For first time, Pa. voters oust a Supreme Court justice

For first time, Pa. voters oust a Supreme Court justice
11/9/2005, 3:19 a.m. ET
By PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — In an election outcome nearly as dramatic as the Legislature's vote to repeal the pay raises it approved just four months ago, Pennsylvania voters denied state Supreme Court Justice Russell M. Nigro another 10-year term in what citizen activists portrayed as more evidence of citizens' disenchantment with state government.

Nigro became the first statewide judge to be turned out of office in a yes-or-no retention election in the 36 years such elections have been held.


http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-32/1131503047178320.xml&storylist=paelection


******************** personal note ************

Both a republican and democrat were on the "hit list" for the pay raise scandal, looks like the democrat was removed but not the republican.

good judge.

Funny, how after all the hoopla over ousting both, the Rep wins.
I smell some tricks.

If Roe v. Wade goes down, it's going to get to the state level.
I'm glad that she'll be there. It really saddens me that Nigro lost though.

I agree with you that there were probably some tricks involved.

may have been self serving, but it wasn't illegal. It also was agreed upon that this was to be the last time pay raises were to be allowed to be voted on this way. The increases also covered a large number of average state workers who hadn't seen a pay raise in several years. This all started because a nasty local paper was on a crusade against Gov. Rendell because the paper is Republican/ Libertarian and they don't like the Democratic Gov. This was a way to get back at him. Never mind that both PA houses are Republican majorities. The paper was able to raise the tempers of some mis-informed people and it just snowballed from their.
It's a damn shame the dem judge was outed. I hate it when Republicans win things this way.

linked to the elected officials pay. That is just a way for the politicians to beat their chest and say what a good thing they did. If they wanted to do something really good, then give money to the state employees who deserve a raise and whole their own salaries flat!

no longer going to be tied to the elected officials.

I did not hear one good reason why he should not have been retained. He was endorsed by all the major newspapers. It was completely misplaced anger. If you are angry at the Legislature, then urge your local representative or senator to vote for new leadership. There are plenty of great rank and file members in the PA. legislature, but the leadership needs to be moved to the back row. The power has gone completely to their heads.

For anyone reading this who is not from PA, the public was very angry because of an unconstitutional pay raise by the Legislature. The legislature increased their own pay (way above inflation) without waiting until the beginning of their next term. The pay raise also applied to the judges, hence, the anger. There is fear that the judges will overturn the new bill to eliminate the pay raise, so they can keep their own raises.

and I'm confused. What did Nigro have to do with the pay raise? I understand that judges also would have gotten an increase but ALL judges would've and they didn't vote for the bill, that's the legislature. Was there a court ruling in favor of the pay raise?

The rumor is that Chief Justice Cappy had secretly lobbied for the pay raise and it is assumed that Nigro was also in favor of it. There was no court ruling involved, but people are assuming the judges would have upheld the pay raise. Crazy isn't it? Voted out based upon people's assumptions of his stand on the pay raises and how he would have voted had the matter been brought to the courts.

BTW, my husband was passing out literature at the polls yesterday for judges from our county's Court of Common Pleas who must run for retention every 10 years. These judges have nothing to do with the pay raise, but people were making comments to my husband that they wouldn't vote for them because they "upheld the pay raises." He tried to explain that this was not true, but there are a lot of people who will believe what they want, facts be damned.

:shrug: