Candidates for Pa. Supreme Court debate
In their only formal debate, the two candidates for Pennsylvania Supreme Court clashed yesterday over cash contributions, the role of the court in politics, and the extent to which a judicial review board should have intervened in an upstate corruption case.
In their only formal debate, the two candidates for Pennsylvania Supreme Court clashed yesterday over cash contributions, the role of the court in politics, and the extent to which a judicial review board should have intervened in an upstate corruption case.
For a judicial debate - normally dry stuff - it was pretty entertaining.
Twelve days before the election, Republican Joan Orie Melvin was on the offensive as she and Democrat Jack Panella tangled for an hour - pointedly but politely - at Temple University's Beasley School of Law.
The pair, who sat side by side, have often shared a dais. Both are members of the state Superior Court, which is one rung below the Supreme Court.
Orie Melvin, of the Pittsburgh area, questioned how impartial Panella could be in cases that involved organized labor and trial lawyers, given that he has received large contributions from each group.
Panella, she said, has taken about $500,000 each from unions and the Philadelphia trial lawyers group - numbers Panella did not dispute.
Speaking of large donations in general, Orie Melvin said: "The public perceives these judicial contributions as justice for sale."
Panella, of the Bethlehem area, responded that labor unions represent ordinary people and that trial lawyers speak for "victims."
"Frankly," he said, "I am honored by the support I have received."
Panella's campaign began running ads this week in TV markets across the state. The Republican State Committee has countered with ads for Orie Melvin.
Panella pointed out that Orie Melvin has also received contributions from interest groups - including $100,000 from the trial lawyers who have helped him.
The Democrat noted that Orie Melvin has also received funds - $30,000, she said - from leaders of the Republican-controlled Senate. Orie Melvin's sister, Jane Orie, is a GOP Senate leader.
"The judiciary is the first independent branch of government . . . and must sometimes butt heads with the legislature," Panella said.
With no higher-profile statewide race on the ballot, voter turnout is expected to be light Nov. 3. But the parties are fighting hard over the election.
They believe it could tip the balance in a battle over the redrawing of boundaries for legislative and congressional seats after the 2010 census.
Each side will have two seats at the negotiating table in the legislature. The Supreme Court may be called upon to appoint a fifth panelist to break ties.
Saying "I am not a Republican judge: I am a judge for all the people," Orie Melvin faulted Panella for having said previously that redistricting is an issue in the election.
Panella replied that it is, indeed, an issue. He said that the last time lines were drawn 10 years ago, allegations arose that some voters had been disenfranchised by widespread gerrymandering.
Whichever party wins this court race will have a majority on the court. That party will then pick the arbiter for the remapping.
"Redistricting is an important issue that all citizens should be concerned about," Panella said. "Gerrymandering robs our citizens of their right to vote."
The debate's final big issue had to do with the case of two judges in Luzerne County who face criminal charges for allegedly accepting $2.6 million in bribes to send juvenile offenders to private jails in which they had a financial interest.
Orie Melvin said that as chairman of the state's Judicial Conduct Board, Panella should have been more alert to warnings that something was amiss.
She also said that the unusually large number of juveniles being sent to detention in that county should have tipped the board that it needed to look closely at the judges.
Panella replied that the board did exactly what it should have done: It referred the matter to criminal prosecutors.
"That belongs in the criminal justice system, and the board cannot interfere with that," he said.
The debate was sponsored by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, the League of Women Voters, and student groups at the Temple law school.
It will be telecast five times on the Pennsylvania Cable Network: at 4 p.m. Sunday, at 10 p.m. Monday, at 10 p.m. Thursday, at 3 p.m. Nov. 1, and at 4 p.m. Nov. 2.