Republican duo defends wording of referendum
A suit by two former state Supreme Court justices and a prominent lawyer challenging the wording of a referendum on judicial retirement ages is “flawed” and presumes that voters are “uneducated,” two top GOP senators contend in a legal brief.
Retired Justices Ronald D. Castille and Stephen Zappala Sr. and Philadelphia attorney Richard A. Sprague last week filed an emergency lawsuit in Commonwealth Court against the state’s top election official, Pedro Cortes, seeking to block the wording of the ballot question, calling it “deceitful.”
But Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati, RJefferson, and Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman RCentre, argue that the challenge is “based on a disappointing, unspoken predicate: the average voter of the Commonwealth is uneducated and makes spot decisions in the voting booth.”
At stake is a seemingly simple question: whether Pennsylvania should raise its retirement age for judges to 75 from 70, to acknowledge the reality that people in the 21st century are living longer and more active lives.
But bringing that question before Pennsylvania voters has been anything but simple.
Although the proposed change in the state Constitution passed two sessions of the Legislature, the first effort to put the question to a statewide vote — on the April primary ballot — faltered. It was blocked in a last-minute legal challenge by some lawmakers who thought the wording of that ballot question from Mr. Cortes was cumbersome and confusing.
It read: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?”
But two weeks before the April primary, Republican legislators approved a joint resolution — with some Democrats supporting them — to change the language to read: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?”
Given that the change was made so close to the primary, counties had already printed ballots with the original wording. Thus, the Legislature directed Mr. Cortes to disregard the results of any primary votes and ordered that the question appear with the new wording on the Nov. 8 ballot. Nearly 2.4 million voters cast ballots on it this past spring, narrowly defeating it.
Sen. Daylin Leach DMontgomery, has contended the eleventh-hour GOP-led revision was an attempt to protect Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor, a Republican. Republicans are now in the minority on the seven-member court. Chief Justice Saylor turns 70 at the end of this year, and the next justice in line to lead the court is Democrat Max Baer.
The Castille-ZappalaSprague suit said the new wording is misleading because it doesn’t tell voters that they’ll be raising the current age limit of 70.
The new friend of the court, or amicus curiae, brief filed this week by Mr. Scarnati and Mr. Corman — the two most powerful leaders of the GOP-controlled state Senate — defends Mr. Cortes and notes that state election code requires that ballot questions be posed in “plain English.”