The most important 2017 election you haven’t heard of is in Pennsylvania. PA is electing a new state Supreme Court justice this year, as well as 4 judges to the state Superior Court and 2 to the Commonwealth Court. Win these elections, kill off the gerrymander—by any measure, PA has some of the country’s absolute worst gerrymanders, both for congressional seats (Democrats only win 5/18 House seats even when we win the popular vote) and for the state legislature (Democrats can win the popular vote, but rarely more than 40% of the seats).
PA Courts Can Enable or Terminate Gerrymandering
[Some relevant background: Superior and Commonwealth Courts hear appeals from the trial courts, which are elected at the county level. Superior Court hears most civil and criminal appeals, and is sometimes called the “busiest state appellate court in the nation.” Commonwealth Court hears cases involving state agencies/regulations, as well as taxes—thus they hear the bulk of the politically charged cases. Supreme Court hears appeals from those two courts, is the highest court in PA, and only hears about 1% of the cases filed with it.]
Among other things, these courts have the final say over gerrymandering—while drawing of congressional districts is done by the state legislature, drawing of the state legislative districts is done by a 5-member commission. That commission consists of 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans—and a tiebreaker chosen by the state Supreme Court. Why is PA absurdly gerrymandered, such that the GOP wins 60% of the seats despite losing the popular vote (as happened in 2012 and 2014)? Because after the last census, the PA Supreme Court had a Republican majority, and that majority appointed a Republican tiebreaker.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also hears any challenges to the gerrymanders, and other election procedures. Why did PA’s voter ID law get invalidated? Because one of the Republicans on the Court surprised people and voted with his Democratic colleagues to block it. And currently, the Commonwealth Court is considering a challenge to PA’s gerrymandered congressional districts—but what are the chances they’ll invalidate the districts? Here’s a clue—the Commonwealth Court has a 6-1 Republican majority, with two open seats being filled in the elections next month. (PA holds partisan elections in odd-numbered years for open judicial seats, but incumbents face only a yes/no retention vote, and they ALWAYS win that.)
Furthermore, the Superior Court has a 7-4 GOP majority—so if the Democrats sweep the four open seats, we get a majority for the first time in a couple decades at least. The Supreme Court is 5-1 Democratic—we could make it 6-1 by electing the Democratic nominee, Dwayne Woodruff, currently a Pittsburgh trial judge. If Woodruff wins, that secures a Democratic majority on the Court for the 2030 redistricting in addition to 2020—that’s a pretty great opportunity!
So What are Democrats doing about it? HELPING Republicans!
Yep, the morons who “lead” our party and donate money for campaigns are actually helping Trump’s party capture the PA courts! They’re donating their money to the damn fascists. The PIttsburgh Post-Gazette, one of two major daily newspapers in Pgh, documents their stupidity:
“
In fact, some big-spending groups who financed the Democrats’ 2015 sweep are either reducing their profile or sharing support with Republicans.
Two years ago, for example, a committee tied to the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association spent $700,000 bankrolling “Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform,” an outside-money group that attacked the GOP’s Supreme Court slate. This year, though, the association has so far contributed $150,000 to Justice Mundy, herself a onetime trial lawyer who was appointed by Gov. Tom Wolf to fill the seat vacated by Michael Eakin.
“Protecting the rights of people who have been hurt by another’s negligence isn’t a partisan issue, and that’s why we support both Republicans and Democrats,” said the Philadelphia association’s president, Larry Bendesky.
