« Law - "Life is short. Get a divorce" billboard is short-lived | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer denied last week in "Flying J" case and a John Doe case »

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Courts - An update on Pennsylvania Supreme Court judicial selection and retention

Pensylvania's judicial selection process differs from Indiana's. In Pennsylvania, all judges initially are elected on a partisan ballot, and thereafter are up for retention every 10 years on a non-partisan retention ballot. In Indiana our appellate judges and justices are appointed by the Governor from a slate proposed by a judicial nominating commission. After two years, they are subject to a "yes/no" vote from the voters, and again every 10 years thereafter.

The ILB has had a number of entries on Pennsylvania Supreme Court selections and retentions, including this one from Nov. 5, 2005 is headed "Retention vote for Pennsylvania justices becomes a battleground.", and this one from Nov. 19, 2005 titled "Another fascinating episode in Pennsylvania court's failed retention vote." This one from May 17, 2006, is titled: "Voter backlash continues in Pennsylvania."

Yesterday Dennis B. Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote:

Two years after voter rebellion over a midnight pay raise spilled over onto the ballot for Pennsylvania's high court -- resulting in the ouster of one incumbent and the narrow retention of a second -- the contests for two open seats have stayed low-key.

Yet echoes of that pay raise, and the current Supreme Court's ruling that the portion of it going to judges could not be rescinded the way the increases to legislative salaries were, remain a looming shadow. One of the two openings on the Supreme Court, after all, was created in November 2005 when voters rejected incumbent Justice Russell Nigro for retention.

Four Democrats and three Republicans are seeking two open seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Faced with a raft of questions about law, procedure and background, the seven Supreme Court hopefuls found themselves juggling questions such as one posed by the Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia's law newspaper, asking which side got it right: the Supreme Court majority that held the judicial raises as constitutional, or the minority who didn't.

As in years past, party endorsements and rankings by the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Commission have played key roles in positioning candidates in contests that draw little attention and often turn on a candidate's geographical base.

The story continues with some quotes from responses of candidates to questionaires of the state bar association and the Legal Intelligencer.

The Legal Intelligencer cite led me to this May 2, 2007 story from "the oldest law journal in the United States" about their questionaire:

Editor’s Note: The Legal Intelligencer sent a 32-question questionnaire to all seven state Supreme Court candidates and asked them to fill it out so that we could publish the responses.

Beyond that, we put no limits on how the candidates could answer. The special section that follows represents their responses.

Only one candidate declined to answer the questionnaire. Because we wanted to let the candidates speak for themselves, we have performed minimal editing and all the responses represent the entire text of the material the candidates submitted.

It is our hope that the candidates’ answers to the questionnaire will provide the legal community and the general public enough information to make informed decisions in their votes in the May primary and the general election in November. The Legal Intelligencer would like to thank all the candidates who took the time to fill out the questionnaire. Special thanks also to Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts for some of their suggested questions and news editor Michael Riccardi, whose input was instrumental in crafting the final questionnaire.

You can go to the story to see the often interesting answers of the candidates. What interested the ILB even more was the list of questions:
Questions about you and the role of a judge:

1. What makes a good judge?

2. What is the biggest trap or mistake a judge can make?

3. How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

4. Which opinion do you think represents your best work?

5. If you could, which opinion would you take back or revise? Why?

6. What in your background has prepared you best for being a judge?

7. How would your personal views and experiences influence you as a justice?

8. What separates you from the other candidates and why would you be a better addition to the Supreme Court?

9. If elected, what would be your biggest priority on the court?

Questions about the law and legal practice:

10. Is there any area of the law that you think needs a closer look or guidance from the Supreme Court?

11. When deciding a case, how do you frame the issue and conduct your analysis to reach a conclusion?

12. Do you think there is a dilemma in how Rule 1925(b) is applied? And if so, what needs to be done to fix it?

13. Is the court threatening to make the practice of law too burdensome for solo and small-firm practitioners by increasing requirements for CLE, maintaining certain types of bank accounts, moving toward effective requirements for malpractice insurance, etc.?

14. Conversely, are clients adequately protected by the aforementioned requirements?

15. What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

16. How important is consensus - particularly unanimous consensus - in high court opinions and are there limits when a justice should only concur, or should they do it any time they feel like it?

17. How important is stare decisis and when should a court depart from it?

Openness of the courts:

18. Does the court need to improve efforts to make the courts and what they do more open and accessible to the press and public?

19. Do you favor cameras in the courtroom, particularly for oral arguments before the Supreme Court?

20. Once litigants have chosen to enter the arena of the public courts, should confidential settlements be discouraged? Or should they be encouraged as a way for the system to reach swifter resolutions?

21. Under what circumstances should judges seal the records in a case? In general, should the practice of sealing records be encouraged for discouraged?

22. Should the court make more of its dealings - including meetings with other elected officials and reasons for recusal - open to the public?

Politics and public perceptions:

23. What should be the nature of the relationship between the court and the members of the other branches of government and how should the justices, particularly the chief justice, interact with them?

24. The pay raise decision: who do you think got it right, Justice Castille or Justice Saylor? Explain your answer.

25. Since judges are elected and you are running as a member of a political party, what does your party membership say about you and how big a role does it play in your outlook on legal matters?

26. Should party membership/loyalty play any role in getting a party's nomination?

27. Would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

28. In general, under what circumstances would you recuse yourself from a case?

29. To whom or what are judges accountable?

30. What does "independence of the judiciary" mean to you?

31. How would you define a "threat to judicial independence?" And where are these threats coming from?

32. What is the biggest misunderstanding between judges and the general public?

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 9, 2007 07:31 AM
Posted to Courts in general