joined the race is a pending constitutional amendment to raise the Supreme Court retirement age from 70 to 75. The amendment could be decided on referendum in 2015 or 2016. If it passes, it might be a long time before another seat opens up, and the judges elected this year could serve on the bench for decades.

Supreme Court judges serve 10-year terms, after which they must be affirmed with a majority yes vote. Only one judge has ever failed to win retention.

"If a statute at the legislature is challenged, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide if it's constitutional," says Superior Court Judge Christine Donohue, another candidate. "They are the ultimate decision-maker of the constitutionality of any statute. They're deciding the biggest issues with the broadest impact. That's why this will be a highly contested election."

"Pennsylvanians are going to have an unprecedented opportunity to place justices on the court," says Wecht. "This race is going to impact the lives of Pennsylvanians for decades and perhaps generations."

While the public might be familiar with the recent scandals in the Supreme Court, fewer are familiar with how the Supreme Court operates, the power its jurists possess and how candidates should be evaluated.

"I know judicial races are often under the radar, even at the highest court," says Marks, of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts. "But it's a shame because judicial decisions impact all aspects of our lives, from where our kids go to school, child-custody issues, fracking and discrimination. Even if we aren't involved in a case, we can be affected by it."

In December, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a 2007 judgment in favor of approximately 1870,000 Walmart workers who claimed they were not properly compensated. The ruling will force Walmart to reimburse $188 million to employees.

This past year, the Supreme Court also ruled against a state law giving the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection zoning authority over all oil and gas development across the state.

And earlier this month, the court decided that Pennsylvania's sex-offender registry is unconstitutional when it comes to juvenile offenders.

"The impact the court has is tremendous, and it can affect your rights," Hens-Greco says. "Take [reproductive] choice. There are laws that require [abortion] clinics now to be little emergency centers. Are those restrictions necessary? If a clinic challenges that, it will probably make its way to the Supreme Court."

Among the upcoming issues the elected judges will face is redistricting. In certain cases, the Supreme Court selects one of the five people on the committee responsible for redrawing election maps every 10 years, after the U.S. census. The next map will be drawn after the 2020 U.S. Census.

"Some good reasoned jurists are really important to that," says Don Friedman, a local political consultant. "I don't think people recognize how important it is. If you put three good jurists in there, the court looks pretty good. If we put three bad jurists in there for longer than most of us will be alive, the state will suffer from bad decisions."

It can be challenging, however, to determine whether a candidate will make a good or bad addition to the state Supreme Court. Even though judges address some of society's most contentious issues, like abortion and gun laws, judges are supposed to be impartial, and candidates therefore cannot campaign on typical hot-button issues.

"When you contrast it with other elections, like city council or mayor, you can ask them about traffic problems, economic-development issues, safety issues, potholes, taxes, all those things," says Hens-Greco. "But what do you ask a judge? ‘Are you fair? Are you honest?' And how do you determine that?"

Since candidates can't comment on cases that could come before the court, Marks says voters should evaluate them on their legal experience. If the candidate is a sitting judge in another court, that could include his or her reputation for fairness in the courtroom.

But Pennsylvania is also one of only six states that elect all judges in partisan elections, which means most voters will choose candidates along party lines. That distinction contrasts with the idea that judges should be impartial and not evaluated on their beliefs.

"In Pennsylvania, they do run on a party line, so it's difficult to think they're not going to follow the party like politicians," says Marks. "But there are certainly issues of judges deciding cases against what they personally believe."

To illustrate her point, Marks points to recently retired Chief Justice Castile, who identifies as a Republican but voted against the state's voter-ID law, and against the state's attempt to overrule local zoning authority in cases involving Marcellus Shale drilling. Those decisions were in strict opposition to the state GOP's position on those issues.

"I know it sounds kind of Pollyannaish to say they don't have personal feelings, but they're supposed to put them aside and they often do," says Marks. "Of course, everyone has personal beliefs, but you want a judge who's going to be open-minded and listen to all sides of the issue before deciding."