The Most Important Decision for Pennsylvania Voters This November ...

 

Guest Column: Un-Fair Districts PA

By Lowman S. Henry 

A few weeks ago on Election Day I stood outside of my local fire hall which serves as the polling location for our precinct handing out poll cards for our slate of candidates. Mid-morning an older gentleman showed up and posted a sign touting "Fair Districts PA." He then proceeded to ask voters to sign a petition against gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is the drawing of congressional and/or legislative district lines to benefit one party over another. It is a process almost as old as the republic itself so named after Elbridge Gerry who as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812 signed into law a congressional redistricting plan that included one district which bore a striking resemblance to a salamander, thus giving birth to the term gerrymander.
As are all subjective processes, gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder.  Over the decades various court rulings have taken the edge off the most egregious abuses of the redistricting process, but to some degree those with the power to draw district lines generally tilt the playing field a bit.
After next year's census the process of redistricting will begin anew.  This constitutionally mandated exercise apportions congressional seats among the states, and then new districts are drawn within the states taking into consideration the population shifts of the previous decade.
Now, of course, most people are at least in theory opposed to gerrymandering so the gentleman at my polls got a few signatures. He did, however, misrepresent the current process as unfair and touted a so-called "fair" alternative, which we will get to shortly.
Is the current process fair? Let me answer that question with another question: Do you believe the process by which a bill becomes law is fair?  Because that is exactly how congressional redistricting is accomplished in Penn's Woods.  Congressional redistricting takes the form of a bill, which must be passed by both houses of the General Assembly and signed by the governor.
That means 253 elected representatives of We the People (our state house and senate members) vote on the bill.  That occurs after the legislation is fully vetted through the committee process, including massive amounts of public input, then debated and voted on in legislative session before going to the governor's desk.
The process is open, transparent, and constitutional. As we approach the 2021 redistricting it is also politically balanced as it is likely the General Assembly will be controlled by Republicans and a Democrat governor will be in office.  In fact, in 2011 - when the GOP controlled both the governor's office and the legislature - the congressional redistricting plan passed the legislature with strong bi-partisan support.
"Fair" Districts PA proposes to ditch that process and replace it with an "independent citizens commission" which would then draw the district lines. So unelected "citizens," or at least those motivated to invest a considerable amount of time and effort, can apply to be on the commission.  
In a bow to identity politics, the applicants would then be "weighted" by racial, gender, and unspecified "demographic diversity."  The proposed change then vests in the Secretary of the Commonwealth, who is a political appointee, the power to select the final pool of candidates.  
Conveniently, the Secretary of the Commonwealth who will be serving in 2021 when the next redistricting occurs will be an appointee of - as the Huffington Post has described him - the most liberal governor in America, Democrat Tom Wolf.  
Further, the "fair" districts proposal would inject an element found in neither the U.S. nor Pennsylvania constitutions - political parties. The "citizens commission" would be mandated to include four Republican "citizens," four Democrat "citizens," and three "citizens" who are either unaffiliated or members of a minor political party.
This lays bare the true goal of "Fair" Districts PA - a hijacking of the redistricting process to solidify the unconstitutional re-gerrymander of districts implemented by Pennsylvania's rogue state Supreme Court in 2018. 
Just as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has turned out to be anything but affordable, Fair Districts PA has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with changing the rules of the game to secure partisan political advantage.  

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

State Rep. Mike Vereb wants Sandusky's bail examined

Pennsylvania State Rep. Mike Vereb, R-150th Dist., has written a letter to the chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking for a review of the low bail given to accused Penn State child abuser Jerry Sandusky by a district judge who had ties to the defendant.

"I've asked the chief justice to step in and stop this mockery of justice," Vereb told The Norristown Times Herald. "A number of reports indicate that this justice is a donor to the nonprofit, she attended social events of the nonprofit and she is a volunteer for The Second Mile. She arraigned him and gave him $100,000 unsecured bail, which means, he didn't have to put anything up."

Vereb wants Sandusky's bail examined - pottsmerc.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to tweet rulings

The nation's oldest appellate court, dating to back 1684, will be using the latest technology, namely Twitter, to announce rulings.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to tweet rulings - dailylocal.com

Pennsylvania high court opens its doors for cameras

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which dates back to the 1700s, has entered the 21st century.

