Vote For Integrity urges 'No' vote on Saylor

A citizens reform group called Vote For Integrity is the latest to join the campaign to oust Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor. While the group is not endorsing a clean sweep of all state judges, it is asking voters to turn out Justice Saylor.

If Saylor loses on Nov. 6, he would be the fourth justice on the seven-member court that ruled on the July 2005 pay raise to either lose a retention election or resign before the end of his or her term.

Here's the rational from Vote For Integrity’s latest newsletter:

Judicial Retention Elections

Ballots for the election on November 6, 2007 will include retention votes for a number of judges in respective districts throughout the state. A number of reform activists are urging the voters to cast a ‘No" vote for all judges seeking to be retained in office for another term. The basic rationale for the activists’ recommendations is that the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in (a) ruling that Governor Rendell’s slot’s-gambling legislation is constitutional and (b) restoring for judges only, the legislatively-repealed pay raises. The ‘No’ activists believe that the pay raises were enacted into law by an unconstitutional process and therefore, judges accepting such unconstitutionally-enacted pay raises are violating their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution and thus should not be retained in office.

In response to these ‘No’ recommendations, the Political Class establishment has rallied behind the judges and is asking the voters to retain all or most of the judges. In addition, certain respected members of the press and certain respected political commentators have weighed-in on the side of the judges. The principal argument the Political Class is making is that judges should be evaluated on their individual overall records and voting ‘No’ on all judges would be an over-reaction to a perceived wrong.

Vote For Integrity has considered the merits of the competing arguments and finds some merit on both sides. We have carefully examined the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the slot’s-gambling legislation and agree with those who argue that the Court, including Justice Saylor, who is asking to be retained on the Court for another 10 years, failed miserably by unanimously ruling this legislation to be constitutional and failing to uphold the plain, unambiguous language of Article III of our Constitution.

We have also carefully examined the Court’s convoluted ruling restoring the pay raise for judges only and Justice Saylor’s dissent to that ruling. Justice Saylor and his supporters use this "dissent" to separate the Justice from others on the Court. A careful reading of his "dissent", however, reveals that Justice Saylor did not substantively dissent from the ruling restoring pay raises for the judiciary. In fact, Justice Saylor’s "non-dissent, dissent" in September 2006 appears to be nothing more than a calculated, pre-election-year maneuver to allow him to publicly take the position that he was against restoring the pay raises for the judiciary…….which he was not and he said so in his "non-dissent, dissent".

In view of the above we recommend a ‘No’ vote for the retention of Justice Saylor.

Regarding retention of other judges on respective ballots in the state, we find merit in the argument that voters should not automatically vote ‘No’ for all judges and thereby possibly "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Conversely, the activists argue that (a) many judges lobbied and some even sued for the raises, (b) the judges, of all people, knew that the manner in which the raises were restored by the Supreme Count was flawed and unconstitutional, (c) the judges had all taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, (d) all of the judges, except for two, are taking the raises and (e) by accepting the pay raises, they are violating their oath of office. The activists also argue that the only way to send a meaningful message to the Political Class is by voting ‘No’ on all of the judges. Vote For Integrity believes there is merit in the activists’ position.

However, because of the complexity of the arguments and our lack of knowledge of the record of every judge seeking retention, Vote For Integrity cannot in good conscience recommend a ‘No’ vote on every judge. We are comfortable urging a ‘No’ vote on Justice Saylor because we have carefully reviewed his role, including the written record, in arguably the two most important decisions in which he recently participated. Also, his defeat will be another shot across the bow of the Political Class and serve as another example to the insular legal community which fostered, fed and helped create the environment which resulted in the Court abandoning its principles and its fealty to the Constitution in order to curry favor with the Legislature (on the slots-gambling and other legislation) and selfishly rule in favor of pay raises for the judges.

Ken Schaefer
Chairman, Vote For Integrity
24 Auburn Drive
Annville, PA 17003
717-832-2196
E-mail: kbs1110@verizon.net

Stan Alekna
Co-Chairman, Vote for Integrity
732 Aspen Lane, Spring Hill Acres
Lebanon, PA 17042
717-228-2361
E-mail: salekna1936@yahoo.com