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

13 GOP Pennsylvania Senators Introduce New Plan To Rig The Electoral College For Republicans

Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Domini Pileggi (R)

Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chair urged Republican lawmakers in states “that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red” — i.e. blue states with Republican legislatures and governors — to enact a plan rigging the Electoral College so that it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to win the White House. Under these plans, a large chunk of blue state electoral votes would be allocated to the Republican candidate even if the Democratic presidential candidate won the state as a whole. Although some state lawmakers in key blue states such as Wisconsin or Michigan endorsed versions of this plan, the election rigging plans were widely derided as exactly what they are — cheating — and soon, even top Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted nothing to do with election rigging. The plans to rig the Electoral College appeared dead.

Except, that is, for Pennsylvania.

Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) was one of the earliest supporters of rigging the Electoral College, backing a plan to do so as early as 2011. Republican state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi was one of the leading supporters of election-rigging the and late this week, he — along with a dozen other co-sponsors — introduced a new plan to rig the Electoral College votes in his blue state of Pennsylvania. Under this legislation, a large chunk of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes would be awarded to the Republican candidate even though Pennsylvania is a solid blue state that has supported the Democratic candidate for president in every election since 1992.

Of course, while the Republican election-rigging plan calls for blue states to give away electoral votes to Republicans, red states like Texas or South Carolina will continue to award 100 percent of their electors to the Republican:

The 13 co-sponsors on Pileggi’s bill amount to exactly half of the 26 votes he needs to pass the bill through the state senate. According to state Rep. Mike Sturla (D-PA), now that Pileggi has introduced his election-rigging plan, Republicans could conceivably ram it through both houses of the state legislature and have it on Corbett’s desk in just four days.

View the original article here

Pennsylvania GOP Senator: Rigging The Presidential Election Is What The Framers Would Have Done

Shortly after the Democratic presidential candidate won the White House last November, Pennsylvania state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) announced a plan to keep that from happening again in the future. Under Pileggi’s plan, the blue state of Pennsylvania would award electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote, so that a percentage of it electors will go to the Republican candidate even if a majority of Pennsylvania’s voters prefer the Democrat. Meanwhile, red states would continue to award all of their electors to the Republican.

In response to an inquiry from ThinkProgress, state Sen. Mike Folmer’s (R) office explained that he supports this plan to rig the next presidential race because he believes it to be more consistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision. Seriously:

Senator Folmer believes such changes would be consistent with how electoral votes were originally awarded under our constitutional republic.

When the Electoral College was established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the individual states were empowered to determine how their electors would be chosen. The Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a national popular vote because they feared the rights and interests of the minority could be trampled by the majority. This is why the term “democracy” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.

From the first Presidential election of 1788 – 1789 through the election of 1800, the states’ electoral votes were awarded proportionally. After the bitter election of 1800, states began to move to a winner take all system – even though the citizens of that era considered such a change to be blatantly political. By 1836, all states had moved to a winner take all system.

Folmer is correct that Pileggi’s plan is more like the anti-democratic methods used to pick our first presidents, although he is wrong about many of the details of how early elections were run. In the first presidential election in 1788-89, just six states used some form of a popular vote to select the members of the Electoral College. Three states delegated this power entirely to their legislatures, although only about 30 percent of South Carolina’s lawmakers even bothered to show up to choose the first president. New Jersey’s governor unilaterally selected the electors in his state.

Moreover, this pattern of cutting the people out of the presidential election was common in early American elections. Six states held a popular election in 1792; eight held one in 1796; and just five held a popular vote in 1800. And the “popular” elections from this era cannot even vaguely be described as democratic. Just over 13,000 people voted in the 1792 election that reelected President George Washington — out of a nation of 3.9 million people. Needless to say, the 700,000 persons held in bondage at this point in American history did not cast a ballot.

So Folmer is right that Pileggi’s effort to cut the American people out of the opportunity to choose their own president is more like the system that elected our first presidents than our current system. The real question is why he thinks moving back to the anti-democratic days of the past is a good thing.

