Share:
House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda
House of Representatives
Session of 2023 - 2024
Regular Session
MEMORANDUM
| Posted: | December 3, 2022 12:17 PM |
|---|---|
| From: | Representative Russ Diamond |
| To: | All House members |
| Subject: | Doing Away with Judicial Retention Elections |
| In the near future I will be introducing a joint resolution to amend Article V, Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution to end judicial retention elections for jurists in the courts of common pleas, Commonwealth and Superior Courts and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Under the retention election process, an incumbent jurist merely files a declaration of candidacy for retention with the Department of State on the first Monday in January in the year before their term officially expires. The judge or justice’s name is then placed on a ballot (without party designation) at the municipal election in the year before the expiration of his/her term of office. The only question before the electors is whether to retain the judge or justice. If voters answer “yes,” the judge or justice secures an additional ten year term. Since Pennsylvania adopted the retention system in the 1968 Constitution, only one jurist has ever NOT been retained. Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro was ousted in 2005 as a result of anti-pay raise sentiment and a newspaper investigation of expense abuse within the Supreme Court. Justice Nigro’s fate was not due to his judicial record per se, but to his misfortune of appearing on the ballot for retention in the wrong year. It could be that the quality of jurists in Pennsylvania are such that every other jurist who has faced a retention vote was deserving of an additional ten-year term on the bench. Or, far more likely, electors simply don’t know enough about retention candidates and vote “yes” because they aren’t aware of any reason to vote otherwise due to a lack of electoral contrast. Among the 20 most populous states where judges and justices are elected to office, only three (California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) have adopted the “retention” model. Judges and justices in the other 17 states require their jurists to win a competitive election to secure an additional term on the bench. My joint resolution would allow the people of Pennsylvania to decide whether to end the practice of judicial retention in the Commonwealth and put us in line with most other states that elect their judiciary. Moreover, competitive judicial reelections would help voters be better informed about the quality of judicial candidates running for office. Please join me in co-sponsoring this legislation. |
Introduced as HB432