Why you vote in retention elections

A former judge explains the reasons for this system with merit-based roots

On Nov. 7, voters across the commonwealth of Pennsylvania will choose jurists as they stand in front of touch-screen machines and exercise their constitutional right to vote. One question that arises often is the reference to “retention elections” — what does a judicial “retention election” mean?

The term “retention election” applies to sitting judges and justices whose term of office will expire in the year of the retention election. Our Pennsylvania Constitution provides that judges and justices who have served for 10 years can be retained for another 10year term through a “retention election.” Since retention elections focus only on sitting jurists, “retention election” jurists have no “opponents.”

Retention elections are designed to keep our focus on the jurist’s merit. The constitutional premise is that these elections are nonpartisan or nonpolitical. Accordingly, voters have a voice on “merit” — a “yes” or “no” vote based on the qualities and performance of each “retention” jurist.

As citizens, we all recognize that the primary duty of jurists is to decide cases based on the law and the Constitution, unshackled by outside influences and political antagonism. Indeed, judges and justices serve as the guardians of our most important rights and liberties in our democracy.

There is good reason for our kind of “retention” elections. Judges and justices are often the decision-makers of some of the most complicated issues facing our communities. They are daily asked to make difficult decisions about contested custody of children, hotly challenged disputes about large amounts of money, highly charged civil rights controversies and grim criminal matters. A contested election in the 10th year of service could easily turn quality judicial performance into negative campaign rhetoric. Such would be counterproductive to the goal of electing — and keeping — quality jurists.

One challenge is this: Most members of the general public rarely or never interact with our sitting judges and, therefore, may not be in a position to make an informed vote regarding the retention of these judges.

So, you might ask, how can the voter find out information about the qualities of the retention candidates?

One excellent source is the Allegheny County Bar Association, an organization that represents 6,000 lawyers and has served southwestern Pennsylvania for 147 years. The attorneys who make up this bar association do appear before these judges and, therefore — unlike the average person, who has limited interaction with our judicial system — are very qualified to speak about their performance on the bench. During retention election years, the ACBA surveys its members, asking if they feel the various sitting judges are qualified to remain on the bench. Then, based on the result of this survey, the bar association rates the candidates as “recommended” or “not recommended” for retention.

The ACBA has created a special website at JudicialVote17.org. This website provides information concerning jurists who were rated by its members in a confidential nonpartisan survey as well as other information. Also, the Pennsylvania Bar Association has a website that provides information about candidates across the commonwealth and can be accessed at pavotessmart.

On Tuesday, Nov. 7, voters have the privilege of voting to retain highly qualified public servants — our “retention election” jurists — all across our commonwealth.

Retention elections are designed to keep our focus on the jurist’s merit. The constitutional premise is that these elections are nonpartisan or nonpolitical.