Sen. Folmer’s full statement is copied below the fold:

Senator Folmer has previously cosponsored Senator Pileggi’s proposed changes to Pennsylvania’s Electoral College voting because Senator Folmer believes such changes would be consistent with how electoral votes were originally awarded under our constitutional republic.

When the Electoral College was established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the individual states were empowered to determine how their electors would be chosen. The Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a national popular vote because they feared the rights and interests of the minority could be trampled by the majority. This is why the term “democracy” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.

From the first Presidential election of 1788 – 1789 through the election of 1800, the states’ electoral votes were awarded proportionally. After the bitter election of 1800, states began to move to a winner take all system – even though the citizens of that era considered such a change to be blatantly political. By 1836, all states had moved to a winner take all system.

In 1991, Nebraska’s nonpartisan legislature returned to proportional awarding of Electoral College votes to increase interest among that state’s voters. In 2008, Maine followed suit. According to Reuters, the law “was instrumental in getting Nebraskans excited about the 2008 presidential election” and the same was true in Maine.

Of course, Senator Folmer believes any changes to the current system should be publicly deliberated to ensure all viewpoints are given proper consideration.

View the original article here

Unconstitutional Pennsylvania Bill Aims To Make Federal Gun Enforcement A Felony

Following the lead of Wyoming and Texas, state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) introduced unconstitutional legislation on Wednesday to make enforcing federal anti-gun violence measures a felony in Pennsylvania.

Metcalfe said he aims to make federal law unenforceable to protect Pennsylvanians’ “sacred personal liberties” from the “chains of government tyranny”:

Passage of my legislation will send the message that there will never be additional gun control, anywhere in Pennsylvania. Whether by White House executive orders, congressional fiat, or judicial activism, we will never allow the left to benefit from the wicked acts of murderers in order advance their senseless gun-grabbing agenda which would only succeed in replacing one of our most sacred personal liberties with the chains of government tyranny.

However, if Metcalfe referred to the Constitution, he would quickly find his bill violates the Supremacy Clause, which states that “duly-enacted” federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land” and trump state laws. This means states cannot nullify laws or arrest officials for enforcing them simply because lawmakers do not like them, or even because they make their own determination that the law is unconstitutional.

While gun extremists’ response to sensible gun policy has ranged from states’ unconstitutional campaigns to calls for the President’s impeachment, other Republicans have acknowledged that nothing about gun violence prevention is unconstitutional.

View the original article here

President Obama Signs Pennsylvania Disaster Declaration

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and ordered Federal aid to supplement commonwealth and local recovery efforts in the area affected by Hurricane Sandy during the period of October 26 to November 8, 2012.

Federal funding is available to commonwealth and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy in the counties of Bedford, Bucks, Cameron, Dauphin, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, Potter, Somerset, Sullivan, and Wyoming.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for the entire commonwealth.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Thomas J. McCool as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the commonwealth and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT:  FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@DHS.GOV

We'll soon reach a milestone in Afghanistan -- when Afghan forces take full responsibility for their nation's security and the war draws to a close.

The President asks Jacob Lew -- the current White House chief of staff -- to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Evan Feinberg in Pennsylvania

The Republican Primary in Pennsylvania is one month away. I have documented just how terrible Congressman Tim Murphy is.

I’d like to encourage you to support his opponent, Evan Feinberg. Evan is endorsed by Senators Tom Coburn and Rand Paul. He is a solid conservative and a great fit for Tim Murphy’s district. Conservatives lost a primary with Don Manzullo’s defeat last week. What conservatives are seeing is conservative activists not opening their checkbooks. I realize people don’t have a lot of money to give these days, but the cruel reality is that conservatives need money to get elected and our opponents are opening their checkbooks up while we are not.

So do what you can for Evan Feinberg. We need him in Congress.

View the original article here