Several weeks have passed since the General Election of 2007, and in those weeks the electorate of Pennsylvania have been subjected to the wit and insight of various political pundits who have pretty much declared the effort to reform Pennsylvania politics dead.  They use the fact that all but one of the judges seeking retention were retained to their respective seats in spite of a statewide effort by reform groups to render them early retirements.  

The irony of such proclamations is that while these critics of political reform have been quick to point to the judicial retentions as confirmation that the Reform Movement is on life support, they completely failed to consider three important realities that prove that Harrisburg is continuing to feel the heat from unhappy voters.

First, the critics of reform have conveniently ignored the fact that the retention election of 2007 was not the historic slam-dunk to which Pennsylvania judges have been accustomed.  In fact, the men (and women) in black – particularly Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor - actually had to step out of the shadows and campaign to keep their jobs, and once the final numbers are tallied, 2007 may prove to be one of the most expensive retention elections in state history.  

Which begs some critical questions.  

If the Reform Movement is on the ropes, then why did judges statewide spend hundreds of thousands dollars to stay on the bench?  Why was Justice Saylor compelled to recruit ex-governor Tom Ridge to voice radio spots on his behalf and publicize his judicial vote against the infamous pay raise?  Indeed, had it not been for a concerted effort by political reformers – who had neither the money nor the apparatchik of either of the major political parties – to demand accountability of Pennsylvania’s judges, then what incentive would these same judges have had to “campaign” for their jobs?  

Second, the critics of reform chose to use only the net results of the election in order to justify their assertion that political reform is broken.  Had they bothered to look at the numbers on a county-by-county and a race-by-race basis, they would have found clear indications that the season of voter discontent has not passed.

For while three counties voted not to retain Justice Saylor, eight counties opposed the retention of at least one judge on Superior Court.  And when one considers pluralities of more than 40% in terms of “No” votes, the number of counties increases dramatically (eight counties on the Supreme Court retention, 34 counties on the Superior Court retentions, and 24 counties on the Commonwealth Court retention).   

In a state where retention votes have been more formalities than campaigns, a political analyst cannot honestly look at the returns without realizing that the undercurrent of voter disenchantment can still impact races.

Which brings us to the third reason why critics of political reform are premature in digging a grave for grassroots activists: the pending upheaval of the state legislature in 20008.

Already this year a number of state legislators – including Senator Roger Madigan and Representatives Jerry Nailor, David Steil, Tom Yewcic, and Art Hershey - have announced that they will not seek re-election, with many of these announcements having been made after the General Election.  

Other legislators are facing primary challengers for the first time in years, or in some cases decades.  GOP Lancaster County Recorder of Deeds Steve McDonald has already announced he is seeking the state Senate seat of incumbent Gib Armstrong, and Senator Vince Fumo is facing an opponent in the Democrat primary.  

If the reform movement is on life-support, as some critics would allege, then why are so many rats jumping ship?  Why are others being hunted down?

Add to the mix the Attorney General’s investigation of ‘Bonusgate’, the pending investigation into a non-profit that paid more than half a million dollars to the wife of a state Senator, the use of taxpayer dollars to fund political polls, and the inability of the state legislature to pass any meaningful reform packages (despite all of the rhetoric members spouted just a year and a half ago), and one begins to realize that another mass exodus from under the dome may be in the offing. 

Was the effort to oust all of the judges up for retention a ‘bridge too far’ for reform activists?  Perhaps. But then again, how else do you learn of your limitations unless you test those limits?  

The simple fact is that the General Election retention vote was not an end in itself; it was simply the set-up for the 2008 primaries.  Let the spin-meisters say what they will; the fact is that political reform is alive and well in Pennsylvania. 

####