Reform Movement On Life Support?
Hardly!
By Louis R. Petolicchio
Several weeks have passed since the General
Election of 2007, and in those weeks the electorate of Pennsylvania have
been subjected to the wit and insight of various political pundits who
have pretty much declared the effort to reform Pennsylvania politics
dead.
They use the fact that all but one of
the judges seeking retention were retained to their respective seats in
spite of a statewide effort by reform groups to render them early
retirements.
The irony of such proclamations is that while these critics of political
reform have been quick to point to the judicial retentions as
confirmation that the Reform Movement is on life support, they
completely failed to consider three important realities that prove that
Harrisburg is continuing to feel the heat from unhappy voters.
First, the critics of reform have conveniently
ignored the fact that the retention election of 2007 was not the
historic slam-dunk to which Pennsylvania judges have been accustomed.
In fact, the men (and women) in black
– particularly Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor - actually had to step
out of the shadows and campaign to keep their jobs, and once the final
numbers are tallied, 2007 may prove to be one of the most expensive
retention elections in state history.
Which begs some critical questions.
If the Reform Movement is on the ropes, then why
did judges statewide spend hundreds of thousands dollars to stay on the
bench?
Why was Justice Saylor compelled to
recruit ex-governor Tom Ridge to voice radio spots on his behalf and
publicize his judicial vote against the infamous pay raise? Indeed,
had it not been for a concerted effort by political reformers – who had
neither the money nor the apparatchik of either of the major political
parties – to demand accountability of Pennsylvania’s judges, then what
incentive would these same judges have had to “campaign” for their jobs?
Second, the critics of reform chose to use only the
net results of the election in order to justify their assertion that
political reform is broken.
Had they bothered to look at the
numbers on a county-by-county and a race-by-race basis, they would have
found clear indications that the season of voter discontent has not
passed.
For while three counties voted not to retain
Justice Saylor, eight counties opposed the retention of at least one
judge on Superior Court.
And when one considers pluralities of
more than 40% in terms of “No” votes, the number of counties increases
dramatically (eight counties on the Supreme Court retention, 34 counties
on the Superior Court retentions, and 24 counties on the Commonwealth
Court retention).
In a state where retention votes have been more formalities than
campaigns, a political analyst cannot honestly look at the returns
without realizing that the undercurrent of voter disenchantment can
still impact races.
Which brings us to the third reason why critics of political reform are
premature in digging a grave for grassroots activists: the pending
upheaval of the state legislature in 2008.
Already this year a number of state legislators –
including Senator Roger Madigan and Representatives Jerry Nailor, David
Steil, Tom Yewcic, and Art Hershey - have announced that they will not
seek re-election, with many of these announcements having been made
after the General Election.
Other legislators are facing primary challengers
for the first time in years, or in some cases decades.
GOP Lancaster County Recorder of
Deeds Steve McDonald has already announced he is seeking the state
Senate seat of incumbent Gib Armstrong, and Senator Vince Fumo is facing
an opponent in the Democrat primary.
If the reform movement is on life-support, as some
critics would allege, then why are so many rats jumping ship?
Why are others being hunted down?
Add to the mix the Attorney General’s investigation of ‘Bonusgate’, the
pending investigation into a non-profit that paid more than half a
million dollars to the wife of a state Senator, the use of taxpayer
dollars to fund political polls, and the inability of the state
legislature to pass any meaningful reform packages (despite all of the
rhetoric members spouted just a year and a half ago), and one begins to
realize that another mass exodus from under the dome may be in the
offing.
Was the effort to oust all of the judges up for
retention a ‘bridge too far’ for reform activists?
Perhaps. But then again, how else do
you learn of your limitations unless you test those limits?
The simple fact is that the General Election
retention vote was not an end in itself; it was simply the set-up for
the 2008 primaries.
Let the spin-meisters say what they
will; the fact is that political reform is alive and well in
Pennsylvania.