Commentary: Ballot question on judicial retirements bipartisan, easy to understand

A constitutional amendment is required to change the retirement age for judges in Pennsylvania. Both chambers of the General Assembly are required to undertake this change in two separate sessions and pass identical language, which takes four years. Only after that can the ballot question go to the voters.

The process to place this question on the ballot has been transparent and the question is far from misleading. The legislation that passed the General Assembly twice in that four-year period included a sample ballot question that strongly resembled the final question from the secretary of state.

The clear and concise language for the ballot question was a collaboration among Democrats and Republicans in the General Assembly and the Wolf administration. In April, the General Assembly adopted the question and it was agreed that the commonwealth's secretary of state would move forward with the language.

This ballot question, as worded, is concise and to the point:

"Shall the Constitution of Pennsylvania be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?"

Beyond that succinct and easy-to-understand language, all ballot questions are accompanied by plain language statements written by the Office of the Attorney General. These statements appear in state-mandated newspaper advertising on ballot questions and on local and state websites, and are posted in polling stations. This ballot question is no different.

Some court filings on this issue lead one to the conclusion that the plaintiffs believe that Pennsylvania voters are foolish. When placing your name on the ballot - for any office, including judges at all levels - you trust in the electorate to enter the voting booth and select your name from the list on the ballot. There's no long description of who the candidates are. No details. Just a name. A trust that the voters have done their research in advance is fundamental to our election process.

The same holds true for the ballot question. In offering voters a question that is to the point, we have confidence that the electorate can be trusted to have the facts as they enter the voting booth.

Any argument that this question is an effort to ensure that Republicans stay on the bench longer is not valid. If this ballot question passes, it will ensure that the Democrats keep their strong majority on the state Supreme Court for longer than they may have otherwise.

As it stands, a clear and concisely worded ballot question will appear on the ballot in November. This is not a Republican vs. Democratic issue. The General Assembly and administration have been working together. It is an issue I, for one, trust that the voters will give careful consideration to when entering the voting booth in November.

State Sen. Jake Corman (R., Centre) is the Senate majority leader. jcorman@pasen.gov@JakeCorman