Pennsylvania high court opens its doors for cameras

Merit(less) selection

See related editorial at The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Web site.

Newspaper: Let voters decide judicial selection question

Should voters continue to elect judges in Pennsylvania or should they be selected by a panel of judicial experts? One newspaper says voters should decide which way to go.

From an editorial in the Delaware County Daily Times:

The judiciary, where impartiality is valued above all, seems the wrong place for partisan politics.

Pennsylvania is one of only six states that elect all judges in partisan elections. Apparently, Tom Caltagirone wants to keep it that way. But should high-powered attorneys or corporations with the most money to buy television ads influence the way Pennsylvanian justices are chosen?

It is time for the people to vote on the issue and time Harrisburg agrees to put it on the ballot. Three Republican and one Democratic governor concur that voters should decide whether Commonwealth and Superior Court judges and state Supreme Court justices should be elected or appointed. Bipartisan support is unusual at any level of government.

The bipartisanship exhibited last week between former and current governors of this state sends a clear message about the need for change in Pennsylvania’s judicial elections.

Editorial: Let voters decide judicial selection question - The Delaware County Daily Times (DelcoTimes.com)

Sam Rohrer Response to Rendell Budget

Republican Joan Orie Melvin wins PA Supreme Court seat

Republican Joan Orie Melvin won a hotly-contested seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Tuesday, giving Republicans a 4-3 majority on the court.

Melvin defeated Democrat Jack Panella in the most expensive judicial race in Pennsylvania's history. Panella raised more than $2.5 million, largely from trial lawyers and organized labor, according to The Associated Press.

With 98 percent of the state's precincts reporting, Melvin had 910,270 votes or 53 percent to Democrat Jack Panella's 806,157 votes or 47 percent, the wire service reported.

Panella was widely criticized for running a negative campaign, resorting to personal attacks on Melvin.

Melvin's victory, which restores a one-seat majority that the GOP lost in 2007, continued a good night for Republicans, who have won the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey.

Four Republican candidates for four open Pennsylvania Superior Court seats and two Republican candidates for two open Commonwealth Court seats were also leading their respective races at midnight, although final results were not in yet.

The Republican comeback is here!

Election 2009: We endorse ...

Suggestions for Tuesday's General Election from Pennsylvania's leading conservative newspaper:

Here's a recap of the Trib's endorsements for Tuesday's General Election:

For Pennsylvania Supreme Court:

Joan Orie Melvin

For Pennsylvania Superior Court:

Robert Colville
Kevin McCarthy
Temp Smith
Judy Olson

For Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court:

Kevin Brobson
Linda S. Judson

Election 2009: We endorse ... - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Tribune-Review: Elect Joan Orie Melvin for PA Supreme Court

Another major Pennsylvania newspaper is backing Joan Orie Melvin for Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Tuesday's General Election.

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

What we do care about is legal acumen, temperament and moxie. And on all three counts, Judge Orie Melvin of Marshall, a Republican and a state Superior Court judge since 1997, is the best choice for the state's highest court.

Read the full endorsement at the link below:

For Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Elect Joan Orie Melvin - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

P.S. -- Joan Orie Melvin has already been endorsed by The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Harrisburg Patriot-News.

Jack Panella flip-flops on abortion

Check out GrassrootsPA for an interesting revelation that Jack Panella, the Democratic Pennsylvania Supreme Court candidate, has changed his position on abortion.

This would be the same Panella attacking Republican candidate Joan Orie Melvin for being pro-life.

Is Panella pro-abortion or pro-life? Or will he change his position to appease voters?

Newspaper endorses in judicial races

The state's leading conservative newspaper, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, weighs in on judicial races on Tuesday's Primary Election ballot.

The newspaper is endorsing Joan Orie Melvin for the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

From the editorial:

We've long admired her dedication to the law and her moxie. To wit, she filed a lawsuit seeking to refuse the scandalous 2005 pay raise. She lost. But she continues to return the untaxed portion of the raise to commonwealth coffers. Now that's fealty to principle.

