PA Bill Number: HB2235
Title: Providing for regulation of the meat packing and food processing industry by creating facility health and safety committees in the workplace; ...
Description: Providing for regulation of the meat packing and food processing industry by creating facility health and safety committees in the workplace; ... ...
Last Action: Referred to LABOR AND INDUSTRY
Last Action Date: Apr 25, 2024
Impact of Pa. Supreme Court election will be 'felt for the next 20 years' :: 11/05/2015
Tuesday's election of three Democrats to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could have far-reaching impacts on state policy, politics and campaign fundraising.
"You'll be feeling the ramifications for the next 20 years," said Bob Asher, GOP national committeeman and chair of a prominent political action committee.
Elections in non-presidential years tend to favor Republicans, but experts say the Democrats leveraged record fundraising in order to upturn the political makeup of the Republican-controlled court. Of $15.8 million raised by the seven candidates, nearly $9 million went to the three Democrats.
Why does it matter?
As the state's highest appellate court, Supreme Court decisions impact all residents and set precedents that ripple out across the judicial system. It will likely play a key role, as it has for decades, in the next redistricting process after the 2020 Census, which in turn could shift the balance of power in the Legislature.
"I'm not going to say the courts are corrupt, but they tend to favor the like-minded party," said Asher, who pointed to issues as diverse as government collection of union dues and school funding formulas that could be decided by the new 5-2 majority.
The election was also momentous because the winning candidates will likely retain their seats for many years to come. Although justices run partisan campaigns in their initial election, they face a nonpartisan yes-or-no retention vote every 10 years. Barring a major scandal, justices — and judges in general — are rarely ousted.
Judicial races seldom energize voters, but a number of influential advocacy groups and PACs mobilized TV and get-out-the-vote campaigns in the lead up to Tuesday's historic vote. One of the largest donors was the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association's PAC, Committee for a Better Tomorrow, which funneled more than $2.1 million into the Supreme Court campaigns of Philadelphia Judge Kevin Dougherty and Superior Court Judges Christine Donohue and David Wecht.
"The trial lawyers saw the importance of this race," said Joe Messa, the association's president. "The result, I believe, evidences what happens when the trial lawyers put their effort and resources into something that's important."
From Messa's perspective, the campaign dollars went toward protecting the right to jury trials for individuals with civil rights or personal injury complaints. That right, he said, has been chipped away by the "conservative forces" behind laws like the state's Fair Share Act and corporate interests in support of arbitration clauses.
High-powered donors have become an increasingly integral, if contentious, part of judicial races in Pennsylvania and other states in the wake of the Citizens United decision, which lifted restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions.
Judicial candidates often have a difficult time reaching voters because they're restricted in what they can say about issues they may later face on the bench. Professional courtesy, meanwhile, often means refraining from openly attacking their opponents' character or judgment.
In public appearances, all seven Supreme Court candidates ran on a campaign of integrity and court reform following a wave of scandals. One of the three seats filled in this election was vacated due to the suspension and subsequent retirement of Seamus McCaffery, a Democrat who became mired in the 'Porngate' investigation. Another was a temporary appointment made after Republican Joan Orie Melvin was convicted for using staff to work on her election campaigns. The third vacancy was created by the retirement of Republican Chief Justice Ron Castille.
"There was a similarity in their message about the future direction of the court and the need for integrity," said Charles Gerow, a Republican political consultant.
With so much common ground between the Supreme Court candidates, Gerow said, voters had little aside from the campaign ads on which to base their decisions.
"It's no secret that awareness is the key to success in these judicial races," he said. "Both sides know they have to raise money in order to get awareness. Otherwise, the candidates are limited to really talking to their base."
- READ MORE: Who's paying for the Supreme Court race?
That's why the Democrats' fundraising advantage was key. According to a CMG/Kantar Media analysis, the Democrats had a near three-to-one advantage over Republicans when it came to TV campaign ads.
"The commercials reinforced what the Dems had done in terms of their organization and get-out-the-vote activity," said Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin and Marshall College's Center for Politics & Public Affairs. "You'd expect Republicans to do better, but I think you're looking at a more enthusiastic Democratic base."
Asher, the GOP official, said the combination of a Republican fundraising shortfall and effective ads supporting Democratic candidates, or attacking their opponents, contributed to the sweep.
