Vote Smart: Understanding Pennsylvania’s Judicial Retention Elections

Speaker A: Hello and welcome to the Legal Tech podcast sponsored by the law offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC and Integrated Technology Services in Havertown, Pennsylvania. Usually, I don't comment on elections or political issues because it is my belief that those aren't generally the fodder of podcasts. But this is different because we have an election that is going to determine the composition of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for many years to come. And unfortunately, newspapers have their biases. I have my biases. Everyone has biases. But I wanted to bring out my perspective on the election. Unlike some people, um, I believe you have to judge a judge when you're seeking to retain him or her based upon their past performance and not just one issue. When you look at the race for appellate judges in Pennsylvania, and particularly the three justices of the Supreme Court, and should they be retained, um, it's unfortunate that most voters know little about them. Um, they don't know who they are. They don't know what they do. The public often votes with little understanding of the Court's essential everyday work. Too often, judges on our appellate courts, the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, and the Commonwealth Court are judged not by the quality of their decision, but by sound bites or, or a single controversial issue. For example, the local Delaware county paper, the Delaware County Times, uh, hasn't endorsed a candidate or endorsed or opposed a judge for retention, but they covered the retention election with a column last week that judged them by one issue. And while that's an issue that's important for some people, I don't believe that any voter should vote on a judge because of one issue. Um, and as a result, they're not. People are not getting. The public isn't receiving information from the voices of those people. The lawyers who appear before the judges, they're not often heard. Um, and the column I mentioned by Christine Flowers criticizes the Supreme Court justices because of one vote. Flowers, who is a lawyer, has never appeared before any of the justices. And the issue that she cares about, while important, is not the be all and end all for everyone in front of that court. It is not, for me, for example, the only issue. And I'm not saying that because I win every case in front of the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth Court or the Superior Court. I don't. I'm saying it because they're important to me that we have, um, elect Commonwealth Court, Superior Court, and Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges who have proven themselves fit for retention. I have appeared before every appellate judge seeking retention this year, and I support all of them, including Supreme Court Justices. Christine Donahue, Kevin Docherty, and David Wecht. My support has nothing to do with how they voted on any particular case. I support them because each has demonstrated fairness, preparation, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to deciding the cases based on the facts and the law. These justices and their colleagues decide cases that affect the daily lives of Pennsylvanians. They affect criminal law, family law, domestic relations law, zoning law, land use, election law, workers compensation, automobile, uh, law, unemployment law, and much more. So their opinions affect every voter in the state in some way. And retention shouldn't be a partisan issue. And for those who think it is, uh, I can show that it is not. Instead, it should be about competence, integrity, and adherence to the rule of law. Although I'm a Democrat, I have publicly supported judges of both parties for retention. Two years ago, I endorsed three Delaware county judges who originally ran as Republicans, not because of their party affiliation, but because they were fair to all litigants, exhibited proper judicial demeanor, and ruled according to the law and the evidence. Judicial excellence is not a partisan quality. There are judges who have run as Democrats, judges who have run as Republicans. And if they were seeking retention, I would tell you, you shouldn't vote for them. Because they haven't determined themselves to be the proper demeanor. Most of Pennsylvania's appellate judges have demonstrated the temperament, intelligence and diligence to justify their retention. It is a mistake to vote against a judge based on a single issue or the outcome of one or two high profile cases. Voters should instead examine each judge's record and when possible, listen to the lawyers who appear before them, observe the judge's professionalism when they appear on cable TV such as pcn, and see firsthand how they, uh, perform. The Pennsylvania Bar association, which is nonpartisan, has rated each of these judges highly, recommended the Delaware County Bar Association. Its members have also overwhelmingly endorsed all of the judges seeking retention. Uh, this year. That includes all five appellate court judges, Supreme Court Justices Donahue, Doherty and Wecht, and Superior Court Judge Alice Beck Dubal and Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcick. Having handled more than 250appellate cases in my career, I know what makes a good jurist. Those judges have earned the respect of lawyers and litigants alike. They prepare thoroughly, they treat each litigant with courtesy, and issue thoughtful, well reasoned decisions. It's the same reason that I've supported this year the retention of judges running in my county, Delaware county. And they're running, uh, uh, for retention. But they ran initially as Republicans. But they have demonstrated to me that they are fair and have the right temperament to be Judges. That's the standard that I want, uh, all voters to look for. Our judicial decision suspect, uh, our judicial system depends on educated, experienced, thoughtful judges who decide cases fairly and consistently. Political wins should not determine whether judges remain on the ballot or on the bench. This year's retention election provides an opportunity for Pennsylvanians to affirm their commitment to an independent judiciary by voting yes for Judges Donahue, Dougherty and Wecht, Judge Dubal and Judge Wojcick. Having seen their work firsthand, I can say without hesitation that these judges have earned that vote for retention. Yes. Politics is a necessary evil in our system. Because we elect judges, they aren't picked by merit. But in these cases, each judge has shown that they were elected and have served and are fair, independent judges, and that's a very good record. The Pennsylvania Bar association endorses them. Members of the Delaware County Bar association endorse them. They have the endorsements of, uh, key constituencies who have appeared before them and do not agree on every political issue, do not agree on every decision they've rendered. I don't agree with the decisions that have been rendered by every one of these jurists. You. Yet, at the same time, I support Judge Christine Docherty, Judge Kevin Doherty, and Judge David Wecht, Justice David Wecht. I support Superior Court Judge Alice Beck dubal and Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcick. They have deserved our endorsement and deserve your vote. This has been the legal tech podcast sponsored by the law offices of Daniel J. Siegel, LLC and Integrated Technology Services, llc. We're located in Havertown, Pennsylvania, and provide legal services to members of the public. Like all of you who listen, I encourage you to go out and vote, to express your right to vote, um, wherever you are. Um, it's important. Our democracy and the rule of law depend on it. Thank you.