The judiciary—the only check, at this point, on Donald Trump.
But only if the right people are judges. As Paul Krugman observed in February, “Institutions are only as good as the people who serve them.”
And Pennsylvania is going to elect seven people to our statewide courts this year. We better make sure they’re the right ones. The first step there is the Democratic primary on May 16—tomorrow.
More below the fold.
I have previously written about these races, so I’ll not completely rehash those diaries. This is mostly intended as a summation and a reminder to people to vote! Not that most of you on Daily Kos need reminders, but judicial races do often fly under the radar, hugely important as they are.
In Pennsylvania, we have elections for seats on the three statewide courts: Superior Court, which hears civil and criminal appeals from the trial courts; Commonwealth Court, which hears cases pertaining to taxes, benefits, state agencies, state regulations—e.g. election laws/procedures, fracking, discrimination cases go to Commonwealth Court, which is mostly an appellate court but has original jurisdiction in some cases. And there is Supreme Court, which hears appeals from Superior or Commonwealth Courts, and is the highest court in PA. Its most important power is over gerrymandering—the state legislative districts are drawn by a 5-person commission, which consists of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans, and a 5th member. When the 2 Dems and 2 Reps inevitably fail to agree on a 5th person, the state Supreme Court chooses that person—and last time, the GOP majority on the Supreme Court chose a Republican tiebreaker, hence PA’s absurdly pro-Republican gerrymander.
Gerrymandering, fracking, other forms of environmental protection, workers’/labor rights, LGBT, women’s rights, etc.--you name it, PA’s statewide courts have been and will continue ruling on it. PA is one of only six states where all judges are elected, so let’s make sure we vote for pro-democracy judges, not Trump rubber stamps! When we elect these judges, they serve for decades—partisan elections are held for open seats, but incumbents only face a nonpartisan yes/no retention vote, and they ALWAYS win that. Only once has a judge lost one, and that only because of public fury at corrupt leaders in the legislature voting themselves a pay raise.
PA Supreme Court
One seat is open this year, thanks to the resignation of a disgraced judge who sent racist/sexist/pornographic emails. Democrats have only one candidate: Dwayne Woodruff, a trial judge in Allegheny County—the county that contains Pittsburgh—and a former defensive back for the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers. Here’s Woodruff, whom I heartily endorse:
He makes a similar point here: www.politicspa.com/…
“I think the issues that are going on in our country and particularly in our state call for strong leadership,” Woodruff said.
“The things that I believe in regard to women’s rights and civil rights and all those things that are coming into question now and it is something that the judicial system can help resolve and protect,” Woodruff said.
“I believe that the judiciary system is that line of defense to make sure that our rights are protected and the Constitution is followed as well.”
I’ll not say much more in the interests of brevity, but I said more in my other diaries, and information about Woodruff is easy to find.
PA Superior Court
There are four openings this year. If Democrats win all four seats in the fall, we will have an 8-7 majority—which would be the first time in at least the past couple decades Democrats have held a majority on the Superior Court. We have five candidates in the primary. For me, the odd one out is Bill Caye, a former prosecutor who received a “Not Recommended” rating from the PA bar association. Even without that rating, the other candidates, in my view, are better qualified. In brief:
Carolyn Nichols, Philadelphia trial judge:
Maria McLaughlin, also a Philadelphia trial judge:
Geoff Moulton, interim Superior Court judge appointed by Gov. Tom Wolf, running for a full term—no pithy tweets from him, but there is an interview in which he mentions being a teenager during Watergate, and being awestruck by the role of the judiciary in bringing down a corrupt president. Sound timely? pcntv.com/…
Moulton also recently issued a pro-LGBT ruling: www.google.com/...
And finally, Debbie Kunselman, Beaver County trial judge—that’s blue-collar, exurban Pittsburgh. From her bio: deborahkunselman.com
Notably, she successfully represented several teachers in an Equal Pay Act and Age Discrimination claim, recovering a substantial jury verdict on their behalf….
She has decided many employment cases, including cases where she upheld appeals from labor arbitration awards. In one important case, she awarded back-pay and reinstated an employee in the health-care industry, who was terminated for refusing mandatory overtime.
Also: www.politicspa.com/…
“I have dealt with many LGBTQ issues. I would look at these cases the same as any other cases, those litigants deserve what everybody else does before the court, to be treated fairly,” Kunselman said.
I’d like more, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. Plus, she is very well-qualified, having served as a judge for 12 years, longer than any of her ticket-mates. And for what it’s worth, most progressive groups such as NOW, LGBT organizations, and others, have endorsed the slate of Kunselman/Moulton/McLaughlin/Nichols. I am endorsing them, too.
PA Commonwealth Court
Democrats have six candidates seeking two slots on the politically charged, GOP-dominated court. We really need to win both seats in the fall, to make up ground on this court that consistently rules in favor of corporate polluters, against unions, and against fair elections. Who dissents from those rulings? Why, the only two Democrats on the court—Michael Wojcik, elected in 2015, and Joe Cosgrove, an interim appointment by Tom Wolf. Cosgrove is running in the Democratic primary for a full term. He is the sole Democratic candidate with a “Highly Recommended” rating from the PA bar. Of the others, Irene Clark was rated “Not Recommended” due to insufficient relevant experience, while the other four were all “Recommended.”
