Forty people from across the Susquehanna Valley attended Susquehanna Valley Progressive’s program entitled “The Race to Control Pennsylvania’s Courts” on Tuesday evening. Three experts provided different perspectives concerning the role of the courts and the significance of the upcoming election on November 3rd, which includes one seat open on the Commonwealth Court; one seat open on the Superior Court and an historical three seats open on the Supreme Court.
Suzanne Almeida of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts explained the structure of our state court system which she calls the judicial pyramid: our system begins at the lowest level with the magisterial courts or the People’s Courts; the intermediate appellate courts include the Commonwealth and Superior Courts; and the Supreme Court gets the final say unless it decides to kick a case back to a lower court for reconsideration.
Almeida also discussed the PA Bar Association (PBA) ratings of judicial candidates. She explained that there are three ratings: Highly Recommended, Recommended and Not Recommended. She noted that at least one supreme court candidate running for the general election was given a Not Recommended rating. She also noted that the PBA’s rating system is considered somewhat controversial because they do not disclose their full process for evaluating candidates. You can view these ratings at PBA’s website.
John Childe, General Counsel with the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation, discussed a case he currently has filed in the court system in regards to the protection of our state parks and forests. His case, which will likely be one of the first cases to go before the newly elected Supreme Court, may determine the validity of the state’s environmental amendment, Article 1 Section 27 of the Constitution.
He also discussed the plurality decision of the Robinson Township V. Supreme Court ruling in which repealed parts of Act 13 of 2012 – a highly controversial bill that precluded local municipalities from regulating oil and gas drilling. The court’s majority overturned portions of the legislation but citing two different legal grounds: the environmental rights amendment (Article I Section 27) and due process. This plurality decision was a bittersweet win for the environmental movement because it was not a majority decision and does not mandate consideration by lower courts. Childe believes his case can give much-needed legal teeth to the environmental amendment.
Finally, Brenda Barron, Organizing Director for Keystone Progress, covered a number of important issues specific to the Supreme Court; first, she explained its role in the redistricting process, which takes place every ten years after the census. The Supreme Court appoints an individual to a 5-person panel that determines the new district lines; because the four other individuals are made up of two democrats and two republicans appointed by the legislature, the Supreme Court’s appointment is particularly crucial in ensuring a fair, un-biased process. The court also has weighed in, and likely will weigh in again, on the constitutionality of the redrawn districts.
She also focused on the campaign money and its influence on the Supreme Court election in particular. A recent report noted that democrats out funded republicans 7 to 1 for the upcoming election. However, as Barron noted this does not account for dark money. For example, she pointed out, the conservative-funded organization Americans for Prosperity, established by the Koch Brothers, has vowed to spend tens of millions of dollars on statewide races across the United States. In addition, she noted that PACs have already bought up television ad slots in markets all across the Commonwealth.
A discussion period followed. A few questions were asked related to how voters can make informed decisions on electing judicial candidates. It can be difficult, the panelists agreed, since judicial candidates are limited in expressing their views on issues that likely will come before them as a judge. A few suggestions were noted including: looking to organizations that you trust and inquiring whether they provided endorsements or questionnaires; reviewing the judicial candidates’ opinions and decisions on past cases; considering Pa Bar Association’s recommendations; and even following the money – looking into campaign contributions. In addition, voters are encouraged to view the Pennsylvania League of Women’s Voters’ (PLWV) voter guide; a non-partisan organization, PLWV has profiled each of the candidates for the judicial elections.
The overall message that came from the program was to be informed and above all – get out and vote.