DJ’S don’t deserve advantage

Pennsylvania lawmakers were wrong in approving a bill giving incumbent district judges an unfair advantage when seeking re-election.

As with challengers, an incumbent should be required to collect voter signatures on petitions for the right to have his or her name appear on ballots.

When the state Senate erred in voting unanimously in June to exempt the incumbents from the signature requirement, it was hoped that members of the House of Representatives would exercise better judgment. Instead, the House voted 128-65 on Oct. 10 to concur with the upper chamber’s action, sending the approved measure to Gov. Tom Wolf for his signature.

Following the House action, the governor’s office said Wolf planned to review it before deciding whether to affix his signature or veto it.

Because of the proverbial slippery slope that the measure would create, Wolf should refuse to endorse it.

“What kind of slippery slope?” some state residents might ask.

Allowing incumbents to escape the requirement to file petitions with at least the required minimum number of voter signatures — 100 signatures are required for the office of district judge — the measure could open a window for exempting eventually all judicial incumbents from filing signature petitions.

That might be followed by a similar misguided break for incumbent lawmakers.

The result would be an unfair advantage, again, to incumbents, violating the state constitution’s requirement that elections be fair.

State lawmakers, Democrats as well as Republicans, should have been putting their energy to work on behalf of productive measures, not a measure aimed at undermining the election-fairness principle.

Lawmakers’ excuse for passing the bill is flimsy — that incumbents face the risk of hostility when seeking petition signatures.

It’s hard to fathom that any incumbent would not know enough people from whom to gather 100 signatures before needing to go door-to-door to seek signatures from people whom he or she might not be familiar.

That’s not the view of lawmakers like Rep. Steve McCarter, D-Montgomery, who said many judges have reported “hostile, frightening behavior” and some physical harm when they’ve sought petition support.

“It can be dangerous, in contrast to what some people have suggested,” McCarter said.

However, those who characterize such opinions as overblown are more in tune with reality. Instances such as those to which McCarter alludes haven’t been dominating news coverage. It’s hard to recall when they’ve prompted even a public whisper.

But suddenly, in Pennsylvania, legislative action has been forthcoming that raises questions about whether it could withstand a challenge in the state’s courts.

“This (the approved measure) is subverting the election process in favor of incumbents,” said Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Allegheny. He’s right. Meanwhile, if Rep. Dom Costa, R-Allegheny, is correct that incumbent district judge candidates “need our protection,” then that same “protection” should be accorded to the other district judge hopefuls vying to unseat them.

But that would no doubt create a number of problems, especially in preparing ballots for the primary elections — like numerous “candidates” supported by one person, the “candidate” himself or herself.

Elimination of filing fees for incumbents or challengers could have the same effect.

The old adage “don’t try to fix something that isn’t broken” applies regarding the signatures issue.