The newspaper also recommends two of the six Democrats seeking three nominations for Pennsylvania Superior Court (the three Republicans are unopposed) and two Republicans for Commonwealth Court.

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site.

Jury Duty

Not much came out of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille's visit to the Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon this week except for the announcement that the state's 67 counties will be able to tap into much bigger jury lists.

Your chances of getting out of jury duty just got a whole lot worse.

I know a guy who won't vote because he was afraid they'd pick his name for jury duty from the voter registration rolls.

Castille said starting in the fall, the state court system will compile a statewide master list of prospective jurors from voting records, tax records, motor-vehicle data and welfare records.

"If you vote, pay taxes, drive or receive welfare or food stamps, your name will be on that list," Castille said.

That includes just about everybody, doesn't it? That means the chances of bumping into each other in a courtroom just became more likely.

Each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties used their own system of compiling names of potential jurors and the pool was limited to the size of the county's list (typically voter registration rolls or driver's license lists.

Now counties will have access to the state's master jury list as well as any other lists counties want to use.

Diversity on juries is a good concept, after all, the Constitution guarantees every citizen a trial by a jury of his or her peers. But if you've ever wasted a day sitting around waiting to be picked for a jury, you know what a hassle it can be.

Now, if the state could only get around to increase the nominal pay jurors receive, maybe more people would be willing to do their civic duty, especially in these tough economic times.

Rendell announces 4 new picks for court vacancies

After his first four nominations were rejected by the Republican-controlled state Senate, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell has come up with four new names to fill vacancies on the state's appeal courts.

The Senate turned down Rendell's original picks because GOP leaders said the four were middle-aged white guys from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Senate Republicans wanted to see more diversity on the state's highest courts.

Rendell has nominated Jane Cutler Greenspan, who serves as a judge on the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, to fill a vacancy on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. She may be from Philly, but at least she's a woman.

For one of two vacancies on the state Superior Court, Rendell nominated Robert A. Freedberg, President Judge of the Northampton County Common Please Court. Bingo. Northampton County is not Philly or Pittsburgh. We may have a winner.

The other Superior Court nominee is John M. Cleland, President Judge of McKean County Common Please Court. Rendell gets extra credit for remembering that McKean County is part of Pennsylvania. I need to get my map out.

The final nominee, to Commonwealth Court, is Johnny J. Butler, Butler is a private practice attorney in Philadelphia. Butler is African-American.

Two picks from Philly? Give Rendell some credit. He's been involved in the Philadelphia legal community most of his life.

A woman, an African-American and two judges from parts of the state most people never heard of is much more likely to get Rendell's picks confirmed.

Read more about the nominees at the link below.

Governor Rendell Announces Nominations for Pennsylvania Statewide Appellate Courts

Pennsylvania's chief bully

Following in the footsteps of reformers Tim Potts and Russ Diamond, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Brad Bumstead piles it on Ron Castille, the chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Writing about Castille's threats regarding the lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters against former Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, Bumstead says:

The statement by Castille smacked of intimidation.

It's understandable that Castille might see fit to deny the charges on behalf of the court. But his threat only gave new life to the issue.

Read "Castille's bully bench" here

Russ Diamond: 'Disorder in the Court'

A guest column today by Russ Diamond on the lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and threats made by Chief Justice Ron Castille against the League of Women Voters and its attorney for bringing the lawsuit.

Disorder in the Court
By Russ Diamond

Any hope for independent and impartially dispensed justice in Pennsylvania took a turn for the worse this week, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ronald Castille further revealed his true temperament in response to yet another round of criticism of the Court.

Bristling over a federal lawsuit filed by the apolitical League of Women Voters alleging stunningly corrupt actions by former Chief Justice Ralph Cappy that violated the League's due process rights, Castille threatened to use the iron fist of disciplinary action against League attorney Paul Rossi.

The outburst was a repeat of Castille's thinly veiled threat against Duquesne law professor Bruce Ledewitz last year after Ledewitz rightly called the Court's ruling retaining its clearly unconstitutional pay raise a "judicial swindle." That threat, made in the form of a letter to the law school that shocked the public and the Chairman of the Senate State Government Committee, led a Pittsburgh newspaper to cast Castille in the role of a "petty tyrant."