"The overwhelming majority of people will tell you they don't like negative political ads," he said. "The truth is people react to negative advertising in politics and those negative ads on the three Republicans were devastating."
Ultimately, Asher said, the Democratic party and their allies understood the consequences of the Supreme Court election better than the Republicans.
"They got the dollars, they spent them effectively and we didn't and we got squashed," he said.
Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, said the influx of money into judicial races shakes the public's confidence in the system regardless of where the it's going.
"It's hard to know what the long-term impacts will be, but the fact that these individuals and entities were willing to cough up so much money shows that they believe money talks," she said.
In practice, Marks said, most of the court's decisions aren't made along partisan lines. For example, then-Chief Justice Castille, a Republican, voted against his party's interests in rejecting a legislative redistricting plan in 2012.
"I think it's easy to over-emphasize the impact of partisan affiliation," she said. "Not that many cases are politically charged, but there are cases — involving business and labor or environmental issues — that do become charged."
The lengthy time between elections was designed to give justices the freedom to make difficult decisions without the pressure of pleasing voters, but reform advocates say the creeping influence of money undercuts the perception of independence and impartiality.
"For the next open seats, and quite a few are coming up, there may be more of an effort by candidates and outside interest groups to raise even more money because it looks like the three winners raised the most," Marks said. "The money is increasingly distressing."
Messa said he doesn't believe this year's Supreme Court fundraising will spark an arms race for donors in the future, but the association will continue to support candidates from both parties who support its ideals.
"I don't see any other time we'd have three seats on the court open in our lifetime," he said.
Barry Kauffman, executive director of the watchdog group Common Cause Pennsylvania, said such large donations are troubling because the Supreme Court is often the "last stop" for citizens in confrontation with the state or local government.
"We have to wonder where the judge's ultimately loyalty lies," he said. "They say the donors don't influence their decisions at all, but that's against human nature. Like you or I, the people who treat us well are the people we tend to listen to."
A number of good governance advocates, including Kauffman, have raised the prospect of moving from judicial elections to a so-called "merit selection," in which judges are appointed. In that system, judges are typically appointed by a nonpartisan commission that evaluates the prospective candidates.
Gerow said the merit selection process would take the choice away from one large group, the voters, and place it in the hands of a small group of insiders.
"I don't think the people are going to say, 'we're going to give up our right to vote to make sure a bunch of lawyers pick our judges'," he said.
Kauffman, however, said the people selecting the judges would have a better grasp of legal philosophy or temperament than the average voter.
"Far too often now, we elect those people who have the best campaign skills or fundraising skills and not necessarily the best judicial temperament or background," he said. "I'm not saying that's what happened yesterday, but across the board I suspect we're not getting the best legal minds on the courts."
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's high turnover rate will likely continue for some time to come. Four of the five sitting justices will reach that age in the next three years. That is, of course, assuming scandal doesn't befall any of the current or incoming justices.
Madonna said Tuesday's election could accelerate the process of increasing the court's mandatory retirement age.
It began two years ago, when the House and Senate both passed a proposed constitutional amendment to increase the age to 75. After the measure passed the House again this year, it needs only to make it through the Senate a second time before going on to a statewide referendum that could take place as early as the April 2016 primary.
Two sitting Republicans, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justice J. Michael Eakin, and a Democrat, Max Baer, are nearing age 70. Democrat Debra Todd, who would reach age 70 in 2027, could become the first female chief justice in the court's history if the amendment fails to pass. Gov. Wolf has the authority to nominate justices to fill the vacancies, as he attempted to do earlier this year, until new judges are elected.
Looking beyond Tuesday's election, Asher said it's possible that the court could be stacked with Democrats if the retirement age isn't extended.
While the retirement age issue takes on added significance for Republicans, Madonna said there are valid arguments in favor of the change since the U.S. Supreme Court has no such restriction and neither does the state Legislature.
Gerow said he thinks the voting public would support the amendment.
"Society generally understands and recognizes that people are living longer and are much more vital in their golden years," he said. "Now that I'm getting close there myself, I'm especially strong in saying 70 is the new 40."
http://www.pennlive.com/news/2015/11/pa_supreme_court_impacts.html#incart_river
