When Pennsylvania voters choose three new state Supreme Court justices this year, some will no doubt make their pick based on the candidates’ track record in making evidence-suppression rulings, or their nuanced understanding of estate law. But campaign observers say that for many voters, what drives these races are demographic factors like geography and gender.
“Those are the kind of things that can matter when voters don’t know about a candidate’s legal experience or reputation,” said Lynn Marks, executive director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.
Not surprisingly, then, candidates often tout their personal backgrounds, even while pledging not to be overly influenced by them once elected.
During a recent forum televised by the public-affairs cable network PCN, Superior Court Judge Anne Lazarus talked about her extensive work on judicial ethics — while adding that having a justice with “Philadelphian perspective is very important.” Fellow Democrat John Foradora, a Jefferson County judge, meanwhile, bills himself as “the only [Democrat] who knows what justice looks like in the 65 counties other than Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.”
Candidates ranging from Republican Adams County President Judge Mike George to Democratic Superior Court Judge Christine Donohue offer biographies that blend hardscrabble childhoods with professional accomplishments in the courtroom.
Candidates note that there is value in having a mix of backgrounds on the court. Judge Lazarus said that some issues that come before the court, such as a controversial state voter-identification law, have different impacts in Philadelphia. More generally, she said, “We can all learn a lot from how other counties solve problems.”
And if it weren’t for such markers, it might be hard telling the candidates apart at all.
Voters can turn to Pennsylvania Bar Association ratings, which are compiled through an extensive interview and reference-check process. But the ratings only go so far in drawing distinctions: Six of this year’s candidates are “highly recommended” while four more are “recommended” (including Judges Foradora and George). Only Republicans Anne Covey and Rebecca Warren were not recommended.
G. Terry Madonna, a polling expert at Franklin & Marshall College, said the fact that voters have so little information makes the outcome of judicial races hard to predict.
“There are so many variables,” he said, “and I don’t know that they have anything to do with judicial qualifications.”
Part of what makes judicial candidates hard to judge is that they can’t make campaign promises. Judicial candidates “are allowed to talk about what they personally feel about issues, but not about how they would rule in a particular case,” said Ms. Marks. “They can say ‘I’m pro-choice’ or ‘I’m pro-life,’ but they can’t say, ‘If an abortion-related case came before me, I would rule a certain way.’ ”
Candidates can sketch out an agenda, particularly when it comes to ethics rules and court procedures, and a handful of candidates including Judge Lazarus and Superior Court Democrat David Wecht (“highly recommended” by the Bar Association) often discuss changes to increase accountability.
But such nuances may count for less than where a candidate came from — if only because that’s one thing about a candidate every voter will know since candidates are identified by county on the ballot.
Voters in different areas handle that information differently. Judge Lazarus (“highly recommended”) jokes that being a Philadelphian seeking a statewide judicial seat is a political “death wish.” Voters outside Philadelphia often shy from backing a “Philadelphia judge,” while voters inside Philadelphia don’t always back hometown candidates.
“Southwest PA has a bigger regional effect,” said Mr. Madonna, who speculated that Philadelphia voters were “more cosmopolitan,” and less likely to be swayed by local allegiances.
For that reason, many insiders say that Allegheny County candidates have an inside track this May. And while Judge Foradora would seem to have an uphill climb as a judge from a rural county, he said he would “bring balance to the [Democratic] ticket” in November. “If you want to get three Democrats to win, I’ve gotta be on the ballot [so] they can’t be branded as ‘urban liberals.’”
Some demographic considerations — like a candidate’s age — arguably matter for reasons beyond partisanship. The Pennsylvania Constitution requires judges to retire at age 70, which is a special concern on the Republican ticket, where current Supreme Court Justice Correale Stevens is 68 and Superior Court Judge Cheryl Allen is 67 (“both highly recommended”).
In a primary, party loyalists may worry about the risk of losing a seat so quickly: The prospect of a quick retirement can also raise concerns about turnover in a court that has already seen considerable upheaval.
“We need to make sure we elect justices who can serve at least a 10-year term,” said Republican contender Judith Olson, a Superior Court judge who would be 58 upon taking office.
Justice Stevens acknowledged that age “is an issue,” but noted that the legislature was weighing a measure that would give voters a chance to raise the retirement age to 75. “I wouldn’t be doing this if I thought I would only be serving a year,” he said.
Gender and race, meanwhile, can shape a candidate’s electoral chances — and, some say, what that candidate brings to the bench.
The Supreme Court field also includes two black candidates: Judge Allen and Democrat Dwayne Woodruff, a Family Division judge in Allegheny County. But while Judge Woodruff touts his ability to “bring a diverse and informed decision to our court,” he adds: “Because our society is the way it is, [race] is not something I lead with.”
“I don’t want anyone voting for me because I’m a black man,” he added. “I’ve got a lot of assets.” (In addition to his experience and solid Bar Association rating, he is a former Pittsburgh Steeler, which he said “doesn’t hurt” his prospects.)
Judge Woodruff said the importance of diversity is “not about ruling one way or the other. It’s so we can talk about an issue and see if it needs to be addressed. … You and I can walk down the street, and what we see will be identical, but how we perceive it can be night and day.”
“There’s something to be said for bringing different perspectives to work,” agreed Sue Frietsche, an attorney with the Women’s Law Project. If women shape decisions, “The outcome may be the same, but the act of judging will reflect women’s experiences more fully.”
In any case, women have generally fared well in statewide judicial races, though Ms. Frietsche said gender doesn’t predict how judges will rule, even on issues such as reproductive rights.
Judge Allen said she is a Republican today partly because “I found it very, very difficult to run statewide as a Democrat unless you believed in abortion.” (She is a board member of the Pittsburgh-area Women’s Choice Network, whose centers offer medical services while “empower[ing] abortion-vulnerable women to choose life.”)
“People ask me if I can win because I’m a woman. I say I can win because of my qualifications,” said Judge Allen.
If demographic factors help pave the way to victory, “I’ll take that any day of the week,” said Democratic Superior Court judge Christine Donohue, who is from Allegheny County. But she noted that she could also point to her ample legal experience and her own “highly recommended” rating.
“If I win,” she said, “I’ll say that’s why.”
First Published: April 12, 2015, 4:00 a.m.
