Mar 18, 2013 2 min read

Chester County attorney Samuel Stretton, at the direction of the Pennsylvania Association of Jury Commissioners, filed a petition Monday with Commonwealth Court to clear up the legal limbo now that the filing deadline for countywide offices, including that of jury commissioner, passed last week.

The filing deadline was March 12, and the state Supreme Court ruled two days later that the law permitting county commissioners to abolish the office of jury commissioner was unconstitutional.

Stretton asked Commonwealth Court to schedule another two-week period during which nominating petition signatures can be gathered by jury commissioner candidates.

Meanwhile, the Department of State, which has authority in Pennsylvania election matters, is, before noon Friday, to advise the court of the feasibility of placing the jury commissioner office on the ballot for either the May 21 primary or the Nov. 5 general election.

Washington County Republican Jury Commissioner Richard Zimmerman of North Strabane Township was one of the appellants in the case decided Thursday by the state Supreme Court, which found the state law unconstitutional because legislation allowing county commissioners to eliminate the offices was “log-rolled” with bills on unrelated topics.

Meanwhile, on her Facebook page Monday, Judith L. Fisher, incumbent Democratic jury commissioner for Washington County, announced her intention to seek a sixth four-year term.

Fisher attempted to file nominating petitions for the office last week at the Washington County elections office, but her petitions were rejected because of an earlier Supreme Court decision.

“Unlike a computer system that can only print out names and addresses, the jury commissioners have to also qualify a potential juror,” she said in her news release.

The Pennsylvania State Association of Jury Commissioners contends the now-unconstitutional law was legally unsound for other reasons, including violation of the separation of powers, because the law allowed the commissioners to act in the realm of the judiciary. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on that allegation since the justices already had ruled the law unconstitutional on the issue of “bundling” legislation.

“We strongly believe the legislation did violate the separation of powers,” said Larry Thompson, president of the association, in a news release.

“I hope the Legislature does not reintroduce the bill under the misguided belief that the law would pass legal muster. We don’t want to have to come back to the court to fight another unconstitutional law.”