Local Judges Silent in Court Reform Debate

Opinion by the authors of the 2007 Judicial Questionnaire
April 24, 2007

(Editors: Please consider this as an op-ed. It contains 736 words of text.)

• Is it right for judges to hire their relatives and friends for important positions in the court system?
• Is it right for courts to issue orders without opinions that explain their legal authority and reasoning?
• Is it right for courts to conceal administrative documents that deal with issues such as how judges spend tax dollars?
• Is it right for judges to have secret meetings with lawmakers and governors about matters such as the pay raise?
• Is the court properly interpreting the Constitution to protect citizens from abuses by the other branches of government?
• Does our court system operate in a way that builds citizen confidence?

These and many other questions are on the minds of voters and advocates for improving our court system. Since the pay raise of 2005, the public has lost confidence in its courts as decision after decision appears to be legally questionable and intellectually indefensible in the Court of Common Sense.

In March, the nine organizations listed below sent a questionnaire to more than 100 candidates who are contending for open seats on our courts, from county common pleas courts to the state Supreme Court. We asked candidates to return their responses by April 13.

The results have been curious to say the least, reflecting a split that begs for investigation and explanation. The split is between candidates for the state courts and candidates for local courts.

Among those on the May 15 ballot for open seats on the Supreme and Superior Courts, the response has been strong:

• Every candidate for the two open seats on the Supreme Court has responded or promised to respond soon .
• Four of the 12 candidates for the two open seats on the Superior Court have responded.

But only nine out of 106 candidates for 30 vacancies on our county common pleas courts have responded.

Curiously, the same phenomenon is at play with judges seeking retention on the courts at this fall's election.

• All eight of the candidates for retention on the state courts have committed to responding to the questionnaire by the end of May.
• But none of the 54 candidates for retention on local courts has responded.

A few county level candidates have expressed wonder that they're being asked these questions. Some say they have no stake in many of the issues the questionnaire presents. Some, but not all, contend that judicial ethics prevent them from answering the questions.

Even so, there are compelling reasons for judicial candidates at all levels to answer the questions.

1. Enlightening the debate. Elections, whether for retention or for open seats, can be meaningful only to the extent that voters know the views of the candidates. If those trained in the law refuse to express their opinions about these subjects, how can they expect citizens to make informed decisions about whom to elect as judges?

2. Restoring confidence. Citizens have lost confidence in their court system. By demonstrating that they understand the bigger picture and their role in it, county judges can and should help to restore citizen confidence.

3. Batting practice. The local courts are the farm team for the state courts. Those who have such aspirations should use this opportunity as a way to establish credibility with voters and with the legal community.

4. Unifying the system. Many of the issues presented in the questionnaire apply equally to local courts as to the state courts. Do local judges practice or prohibit nepotism? Are their financial records and administrative documents readily available to the public and news media? Do local courts claim "inherent powers" that are not granted in the Constitution or the laws?

Pennsylvania's Constitution mandates a unified judicial system. Yet except for demanding full state funding, county courts often behave as though they operate their own judicial fiefdoms.

The claim that county judges shouldn't answer questions pertaining to the statewide judicial system effectively silences those who can and should be the most effective advocates for improving the entire court system. Their silence can only make voters more skeptical about the quality of justice, not less.

It's time for county judges and judicial candidates to step up to the plate and become part of the solution by taking part in the debate about improving our courts.

Citizens and judicial candidates can find the questionnaire and the candidates' responses at the "Justice on Trial" section of www.democracyrisingpa.com .

The Commonwealth Foundation
Democracy Rising PA
The Pennsylvania Accountability Project
The Pennsylvania Association of Retired State Employees
The Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvanians for Legislator Accountability
Rock the Capital
Taxpayers and Ratepayers United
Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania