We have more time to fight GOP gerrymandering scheme
A scheme by Republicans to stack Pennsylvania’s appellate courts in their favor has slowed. But it’s not dead — and it’s important that we don’t forget about it.
I wrote last month about a plan to gerrymander the courts. That would be done by electing appellate judges by district instead of statewide.
Creating districts in rural and suburban GOP strongholds would make it a lock for more Republicans to be seated.
Currently, many of the judges hail from the Democratic bastions of Philadelphia and Allegheny counties. And the Republican-controlled Legislature is going out of its mind because the solidly Democratic Supreme Court repeatedly has smacked them down.
In 2018, the justices overturned the GOP Legislature’s gerrymandered congressional districts and drew new ones. Last year, the justices upheld pandemic restrictions and allowed mail ballots to be received after Election Day.
So Republicans have turned to one of the oldest tricks in the political playbook: If you can’t win in the current system, change the system.
Changing the judicial election process isn’t easy. It requires amending the state Constitution, something only voters can do.
The Republican plan is to pass legislation to put the question before voters via a referendum in an upcoming election. To get the question on the May primary ballot, lawmakers had to pass legislation by Feb. 18. They didn’t.
That doesn’t mean they’ve given up on their scheme.
The state’s top Republican senator, President Pro Tempore Jake Corman,
told WPSU radio last week that the idea of changing judicial elections remains very much alive, though it’s not going to be rushed.
“We want to take some time, and maybe hold some hearings and get as much input on it as possible,” said Corman, of Centre County.
I hope they do solicit input, and I hope they listen to it closely. Because I haven’t heard anyone support the plan outside of the GOP. Meanwhile, it’s been criticized by more than 100 organizations, from labor unions to community and good government groups, who are lobbying against it in unison.
A hearing would be welcome, as long
as we don’t get snowed by it.
Hearings in Harrisburg sometimes are held just to make it appear as if lawmakers care about what the public has to say. Often, their minds already are made up and the votes lined up.
So it’s important for voters to be informed about this issue, as it could appear as a referendum question on a future election ballot, possibly in November.
Republican lawmakers have been working on this since last year.
To get a voter referendum to amend the state Constitution, lawmakers must pass identical legislation in consecutive sessions. The first passed last year. The second, House Bill, 38, passed its first
hurdle in January, being approved by the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-12.
The legislation’s author, Rep. Russ Diamond of Lebanon County, says it is unfair that most of the appellate court judges come from the two biggest counties in the state.
He said in a legislative memo that about 54% (21 of 39) of appellate court seats are held by residents of Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, which make up about 22% of the state’s population.
Since 1969, Diamond said, 67% of Supreme Court justices, 59% of Superior Court judges and 42% of Commonwealth Court judges have come from those counties.
Only two states, Illinois and Louisiana, elect appellate judges the way Diamond suggests, by districts on a partisan ballot.
If voters approve the change, instead of being able to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices, all 15 Superior Court judges and all nine Commonwealth Court judges, voters would be limited to selecting only three — one for each bench, to represent their district.
The party that controls the Legislature would draw those districts to their benefit, though the governor would have to sign off. The current governor is a Democrat, so that would be a check on the system if implemented through the end of next year.
Corman told WPSU that other options to change judicial elections could be considered, too, including seating judges through merit selection and gubernatorial appointment with Senate approval.
“The predicament that we put our judicial candidates in by having to run statewide is a delicate one, and one that at least deserves review,” he said.
Merit selection is a better option. It prevents judges from having to run in partisan elections.
Nearly all other states choose at least their supreme court justices based on their qualifications, through a merit selection process. Forcing judicial candidates to campaign and collect campaign donations can raise questions about political impartiality down the road when they hear cases such as those involving the presidential election.
A bipartisan merit selection process would involve legislators and the governor. That’s the best way to give judges outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh a better chance of being seated — judges from both parties.