Four Former Pennsylvania Governors Want To End Judicial Elections

The corrosive influence of increased spending and politicking surrounding judicial elections has manifested itself around the country, most recently in the conviction of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice for corruption linked to her own judicial campaign. But moves to change the process for selecting judges face an uphill battle. This month, four former Pennsylvania governors – two from each party – are capitalizing on the recent conviction of  Joan Orie Melvin to highlight the problem of political influence on judges and vie for a constitutional amendment to change the process.

A bill endorsed by the governors would have candidates for appellate courts in the state approved by a commission and then nominated by the governor, insulating them from the fundraising demands of a judicial election that may sway judges’ decision-making.

“When it comes to statewide judges, very few voters know who they are, and if they do know who they are, it’s for the wrong reasons,” said former Republican governor Dick Thornburgh, now working for the law firm K&L Gates. The former governors warned in a call Monday that judicial elections give the dangerous impression that judicial elections are for sale and cast a “very dark shadow” over the integrity of what should be neutral arbiters. To pass such an amendment, the Legislature would have to vote on the issue in two consecutive sessions, and then hold a referendum.

View the original article here

Bobby Jindal: Republicans Can Continue Discriminating Against Gays And Still Win Elections

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) — a possible Republican candidate for president in 2016 — rejected former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s argument that conservatives must embrace marriage equality for gays and lesbians if they want to survive as a party and reiterated his support for “traditional marriage.”

“Look, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage,” Jindal said during an appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday, and went on to claim that Republicans don’t have to make the case on social issues to attract young voters and win future elections and instead should continue focusing on economic issues. “We lost [the 2012 election] because we didn’t present a vision showing how we believe the entire economy can grow, how people can join the middle class. We’re in aspirational party and we need policies that are consistant with that aspirational private sector growth.”

In an essay for The American Conservative entitled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” Huntsman — a Mormon whose previous support for civil unions set him apart from Republican presidential candidates in 2012 — argued that if the Republican Party wants to survive, it must enhance its appeal to gay Americans and the growing majority that supports marriage equality.

“[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them,” Huntsman wrote. “Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population….Consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans.”

Polls show that most Americans support marriage equality, with many telling pollsters that their minds have evolved on the issue.

View the original article here

Defiant NLRB ‘Determined To Move Forward’ With Ambush Union Elections

Ambush elections could be reinstated 'within a week or two'...

On Monday, when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia smacked down the Obama NLRB’s new “ambush” election procedures, the court made clear that the union-controlled labor board overstepped its bounds by imposing its new rules without a proper quorum (as required under a U.S. Supreme Court case).

That, however, has not deterred the NLRB’s chairman (and union attorney) Mark Pearce from vowing to find a way to re-impose the ambush election procedure on America’s union-free workplaces.

According to a press release issued Tuesday, the NLRB chief stated:

“We continue to believe that the amendments represent a significant improvement in our process and serve the public interest by eliminating unnecessary litigation,” he said. “We are determined to move forward.” [Emphasis added.]

As the NLRB’s ambush elections were established without a proper quorum, the NLRB may end up simply re-voting on the issue using a quorum comprised of President Obama’s constitutionally-questionable recess appointments.

That re-vote could happen within a week or two, according to Industrial Relations Professor Gary Chaison.

According to the NLRB’s press release, in the two weeks that the Board’s ambush election procedures were in place, there were “about” 150 election petitions filed.

Given that there were 1595 elections in all of 2011, the 150 election petitions filed over the two-week period indicate that unions are relying on ambush elections in order to target more unsuspecting employers, and it’s easy to see why:

Unions win 87 percent of elections held 15 days or less after a request, a rate that falls to 58 percent when the vote takes place after 36 to 40 days, according to a February report by Bloomberg Government. [Emphasis added.]

With the union-appointees in control of the National Labor Relations Board, this week’s victory over the NLRB’s ambush elections may be short-lived.

_____________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

View the original article here

Obama’s NLRB Unleashes Ambush Elections on America’s Job Creators

On Monday, April 30th, Barack Obama’s union-controlled National Labor Relations Board will be imposing its new union election rules, designed to ambush unsuspecting employers. Since unions won over 71% of the 1595 NLRB-conducted elections in 2011, the NLRB’s radical departure from past precedent is neither necessary, nor warranted. Moreover, given unions’ legal ability to deceive workers into unionizing, it is believed the NLRB’s doing union’s bidding will result in smaller companies and their employees falling prey to unionization.

While the NLRB’s purported ‘streamlining’ of its election procedures seems simple, to those who have experienced the tumultuous time when a union has targeted a company, the ability of the union-controlled NLRB to now eviscerate employers’ ability to challenge the validity of a union’s attack through a fair hearing opens the door to a drastic reduction of time an employer has to respond.

The Associated Builders & Contractors, an association of predominantly union-free contractors, sums it up this way:

Under the rule, commonly known as the “ambush” elections rule, the amount of time between when a union files a representation petition and an election takes place is reduced from the current average of around 40 days to as few as 17 to 20 days.

The NLRB achieved this drastic reduction in time primarily by:

combining pre- and post-election appeals;truncating pre- and post-hearing procedures; andlimiting the types of issues an employer can raise at a pre-election hearing. (Determining which employees are considered supervisors, and which employees constitute a potential bargaining “unit” are no longer permitted before the election takes place.)

While many larger employers have the resources to preemptively insulate their organizations from union attack, many smaller employers and their employees have suddenly become hugely vulnerable.

Over the next several weeks, a multi-part series will be posted on LaborUnionReport.com and RedState.com for both employers and employees to learn how to effectively keep unions out of their companies.

For now, however, thanks to Barack Obama’s union-controlled National Labor Relations Board, the misleadingly still waters have suddenly become even more dangerous.

_____________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

Photo credit: Creative Commons

View the original article here