A number of Philadelphia progressives, and some editorial writers and columnists, are hot and bothered because the Democratic Party has asked judges up for a retention vote in the November election to make a substantial contribution in order to be included on the official party ballot.
I am one progressive who is utterly unmoved by this supposed scandal.
The criticisms of the party, and its chair, Congressman Bob Brady, are based on three false assumptions.
The first is that judicial elections should be non-political in nature. Anyone who has followed the decisions of the courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court, in the last century, and especially in the 2000 Presidential election, can see through the myth that the judicial process is somehow non-political. Democrats and Republicans tend to interpret the laws differently and in ways that reflect their different ideals. Much the same is true in the state court system. There, too, judicial decisions reflect the political ideals (or lack thereof) of the judges who make them, as can be seen in decisions on gambling or SEPTA transfers in recent years.
One can argue about which political process is most likely to give us judges who are competent and have the right ideals. Some argue that judges should be chosen by members of the executive or legislative branches of government. Others insist that should continue to be elected by voters. But, one way or the other, in politics will and should continue to play the major role in how people become judges. In a Republican form of government, in which the people are supposed to have the final say—however much that say is restrained by the checks and balances of our constitutions—that is the only alternative.
The second assumption is that there is something wrong with the Democratic Party raising money to pay the workers it puts on the street. One can plausibly argue that our politics is too expensive—although our rates of election turnout and civic involvement suggests that it would be a good thing to spend more on politics than we do on, say, selling toothpaste. One can, much more plausibly, argue that too much money for politics comes from the very rich and corporations.
But what one can’t plausibly argue is that the street money that goes to committee people is a worse way to spend political money than the far greater sums that pay for TV ads or mailers. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the 21st ward Democratic Committee.) While some committee people do little or nothing, others are an important source of locally informed political information, information that is different from, but often as trustworthy, as that which one can find in advertisements, mailers, or even editorials. And the party machinery plays a key role in turning people out to vote, especially in working class neighborhoods. It is a key reason that working people vote at higher rates in Philadelphia than in many other cities.
I don’t always agree with who our ward leaders support in local and judicial elections—although their record is better than I once thought. But I’m glad they turn out the vote for Democratic candidates for US Senate, Governor, and President as well as other statewide candidates. This year, I’m very much hoping that the party will help one of the most impressive progressive candidate for Commonwealth Court in a long time, Democrat Kathy Bookvar.
The last assumption is that candidates for judicial retention are being “shaken down” when the party asks them to kick in some money to support its operations. Nothing can be further from the truth. Judges are in office in no small part because the party machine helped them get there. They have interesting, well-paid jobs. They generally cannot make contributions to the party except when they are running themselves. It is not unfair to ask them to ask them at that time to make a contribution to the party and its candidates. And, of course, there is no requirement they do so. Almost all the judges will be retained regardless of whether they appear on the party ballot. But I do hope that Democratic judges will be committed enough to the ideals of our party to support the effort to turn voters out for other candidates who share those ideals, such as Ms. Boockvar.
There are some scandalous things about our politics in Philadelphia. This is not one of them.