Effort To ‘Regionalize’ PA Appeals Courts Moves Forward
The Pennsylvania Senate enacted legislation this week that represents a major first step toward a constitutional amendment that would change the way the commonwealth selects judges who will sit on the state Supreme Court, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court.
Currently, those judges are elected in statewide elections. The new bill, which was passed on party lines, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposed; would replace the statewide election of appeals court judges, with judges for each of the courts being chosen from seven “Judicial Districts.”
Any amendment to the state constitution has to be approved in a referendum by a majority of the voters. And before a proposed amendment can appear on the ballot, it has to pass in both the Senate and the House – in two consecutive legislative sessions. If that happens, the governor does not have any veto power that could prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot.
If nothing else, this bill raises the stakes for this year’s state House and Senate Races. Should the Republicans retain control of the both Houses of the legislature in November, it is very likely that they go to “Round Two” next year, and the voters could be asked to decide if want to change the way appeals court judges are chosen as early as next spring.
What the Republicans Are Saying
Republicans argue that more than half of all the members of Pennsylvania’s Superior Court and Commonwealth Court are from only two of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties, which represent only 21 percent of the state’s population. Five of the seven Supreme Court Justices, or over two-thirds of the justices, are from Allegheny or Philadelphia counties, leaving 79 percent of the state’s population underrepresented on Pennsylvania’s highest court.
When the bill passed the House in December, Representative Tim Briggs (D-149) who represents parts of Lower Merion told Penn Live, “Any way you slice it, House Bill 196 is an attempt to rig the judiciary through judicial gerrymandering.”
Tim Briggs
According to Penn Live, “He said the desire to move away from a statewide election for these judicial posts grows out of ‘sour grapes’ over last year’s Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the congressional redistricting maps that ‘rigged elections in congressional districts to ensure Republicans dominated.’ Briggs went on to call the move away from statewide election of judges a ‘hair-brained [sic] idea’ hatched by people who proposed impeaching justices over that redistricting map decision. Moreover, he said, ‘Judges are supposed to interpret the laws we pass and decide if lower courts have made errors of law. Judges are not supposed to represent any particular interest or regional bias.’ “
This “mob” that you speak of, isn’t that how minority factions occasionally refer to the majority from whom they seek to usurp power?
Seems like a sound plan. Keeps the large urban centers from dominating the rest of the state. Much as the electoral college prevents mob rule at the national level.
This “mob” that you speak of, isn’t that how minority factions occasionally refer to the majority from whom they seek to usurp power?
Our entire federal system is designed to protect our liberties from the tyranny of the “majority.”
“Hare-brained”
Thanks for your close reading. See edit.