Notice: Undefined variable: paywall_console_msg in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/includes/single/single_post_meta_query.php on line 71
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/single.php on line 18
Notice: Trying to get property 'cat_ID' of non-object in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/single.php on line 18
OP-ED: Regional vote for judges a great idea

Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/includes/single/strategically_placed_photos_article.php on line 412
Notice: Trying to get property 'term_id' of non-object in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/includes/single/strategically_placed_photos_article.php on line 412
In its Jan. 24 editorial, the Observer-Reporter opines that electing Pennsylvania’s appellate court judges regionally, rather than statewide, is a bad idea.
The major faults that the O-R finds with regional elections are: it would diminish the influence of Democrat-heavy Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; it would serve to politicize the bench more than it is; and that it would give the Legislature inordinate power over who sits on the appellate courts.
I agree with the O-R’s first observation, that regional elections would diminish the inordinate influence of Democrat-heavy Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and believe that can only be good. The second issue, that of further politicizing the courts, is hard to contemplate as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is possibly the most politicized and activist Supreme Court in the nation and the Commonwealth Court has issued its share of fairly political opinions. The third issue, the Legislature controlling the court through redistricting, is pretty far-fetched since redistricting only occurs every 10 years and the districts would be large.
The demand to change the way the appellate judiciary are elected would not be an issue if it were not for problems that the judges that sit on those courts have created.
It is the function of the appellate judiciary to interpret the laws that the Legislature passes and to review decisions of the lower courts for errors of law. The state Supreme Court has become increasingly activist, frequently legislating from the bench and handing down many partisan decisions. This was especially evident when it stepped into the legislative domain with no constitutional mandate to redraw voting district maps and when it changed voting law in the recent election, again with no constitutional mandate. When judges become essentially immune from redress through the ballot box because they are elected by huge majorities from overwhelmingly partisan areas, something must change.
Sixty percent, or 19 of the 31 appellate court judges, live in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. Philadelphia is 76% Democratic in registration. Allegheny County is 57% Democratic in registration. Between the two areas, that is one-third of the Democratic votes in the state. Twenty-two percent of the state’s population lives in those two areas and they control 60% of the judges and many of those judges are decidedly partisan. That means that the other 65 counties in the state effectively influenced the selection of only 12 judges.
The concern that the smaller counties might have some influence is telling. This is the same naked lust for control as is expressed by those who want to abolish the Electoral College and effectively disenfranchise the smaller, rural states. The O-R bemoans the fact that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh would not be able to wipe out the smaller counties with their massive vote. I believe the statement was, “there would be a lot of wasted votes.” Wasted how? That Philadelphia’s votes wouldn’t wipe out the expressions of the more rural counties in this state? That they couldn’t be used to “cancel” people in Republican areas who have different concerns than Philadelphia. I call that greedy, hypocritical and typically Democratic.
I can see why the Democrats would hate to see a near monopoly like this disappear, but it doesn’t take much to see that it lacks even a modicum of equity for the other 78% of the residents in the state.
How would regional selection “further politicize” the courts? The Supreme Court is already as political as it can get. Might regional voting mean the courts could finally see some Republican influence? Sure, that’s possible, and I guess the folks in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh wouldn’t like that. Most would call it balance, however. Many might even see it as a return to sound legal practice.
Concern about gerrymandering court district boundaries as retribution for a decision is the least of anyone’s concerns. The districts would be very large and drawn only every 10 years. Let the voters decide by a retention vote if the decisions are good or bad. The funny thing about drawing district lines is that fairness is almost completely in the eye of the person who sees advantage in the lines.
As far as “nonpartisan” commissions to choose judges, that’s the worst idea of all. There is no such thing as a nonpartisan group. If one removes the political tags, they are only replaced by other tags or biases. In the public forum, as these commissions would be, in today’s world the group would quickly become a petri dish of social ideologies reflecting the pickers of the group and popular trends. This is true even if, especially if, the members of the commission are lawyers. Even if one were to believe the commission were somehow nonpartisan, the selection then goes to what? A nonpartisan governor? Not in this world.
All things considered, regional vote is the way to go. The only loss there is the dictatorial grip that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have on appellate court hudgeships, and that’s a good thing.
Dave Ball is chairman of the Washington County Republican Party and a Peters Township councilman.