Last December, Castille prematurely divulged information about a Court decision regarding casino owner Louis DeNaples to a Philadelphia newspaper columnist outside a bar in New York City. The League's suit alleges that Castille made a similarly inappropriate early admission regarding the Court's 2006 slots law ruling with a "wink and a nod" to a member of the General Assembly.

In April, Castille lashed out at the Senate for its unwillingness to rubber-stamp the Governor's unilateral picks to fill four vacant seats on the appellate courts. For someone who proclaimed a desire to de-politicize the Court upon ascending to its top spot, Castille has only further embroiled the entire judicial system in petty political battles.

In the unlikely event the League's allegations are found to be completely baseless, the public threat to its counsel by Castille poisons any subsequent disciplinary action that may be undertaken. His indiscretion regarding not-yet-public rulings is a sign of an inability to deliver the dignity his position demands. His aggressiveness toward the Senate indicates a level of impatience unacceptable for any sitting judge.

Considering that the Supreme Court ultimately lords over the entire judicial system, the legal profession and the disciplinary processes for judges and lawyers, how can any Pennsylvanian have confidence in the courts with Castille at the helm? How can any citizen enter any court of this Commonwealth and expect rational justice to be dispensed while Castille is ranting and bullying from the apex of the judicial pyramid?

Less than five months into his tenure as the state's top judge, Castille's conduct indicates that he is not suited for the position. Although he expects Pennsylvanians to respect his authority, such authority must first be wielded with respectability.

While the League's federal complaint illustrates some of the underlying reasons for Pennsylvania's crisis of confidence, Castille's thuggish approach exacerbates it.

Pennsylvania cannot afford to wait until 2013 — when Castille is scheduled for a retention vote — to clear the decks and start rebuilding citizen confidence. For the good of the Commonwealth he should resign, effective immediately, and allow another jurist with a more appropriate temperament assume the duties of Chief Justice.

In the absence of a voluntary resignation, members of the General Assembly who are truly concerned about Pennsylvania's future should explore the possibility of removing Castille from office for his short but shockingly effective role in undermining public confidence in the judicial system.

Russ Diamond is founder and chairman of PA Clean Sweep, a citizens group pushing for reform of Pennsylvania government. Fore more information, visit www.pacleansweep.com

Tim Potts on judicial cowardice in Pennsylvania

Tim Potts, who operates the reform site DemocracyRisingPA, weighs in on the League of Women Voters lawsuit against the Ralph Cappy, the former chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the threats made by the current chief justice, Ron Castille, against the League and its attorney.

Potts writes:

"Most people recognize the furtive plotting of the pay raise as an unparalleled act of political cowardice. Less conspicuous is the courage some lawmakers displayed in assisting the League. If the case goes forward, those lawmakers will exhibit a degree of courage that has been absent from PA politics for decades.

Sadly, the chief justices don't understand that they are servants, not masters, and that citizens have a right to know what their government is doing before the fact, not just after. The League's lawsuit must come as a shocking reminder to these arrogant jurists that the government belongs to the citizens, not to them, and we citizens are not going away until we get it back."

Read the full post, "Cappy & Castille Confuse Courage & Cowardice," at the DemocracyRisingPA Web site.

For more views and background on the growing controversy, read my earlier post, "When Judges Are Accused of Breaking The Law," as well as "Cappy & Castille Confuse Courage & Cowardice" at POLICY BLOG and "Lawsuit alleges backroom dealings by Pa.'s former top judge" in The Philadelphia Inquirer. Also, Russ Diamond has something to say about "Disorder in the Court" at PACleanSweep.com

Rendell blinks on judicial nominees

More evidence that Gov. Ed Rendell is a lame duck.

His long-running feud with Senate Republicans over four vacancies on state appeals court may soon be resolved (and not to Rendell's liking).

The Senate rejected the four nominees last week. Senate leaders said the four lawyers from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia offered no diversity in either race, gender or geography. In other words, the Senate Republicans were tired of seeing middle-aged white guys sitting on Pennsylvania's highest courts.

Rendell announced today he won't renominate the four candidates rejected by the Senate to fill temporary openings on the state appellate courts, according to The Associated Press.