The GOP, unfortunately, has two strong candidates—Christine Cannon, a trial judge in the Philly suburbs (Highly Recommended), and Paul Lalley, a Pittsburgh corporate attorney who ran in 2015 and lost to Wojcik, 53-47 (Recommended). Credentials and geography will help them both. We’d better nominate strong candidates too.
The good news is, we have strong candidates. The bad news is, voters don’t always nominate strong candidates. For me, Irene Clark is out due to her rating. Timothy Barry is a labor arbitrator from Pittsburgh; I can find little distinctive about him, and he has virtually no significant endorsements of any kind. This is where geography could bite us—both Barry and Clark hail from Pittsburgh, and because candidates’ home counties appear on the primary ballot, they could get nominated if people simply vote based on geography. Something like this happened in 2009—Democrats nominated two underwhelming, underqualified Pittsburghers for Commonwealth Court, and they went down to convincing defeat in the fall. We can’t make that mistake again.
Bryan Barbin does have blue-collar appeal, considering he’s won several terms as a state legislator from Johnstown, but he’s anti-abortion Blue Dog and his House seat would likely flip to the GOP if he vacated it. He might be able to win the election, but so could our three strongest candidates:
Todd Eagen is a progressive labor lawyer who has been clear that he will be a voice for the working/middle classes on the Court. Ellen Ceisler is a progressive trial judge in Philadelphia. In her own words: www.ceislerforpa.com/...
ENVIRONMENT
The Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to “clean air and pure water.” Issues related to clean air and water, fracking, pipelines, and a wide variety of land use and eminent domain issues are likely to come before the Commonwealth Court. The Court also makes rulings on regulations promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection and other executive branch agencies that deal with the environment.
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
Anti-choice lawmakers are pushing new legislation in Harrisburg that would restrict a women’s right to choose, including a 20-week ban on abortion. Commonwealth Court is likely to rule on any constitutional challenge to the legislation. Other state laws and regulations related to reproductive health also fall within the jurisdiction of Commonwealth Court.
WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE FUNDING
It is highly likely that the GOP-controlled state legislature will continue to wage war on funding for women’s healthcare. Funding to the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services may be restricted for reasons that violate the Pennsylvania and/or United States Constitution. It will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Court to ensure that women’s constitutional rights are protected
LGBT EQUALITY & NON-DISCRIMINATION
Marriage equality may have come through the federal bench, but Commonwealth Court could potentially rule on many issues related to LGBT equality at the state level. This could include state regulations including proposed workplace anti-discrimination laws, which would protect LGBT individuals from being discriminated against at work and while seeking housing or other accommodations.
PROTECTING LGBT STUDENTS
There is a renewed push to ensure that LGBT students are safe from bullying in public schools. This is being done through a combination of new legislation and enhanced regulations from the Department of Education. Any court challenge to these new rules would likely end up coming before Commonwealth Court.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Care about criminal justice reform, due process, or privacy? What about religious liberty, free speech, or transparency in government? Commonwealth Court could rule on cases that involve all of those issues and more. Any state law or regulation that infringes on civil liberties will likely come before the court.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Commonwealth Court could potentially rule on legislation related to voting rights, police accountability, affirmative action, and other civil rights issues. For example, Commonwealth Court ruled against the so-called “Voter ID” law that came before them in 2014. This is just one example of the many civil rights issues that could come before the Court in the future.
Joe Cosgrove is a Pope Francis-type Catholic, concerned about social justice. I’m still amazed by the story of him getting Mother Teresa to testify in a capital hearing, and his client receiving a life sentence instead of being executed. Here's the story about that, and other work Cosgrove has done: citizensvoice.com/… Recently, Martin Sheen appeared in an ad with Cosgrove:
It seems that the party apparatus and progressive groups are solidly with Eagen, with Ceisler getting substantial support for the second slot. Cosgrove gets some support, too. And he has been a reliable vote for our views on the Court, voting with Wojcik and against the GOP majority.
My take is our best bet is to nominate two of the latter three. I voted absentee, and I voted for Joe Cosgrove and Ellen Ceisler. Ceisler is a strong progressive, I really like that she takes a stand on the issues, and her increased name recognition in the Philly area could help her in the suburbs, which typically lean GOP in judicial races. Cosgrove is the only Democrat with the highest bar rating, and the GOP is going to have a candidate with that rating, too. Additionally, Cosgrove’s record is excellent. He has the expertise and the commitment to social justice. He hails from the Scranton-Wilkes Barre area, a swing area that has enough votes to swing an election.
While I voted for Cosgrove and Ceisler, I could just as easily have backed Eagen. He also hails from Scranton-Wilkes Barre, has some blue collar appeal with his representation of unions. He’s a solid liberal and would also make a fine judge.
So for Commonwealth Court, I hope two of Cosgrove, Eagen, and Ceisler get nominated. Cosgrove and Eagen may have a tough time since their home counties (Luzerne and Lackawanna) are less populous than, say, Philadelphia or Allegheny. They’re still two of our best candidates and I hope they will get a lot of support, along with Ceisler.
Vote!
This may not be an ideologically divisive or emotionally charged primary, but that doesn’t mean we stay home! PA Dems, let’s have a good turnout on Tuesday and an even better one in the fall, to keep the PA courts out of Trump’s hands! I’ll give the last word to the man at the top of the ticket, Dwayne Woodruff: