It looks like we are headedfor another record low turn-out election. This is really unfortunate as there is a critically important and hotly contested race on the ballot— Pennsylvania Superior Court. From the letter Nina Ahmad and I are sending to our division: In many general elections in which we are asked to vote, one vote makes little difference. In most races for Philadelphia municipal offices, for example, the Democratic lead in registered voters is so great that the result is all but decided even before any votes are counted. The race for Judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court is another thing entirely. It is a very close race which is likely to be decided by a very small margin. In this race, your and your neighbors’ votes could be decisive. The Superior Court makes decisions affecting all Pennsylvanians. It hears appeals from Courts of Common Pleas, including their Family Divisions, in both civil and criminal cases. In these appeals, it reviews decisions of trial courts to ensure that the trial courts did not misinterpret the law or make factual findings unsupported by evidence. The Superior Court interprets unclear legislation; unless overturned on further appeal, its interpretation remains final. We enthusiastically endorse JACK MCVAY Jr. for a seat on this important court. McVay has been an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge since 2008; prior to that, he was Assistant County Solicitor for Allegheny County and, earlier, Assistant City Solicitor for the City of Pittsburgh. He has also served in various pro bono activities, notably as a member of the Board of Governors of the Duquesne University School of Law. Another Democrat is sorely needed on this important court, where Republicans currently hold a majority, Jack McVay is well qualified to be that Democrat, and we urge you to vote for him. JUDICIAL AND JUDICIAL RETENTION ELECTIONS The judicial candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party are listed on the other side. We particularly recommend that you vote for GIOVANNI CAMPBELL, who we believe is an extraordinarily well-qualified candidate. It is very difficult for non-lawyers to participate intelligently both in the election of judges and in the decision whether sitting judges should be retained. For one thing, judicial candidates very rarely discuss how they would rule concerning certain issues, and indeed are discouraged from doing so. In addition,judging a sitting judge’s performance requires familiarity with his/her day-to-day performance. For this reason, the Philadelphia Bar Association conducts an extensive interview process to gauge the competence of judicial candidates. In the case of sitting judges, the Bar Association interviews many of the attorneys who have tried cases before the judges in question. In assessing first-time judicial candidates, the Bar Association goes further,inquiring into such things as a candidate’s legal ability, knowledge of courtroom procedures and the rules of evidence, character and integrity,financial responsibility, and judicial temperament. On the basis of this interview process, the Bar Association rates every candidate as Recommended or Not Recommended. Unfortunately, in a few cases, each marked with an asterisk(*), the Bar Association rated the endorsed candidate as Not Recommended. (See philadelphiabar.org) Voters should take this information into consideration in deciding how to cast their ballots.
Posted on: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:01:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015