ELECT:Judges Seeking Retention

By Terrie Morgan-Besecker tmorgan@timesleader.comLaw & Order Reporter

WILKES-BARRE – Yes or no?

Judge Thomas F. Burke

Related headlines

Electorate can show strength by voting

Judge Tom Burke - Retention interview

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski - Retention interview

It’s a routine question posed in daily life. But for Luzerne County Judges Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. (Olszewski Retention interview) and Thomas Burke (Burke Retention interview), the question is anything but routine heading into the general election.

The answer given by voters Nov. 3 will decide whether the veteran jurists are returned to the bench for a second, 10-year term, or head back to private life.

There’s a lot at stake for the judges and the county judiciary, which already is dealing with a shortage of judges due to the corruption charges filed against Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella and the removal of Ann Lokuta by the Court of Judicial Discipline.

Should Olszewski and Burke lose, another two seats would be open come January. It would be up to Gov. Ed Rendell to fill the posts with temporary appointments, who would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the state Senate. The positions would then be up for election in 2011, with the winners taking the bench in 2012.

Olszewski and Burke have done their best to distance themselves from the corruption scandal. But it’s clear the controversy has turned a routine campaign that almost assuredly would result in their retention into a far more difficult battle, said G. Terry Madonna, a political analyst from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster.

No agency keeps track of the number of judges who have lost retention bids statewide. It’s believed to be extremely rare, Madonna said.

Judges typically have several factors weighing in their favor, including that retention is a yes/no question, Madonna said. They need get only one more “yes” vote than “no” to win.

Voters also typically have little information on which to evaluate a judge. Unless there is some controversy, the tendency is to vote for the status quo.

“Judges do their work in relative anonymity,” Madonna said. “Ninety-nine percent of voters have absolutely no knowledge of the person. … Occasionally you have a judge that makes some decision that’s controversial, or, more importantly, they do something in the behavior that led to controversy. But that’s really rare.”

The last jurist to lose a bid for retention in this region was Lackawanna County Judge Frank Eagen, who was bounced from office in 1997. At the time Eagen was under investigation for his handling of estate matters in Lackawanna County. He would later be convicted of obstructing the administration of justice for lying to agents investigating the case.

In 2005, state Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro lost his bid for retention, making him the first Supreme Court justice to lose a retention vote since such elections were first held in 1968.

Analysts believe Nigro fell victim to voter outrage generated over a pay raise legislators gave themselves – even though he played no role in the matter. The raise was later rescinded.

Olszewski and Burke find themselves in a similar situation as they face an angry electorate that may opt for a “clean sweep” of incumbents, regardless of their record, Madonna said.

“This is a relatively small community. There are so many charges and allegations, it’s got to have some kind of negative impact on the election,” Madonna said. “I don’t know if they’ll be voted out. I can’t predict that. It would still seem to be pretty rare.”

Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179.