Seriously? Can you really be that thick, Larry Bendesky? Protecting rights isn’t a partisan issue—do you even live on this planet? Let’s recall that in 2005, one of the first things the newly-reelected Bush and his GOP Congress did was to pass a law limiting class-action liability lawsuits (under the Orwellian title, Class Action Fairness Act). They also passed a law limiting bankruptcy suits (Elizabeth Warren spends a whole chapter of her book, A Fighting Chance, lambasting this action). They’ve been trying to limit medical malpractice suits for years. They made John Edwards’s trial lawyer background into a negative in the 2004 campaign. The Republican SCOTUS has also repeatedly slammed the door on wronged plaintiffs: Concepcion, forced arbitration. Wal-Mart v Dukes, limiting class-action suits. Ledbetter, legalizing pay discrimination. Those were all 5-4 decisions by the Republican majority. Protecting rights isn’t a partisan issue? Wrong! Majorly wrong! It *shouldn’t be* a partisan issue, but it *is* a partisan issue. It is a common and dangerous human fallacy to think that the way the world *should be* is the way the world *is.* (That’s a slight paraphrase of David Frum:)
These well-heeled Democratic donors are committing a similar blunder as Gabby Giffords, who helped reelect Pat Toomey last year. She endorsed that tea partying lunatic simply because he said some semi-reasonable things on gun control and cast one measly vote in favor, never mind that he’s never taken any real action on the issue and is horrific besides. Her shortsightedness helped the GOP retain control of the Senate, and we now have to win a Senate seat in Tennessee, Alabama, or Texas in 2018 to capture control. Without Giffords aiding and abetting that fascist Toomey, he would likely have lost, so we’d only have to oust Heller in Nevada and Flake in Arizona. Oh, and Betsy DeVos wouldn’t be Education Secretary, and the ACA wouldn’t be hanging by the fickleness of an 81-year-old man with a terminal disease. As to the gun issue itself—Toomey voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch, who believes that ALL gun control is unconstitutional. Toomey thanks Giffords for being a useful idiot.
It’s a similar situation here—Sallie Mundy may be at least okay on plaintiffs’ rights, but does anyone seriously believe Dwayne Woodruff, a member of the party that actually cares about people, wouldn’t be good for wronged plaintiffs? I have seen no evidence that says Woodruff is anti-plaintiff. And Mundy is terrible on most issues, and will take other actions on the court to undermine plaintiffs—she’ll vote for GOP gerrymanders, and we know how the GOP feels about plaintiffs’ rights. Let’s also remember that Woodruff has been the recipient of coded racist attacks from the GOP over his criticism of Trump’s anti-NFL statements. Mundy wins, that validates the racism. Vote people, not parties? In this era, that’s a horribly shortsighted view.
And the foolishness doesn’t end with the trial lawyers, nor with the Woodruff-Mundy race:
”
Similarly the Pennsylvania State Education Association, which represents public-school teachers gave nearly $300,000 to Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform and the Democratic Supreme Court slate. (That investment arguably paid off last month, when PSEA-backed Justice David Wecht authored an opinion greenlighting a lawsuit alleging inadequate funding of education.) This year, PSEA is backing Justice Mundy, and splitting its lower-court recommendations between parties.
In all, the four Democrats running for Superior Court have a combined $409,307 on hand, more than twice the GOP field’s total of $187,362. But in the Commonwealth Court race, Republicans Paul Lalley and Christine Fizzano Cannon boast a combined $728,161 -- over four times the $165,286 posted by Irene Clark and Ellen Ceisler.
Sure, unions, let’s elect the party that opposes your right to exist! Let’s give them even more power to kill off unions! Never mind that Ellen Ceisler is pretty much a dream candidate. Never mind that Paul Lalley cites Alito, the single most anti-labor SCOTUS justice, as his model judge. Never mind that electing Lalley and Cannon over Ceisler and Clark will give the Kochs an 8-1 majority on the Court that has power to decide all issues pertaining to environmental regulation, fossil fuels, fracking, unions, you name it. Bizarrely, PSEA has endorsed a Green Party candidate for Superior Court—all that’s going to do is make it more likely the fascist slate wins. No way will I vote for Jules Mermelstein—takes a vote away from the Democrats, and I can’t support somebody who voted for Jill Stein (in PA!) and thereby helped elect Donald Trump.
