WHY THIS YEAR’S ELECTIONS DESERVE YOUR ATTENTION

         Off year elections like those in the coming months are notorious for little excitement and low voter turnout.  Most potential voters are more focused on the early stages of the 2016 presidential primary circus than the slim offerings on this year’s ballot.  This is a shame because circumstances have given Pennsylvania voters an unusual three openings on the critically important Supreme Court. 

         What happens in the May primary and November general election will shape our Supreme Court for decades to come.  Those who care about the rights of women, workers, patients and plaintiffs in civil law suits (among many others) should be completing their due diligence on the Supreme Court Candidates and urging their families, friends and associates to do the same and to show up on election day.

         What is to be done to vet those running for the Supreme Court? By my count there are thirteen candidates, all of whom are able to cross file on both ballets in the primary, running for the three openings.  Rules of judicial conduct prohibit candidates from discussing specific issues.  Commercials are often misleading and funded by interest groups seeking to elect a Justice or two sympathetic to their cause.  Clearly research is in order to uncover the most deserving candidates.

         My plan is to first check the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Allegheny County Bar Association recommendations, published earlier this year.  These evaluations are readily available on Goggle and pavotesmart.com. 

         The PBA evaluation process is conducted by highly qualified lawyers who: “seek to give voters guidance by only recommending potential candidates who have the legal ability, experience, integrity and temperament needed to provide satisfactory or outstanding performance as judges on our appellate courts.”  The PBA Evaluation Commission also publishes a summary of its findings on each candidate as well as the questionnaire submitted by each candidate, to give the voter more than just a rating.  This is most useful information you are likely to find in considering your choices.

         I also will review the Allegheny County evaluations because, all things being equal, I will vote for a jurist from Western Pennsylvania and these ratings shed further light on these candidates.  Once I have narrowed my list I will run each selection through Wikipedia and Google to make sure I have not missed any dirty laundry.  Lastly I will call my lawyer friends in Allegheny County who have interacted professionally with the individuals I have selected, to make sure my judgment is sound.

         I have found that voting for judicial candidates is like stock picking. Do not listen to the guy at the bar and do your homework.  In a low turnout election your vote is more likely to make a difference.

THE REAL THING

         Something clicked in my aging memory banks while reading the recent O-R article on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.  The word is that Justice Kennedy has been chosen by his colleagues to be the author of our highest court’s gay rights decision, soon to be released.  The article details Justice Kennedy’s friendship with Gordon Schaber, a gay man who mentored him through law school.  This relationship helped Justice Kennedy shape his progressive views on sexual equality and placed him years in front of the curve on this important subject.

         This charming story is not unlike so many others where life events shape important opinions. I have come to understand that there is “nothing like the real thing” in getting us to work for one cause or another.

         Nancy Reagan changed her views on gathering stem cells for research when her Husband developed Alzheimer’s. Dick Chaney altered his views on sexual orientation after his daughter came out as a lesbian.  Many average Americans become lifelong advocates for a social issue that was of little importance to them until a family member was afflicted with a rare disease, struck down by a bullet, or returned from battle as a wounded warrior or with mental health issues.

           I have found that meaningful opinions, ones that feel “right”, come into focus through actual experience as opposed to second hand reading, discussion, or talk show pundits.  For example, there are a multitude of books on the grieving process and dozens of memoirs written by cancer survivors.  Until we actually lose a loved one or receive a diagnosis of cancer, these written accounts give us information but no deep understanding of the crisis.

         No matter how many articles I previously read concerning the Tuscany region of Italy or how many wildlife shows I watched concerning the Serengeti in Africa, nothing prepared me for the real experience of traveling to these places.  The real thing changes your perception of what a place, or a social issue or a rare disease is all about.  August Wilson could never have written his ten play cycle about African American life in Homewood, without sitting in the cafes, barber shops and bars and listening to the stories.  His imagination and poetic sensibilities gave him the talent, but his experience of the real thing gave him the plays.

         There may be a lesson to be learned in all of this.  The further a politician, author, religious leader, or social commentator is from the real thing, the less credible he or she becomes.   The call to vote, worship, and think in a certain way deserves our consideration when the speaker or writer has life experience regarding the issue at hand.

         This is why Senator McCain gets my attention when he calls for zero tolerance for torture by Americans, when he suffered so greatly at the hands of the North Vietnamese.  Why Pope Francis gets my attention when he speaks about humility and the poor, given his work in the slums of Buenos Aires.  Why Nicholas Kristof, the award winning columnist, gets my attention when writing graphic commentary from the scene in faraway places, often at personal risk.

          The absence of the real thing is a major source of latent discrimination and intolerance.  Those who rage against Latino immigrants, welfare mothers and same sex marriage often have never met an individual who fits the profile they are ranting against.  Embedded prejudices and community norms replace actual experience in forming long held opinions.  As our country becomes younger, more urban minded and more diverse, the real thing will replace fabricated myths and move us forward.