The final item on the November ballot asks voters to
consider the retention of Judges Valarie Costanzo and Michael Lucas for a
second ten-year term on the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. This pair
of jurists were initially elected to the bench in 2013 on both the Republican
and Democratic ballots. On November 7, if these judges receive more “yes” votes
than “no” votes, each will serve another term.
There are two questions facing non-lawyers who are being
asked to make this important decision. First, what is the purpose of a judicial
retention election? Second, how is a voter unfamiliar with the day-to-day work
of a local judge expected to make an educated decision? Fortunately, the
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) and the local Washington
County Bar Association (WCBA) provide some answers to help inform voters not
familiar with the legal system.
When candidates for the Court of Common Pleas initially run
for election, they are affiliated with a political party. They campaign against
other candidates and are permitted to run on both Democrat and Republican
ballots in the primary. The fact that ten years ago both Costanzo and Lucas won
on both ballots is a strong reminder of their qualifications to serve as judges.
A majority of voters from both political parties elected them to serve on our
local Court of Common Pleas.
This November, when running for retention, Costanzo and
Lucas are not labeled as members of either political party. According to the AOPC, “Retention is a
nonpolitical method of reelecting Pennsylvania judges and is intended to be
politically neutral as they do not require judges to engage in campaigning
against other candidates.”
In the federal courts the judges at all levels, including
the Supreme Court, are appointed and often serve for life. In Pennsylvania,
because judges are initially elected, there must be a method to permit the
public to “judge the judges” on a recurring basis. Retention votes are designed
to be a non-political means for voters to weigh in on the overall performance
of members on the bench.
In order to make the process as non-political as possible,
the names of retention candidates appear on a separate area at the end of the
November ballot, apart from individuals running for other elective offices. Political
considerations are not part of the retention election equation. The only factors
for voters to consider in retaining Costanzo and Lucas are performance and
integrity.
Retention elections were adopted by Pennsylvania with the
view that most sitting judges would be retained in subsequent elections. After
all, ten years of judicial experience is a valuable commodity, particularly in
a smaller county like Washington where each judge has been asked to work in the
diverse areas of civil, criminal, and family court. Moreover, once a judge’s
courtroom demeanor and legal opinions are known, attorneys who practice before
them are familiar with what to expect, and the wheels of justice run smoothly.
How is the non-lawyer voter to gauge the achievements and
judicial conduct of this year’s judicial retention candidates, Valarie Costanzo
and Michael Lucas? On this question, the WCBA provides critical information for
voters. A poll was conducted among all members of the local Bar Association who
voted overwhelmingly to retain them. The lawyers were asked to consider in
their decision each judge’s integrity, legal ability, diligence, and judicial
temperament. The members of the Bar returned a 95% retention vote for Judge
Lucas and 86% vote for Judge Costanzo.
As related by the WCBA in a press release following the Bar’s
election poll, “Our members have practiced before these judges, and their
perspective should be valuable to the public.” Based on this poll, all voters
can confidently retain both hard working and valuable judges, Costanzo and
Lucas, for another term.
No comments:
Post a Comment