Instead, the governor will submit names of new candidates to the Senate sometime next week, the AP says.

Rendell also would not say whether the new candidates will include any minorities, as the Legislative Black Caucus has requested, but said he would not sacrifice quality for diversity, the wire service reports.

A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is necessary to confirm a judicial nominee. Republicans control the state Senate by a 29-21 margin, although three GOP members voted with the 21 Democrats last week on the original Rendell nominees.

When judges are accused of breaking the law

A fascinating legal battle may play itself out in the federal courts involving actions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on two of the most controversial rulings the court made in recent years.

A lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters against Pennsylvania's former chief justice alleges that the state's top court upheld the 2004 slot-machine gambling law in exchange for approval of a 2005 judicial pay raise.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Harrisburg, names former Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy as the defendant and cited allegations and information provided by unnamed legislators, according to The Associated Press. The suit alleges Cappy used secret meetings with legislators to negotiate the ruling on the slots law and a pay raise for more than 1,000 judges, including himself and six other Supreme Court justices, the wire service says.

Cappy resigned from the court in January, two full years before his term expired. Another justice who served on the court during the controversial rulings resigned earlier and a third justice failed to win his retention election. All three departures have been tied to the July 2005 pay raise fiasco, which also claimed 55 incumbent state lawmakers so far.

The 17-page lawsuit drew immediate denials from Cappy and a threat by his successor, Ronald Castille. "The filing parties may have subjected themselves to sanctions, and the attorney may have subjected himself to disciplinary action," Chief Justice Castille said in a written statement issued Tuesday.

It's the strong-arm tactics by Castille that are drawing the most attention.

"It's totally inappropriate for the chief justice to threaten a lawyer for allegations made in federal court against the courts or any judge," Professor Bruce Ledewitz of the Duquesne Law School told The Harrisburg Patriot-News.

Veteran political columnist John Baer of The Philadelphia Daily News, said the lawsuit won't help the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's already battered image.

Baer writes:

"There are lots of questions here, not least of which is whether this suit gets very far. Federal courts generally aren't inclined to play in state issues. A similar though broader suit filed by Common Cause in 2006 failed in one federal court and is pending appeal in another. But for Pennsylvania, there's nothing in here that strikes me as a stretch. And the fundamental question of whether we have separation of powers or collusion of the powerful is a critical one. It should be answered."

And Lowman S. Henry, writing at Lincoln Blog, says the threats by Castille amount to "official repression."

Henry writes:

"Castille's comments yesterday were inappropriate and frankly unbecoming a member of the bench. They betrayed a temperament that calls into question his ability to function effectively as a member of the high court, much less its chief justice. In fact, Castille's outright threats against the lawyers and plaintiffs in the League of Women Voters case are so egregious they merit review, and possible impeachment proceedings by the General Assembly. Simply put, he is now incapable of serving as an unbiased jurist."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is elected by the voters, has never enjoyed a national reputation for setting new legal ground. It's often a refuge for former politicians. Under Cappy's leadership, the court's reputation has suffered even more thanks to controversial rulings on the flawed casino gambling bill and the ill-fated pay raise that politicians gave themselves and judges.

Going after the League of Women Voters and threatening a lawyer for filing a lawsuit on behalf of his client is not going to help the court's reputation ... or give Pennsylvania residents any assurance that the courts are working on behalf of the people.

As Lowman Henry pointed out in a Monday post at Lincoln Blog:

"The illusion spun by the legal profession that judges are above politics has been popped, by of all groups, the League of Women Voters. The League of Women Voters is not known for its political activism, preferring instead to hue to a lower profile educational role. The back room dealing involved with the now infamous middle-of-the-night pay grab, however, proved to be too much for the league to take."

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review put the matter in proper perspective in an editorial the newspaper published today:

"If the allegations are true, they would represent a level of public corruption unparalleled in Keystone State history. If they are not, however, the credibility of the plaintiff will be -- and should be -- damaged beyond repair."

The point is that this lawsuit should be allowed to play itself out in the federal courts, without interference or threats from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. No one is above the law, including the distinguished past and present members of the state's high court.