Let’s take a moment to introduce the Republicans so we can understand what a colossally bad move it is for any left-of-center person or group to back them:
For Supreme Court: Sallie Mundy, the appointed incumbent, is okay on plaintiffs’ rights, and bad on basically everything else. She is certain to vote to uphold pro-GOP gerrymanders. The same ones that elect people who fiercely oppose plaintiffs’ rights and labor rights. PA will get a right-to-work law if Tom Wolf loses reelection next year. Plus, a victory for Mundy validates the race-baiting of the PA GOP—Woodruff, a black man and former NFL player, criticized Trump’s comments on the NFL. The PA GOP responded by saying that Woodruff is disrespectful and unpatriotic—the same sorts of racial dog whistles Obama faced all the time.
For Superior Court: Emil Giordano, Lehigh-area trial judge who ran for this court in 2015 and lost. Mary Murray, Pittsburgh-area magistrate. Wade Kagarise, Blair County (Altoona) trial judge. Craig Stedman, Lancaster County DA. Kagarise is particularly terrible—a former staffer for none other than Pat Toomey, he’s a self-described “loyal Republican” who will “represent conservative values on the bench.” And Stedman has some questionable history: lancasteronline.com/…
For Commonwealth Court: Christine Cannon, a Delaware County (Philly suburbs) trial judge, and Paul Lalley, Pittsburgh lawyer who lost a race for this court in 2015, have of course pledged that they will “not legislate from the bench.” We know what that means. All seven Republicans have made that pledge. Lalley, by the way, named his daughter Reagan. It doesn’t take a genius to guess where he came up with that.
The PA Family Institute, a right-wing religious group, sent a questionnaire to all 7 Republicans and all 7 Democrats running. The questions were:
1. Which president most matches your political philosophy? JFK, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama.
2. Which justice most matches your judicial philosophy? Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
3. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is living document and 10 is strict constructionist, how would you rate your judicial philosophy?
4. Was Roe v Wade correctly decided or not?
5. Does the PA Constitution permit the display of the 10 Commandments in the courtroom?
No Democrat bothered to respond. All 7 Republicans replied, as follows:
1. All 7 selected Reagan. Oddly, Mary Murray selected JFK in addition to Reagan, despite the fact that JFK and Reagan held similar views on essentially nothing.
2. 5 of them selected Scalia. Lalley selected Alito, while Kagarise selected Thomas.
3. Stedman picked a 9. The others all said 10.
4. Cannon said she’s pro-life, but declined to comment on Roe directly, citing judicial ethics. All the others said it was incorrectly decided.
5. Cannon said she couldn’t answer due to judicial ethics. She did say, though, that they are “a symbol of the law” and displaying them in court “reflects their historical role.” The others all said yes—endorsing the same conduct that got Roy Moore suspended in Alabama.
And yet somehow, major Democratic donors think these people (at least some of them) can be trusted to uphold our rights under the law? Absurd.
Now, let’s remind ourselves of who we actually can trust, on labor and all the other issues we care about:
I’ve sung the praises of the Democratic candidates before, and I’ll do it again. For Supreme Court, Dwayne Woodruff:
Woodruff is pro-labor, pro-civil rights, and anti-gerrymandering. What more could you expect? Woodruff will be far more favorable to democratic interests (lowercase d is intentional) than Mundy. At least one organization knows the score:
And the downballot judges are excellent as well. For Commonwealth Court, Ellen Ceisler is pretty much a dream candidate. She’s posted on social media about the gerrymandering cases, making clear that she would be a voice against gerrymandering on the Court. She’s been involved with the Anti-Defamation League (sound timely?), as well as New Leash on Life, an organization geared toward giving ex-felons a second chance AND finding homes for homeless dogs. On her website, she leaves absolutely no doubt where she stands: 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.
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.
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.
WORKER'S RIGHTS
Bills that will challenge the ability for Pennsylvania's workers to organize and bargain collectively are coming through the Pennsylvania legislature. "Right To Work" and "Paycheck Protection" legislation, if passed, will likely come before the Commonwealth Court if challenged.
LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING
The Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction over issues pertaining to the legislative redistricting process. It will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth Court to ensure that districts are fair, and conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
A Democratic judge willing to take a fucking stance for once? Yes, please! It’s about time we dispense with the idea that judges are just neutral arbiters like baseball umpires. No. Judges do have *some* characteristics in common with umpires, but a judge is more like a combination of umpire and commissioner. Let’s face it—judges make rules. Judges make policy. Judges are just politicians who wear robes.
Anyway, Ellen Ceisler has made clear she will be a pro-labor judge, and will be very favorable to the interests of democracy. For ANY union to help Paul Lalley, whose judicial model is the single most anti-labor SCOTUS justice in living memory (and a climate denier), over Ellen Ceisler crosses the line into insanity.
And for Superior Court, we have some damn good candidates as well. Here’s Carolyn Nichols, talking about the role of the judiciary in democracy and expressing some thinly-veiled criticisms of the Donald: www.facebook.com/…
Geoff Moulton gave an interview is which he mentioned that he was motivated to pursue law when, as a teenager during Watergate, he was awed by “the role of the judiciary in bringing down a corrupt president.” Sound timely? He’s also helped advance LGBT rights in PA: www.thelegalintelligencer.com/…
And speaking of LGBT rights, Maria McLaughlin:
Not to mention:
And finally, Debbie Kunselman reminds us:
Conclusion
Democrats and liberals need to do a much better job. When one party despises and rejects democratic values and is run by a deadly combo of white supremacists (the Donald, Steve Bannon, Neil Gorsuch) and oligarchs (Koch brothers, Neil Gorsuch), you cannot have both bipartisanship and democracy. A choice must be made.
We also (I’ve been beating this drum for a while, and I know I’m not the only one who believes this) need to better grasp the role of the courts. Republicans know this; that’s why they stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama and obstructed everyone he appointed. State senator Scott Wagner is the leading GOP candidate to challenge Gov. Tom Wolf. Wagner is an aggressive, racist, Trump-style candidate, but he gets that judges matter, writing an op-ed recently:
”
Among the most critical, yet most ignored races, are judicial elections, and yet the courtroom is the very place where liberty and justice for all are under attack. Courts all across the nation, which were once great equalizers, are being overrun by liberal judges who’ve forgotten their role. Rather than uphold the law as it is written, these judges make up new laws to accommodate partisan politics. The bench is no place for law making, for politics, or biased rulings. In November of this year, just a few months away, voters will have the opportunity to defend Pennsylvania against this bias -- and we cannot squander it.
...
It is critical that conservatives band together and push harder than ever to elect judges who will protect the Constitution and uphold the law above all. And in these elections it is vital to remember that every vote counts. One statewide judge race a few years ago came down to just 28 votes! Every additional person you bring to the polls counts -- especially in these low turnout elections when only 20% of registered voters will make it to the polls.
As I travel the state to make people aware of just how gravely Gov. Wolf’s failures affect them, I also make certain they know how important it is that we elect conservative judges to our courts this year. I let them know that at stake in November are seats on our Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts. I tell them about our Republican slate of qualified, conservative candidates. Wherever you travel, if you do the same, we cannot lose.”
The Republicans are many things, one of which is good at politics. Wagner would be a train wreck as governor, but he seems to grasp the importance of judgeships much better than some labor unions and trial lawyers do.
If we want to stop the Trump agenda in PA, this is where we do it. We elect our Democratic judges, and we terminate the gerrymandering, give unions and working/middle PA a fair shake, along with marginalized groups like the LGBT community and racial minorities. Elect the Republicans, and watch Trump’s agenda suddenly become mandated by the PA Constitution. Remember—even though the PA Supreme Court will retain a Democratic majority, they don’t hear most cases. They can’t correct everything.
I consider this the second-most important race of 2017, after Virginia. (I rank it ahead of New Jersey because this is competitive while Phil Murphy is very likely to win.) And given the GOP edges in money, and in turning out voters (Dems just don’t vote in these kinds of races, and there is no Philly mayoral race this year, so no boost there), it’ll take everything we’ve got to win. I’ll give the man at the top of the ticket, Dwayne Woodruff, the last word: