New target for anger over raises: Judges

New target for anger over raises: Judges

By Amy Worden

Philly Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

HARRISBURG - Anger unleashed by the legislative pay raise has given rise to a familiar refrain: Remember in November. The problem, for citizen activist groups, is that lawmakers are not up for reelection till next year.

But some activists are now saying that voters can still make their voices heard in November by removing two members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

They argue that the high court, whose members will benefit from the pay raise, has allowed the General Assembly to routinely pass bills that violate the state constitution.

Their targets: Justices Sandra Schultz Newman, the first woman elected to the state Supreme Court, and Russell M. Nigro, each seeking a second 10-year term.

In separate interviews, Newman and Nigro said they knew of no campaign against them and had no plans to publicly defend their records.

In the last century, no appellate jurist has lost a retention vote, nor has there been an effort at the ballot box to oust a member of the Supreme Court, said G. Terry Madonna of Franklin and Marshall College.

But Tim Potts, a former House Democratic staff member and founder of a new government reform group, Democracy Rising PA, plans to launch an Internet-based campaign against Newman and Nigro next week. With no money for advertising, Potts said he would spread the word through e-mail and speaking engagements, starting with the anti-pay raise rally at the Capitol on Monday.

"The governor and the legislature do what they do because the Supreme Court says it's OK," Potts said. "Over and over, they have given their blessing to stealth legislation."

Several times in recent years, he said, the high court has dismissed challenges to legislation violating constitutional requirements that bills be considered three separate days before passage and that they concern only a single issue. Examples include a school boards case in 2002 and the 2004 gambling bill, he said.

Newman and Nigro called the allegations false.

"We have stricken many legislative issues that have come before us that were not properly handled or in violation of the constitution," Newman said. The court has struck numerous laws as unconstitutional, she said, including statutes dealing with Megan's Law, the Pennsylvania Convention Center and videotaping of child witnesses.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause of Pennsylvania, said the court lacked consistency when deciding cases involving state legislation.

"They seem to be all over the map," said Kauffman, whose group has twice sued the state alleging constitutional violations and plans to file a suit on the pay-raise law in federal court next week.

Newman said she was disturbed that fallout from the pay raise might effect her retention election. "I quite honestly had nothing to do with the pay raise," she said.

But others say the court's relationship with the General Assembly appears too cozy.

"The judicial system is seen as complicit in the pay-raise scandal," said Matthew Brouillette, president and chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative policy institute, whose charter bars it from taking stands on political races. "Clearly the judiciary had a role in crafting, advocating for and defending the legislation."

The bill giving lawmakers pay increases of at least 16 percent provoked statewide voter outrage. Other officials, including members of the executive and judiciary, also received raises.

The law's most controversial provision has been unvouchered expenses, which allows only lawmakers to take the raise now, skirting a constitutional requirement that they not receive the increase until after they are re-elected.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy promoted the idea of tying the new state salaries to federal salaries for comparable positions and has also been among the law's staunchest defenders.

Nigro, too, defended the plan, saying that linking pay to the federal judiciary frees state courts from going hat in hand to the legislature every year.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Commission recommended Newman and Nigro for retention last week. The commission cited Newman as an independent thinker and hard-working jurist and Nigro for his fairness and integrity.

The retention election Nov. 8 requires only a yes or no vote. If a majority votes against a candidate, Gov. Rendell will appoint someone to fill the seat until the next municipal election is held in 2006.

Organizers of several anti-pay raise groups say they will support Potts' efforts to oust the justices.

"They are part of the problem," said Russ Diamond, founder of PA Cleansweep, which wants to remove all incumbent lawmakers.

Others said they would focus on trying to persuade lawmakers to repeal the pay raise. "We are not concerned with electing or defeating," said Chris Lilik, chairman of the Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania.

Nigro said he would take a wait-and-see approach before responding to any attacks against him.

"If every single newspaper said, 'Vote Newman and Nigro out,' I'll have to do something," said Nigro, who asked a group of lawyers earlier this year to raise money for his campaign.

Nigro has raised more than $250,000, but he said he had spent none of it and intended to give it back if he did not use it.

Newman says she has no plans to do campaign fund-raising or run any ads supporting her retention.

------------------------------------------------ Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.

Source: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/12717575.htm

Vice Chairman of Voter Education

http://www.ycop.org

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/YCOP/

http://www.InformedPA.com