« Law - Pennsylvania Appeals Court rules city agency violated the separation of church and state when it seized a woman's home to help a religious group build a private school | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court defines “use” of a product under the Indiana Products Liability Act »

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Courts - Astonishing stories of collusion between Pennsylvania's legislature and its Supreme Court; More

How Appealing today has links to articles from Pennsylvania papers on a suit filed yesterday alleging "that legislative leaders gave state money to the court system to ensure favorable rulings in two cases before the state Supreme Court."

The quote is from the lead to this story today in The Harrisburg Patriot-News. Some quotes:

A public-interest group yesterday said it had evidence that legislative leaders gave state money to the court system to ensure favorable rulings in two cases before the state Supreme Court.

Common Cause of Pennsylvania claimed lawmakers engaged in secret talks with judges relating to a 1999 law giving state money to county court administrators' offices. The allegations were unveiled in documents that Common Cause filed to expand a federal lawsuit over the July 2005 pay-raise law.

Such judicial and legislative bartering was echoed in the passage of the raises last year, said Barry Kauffman, Common Cause's executive director. Common Cause is asking a federal court to end several legislative practices that it says violate the state constitution, including maneuvers used to pass the pay-raise law.

"The courts are the last line of defense citizens have to protect themselves from abuses by the legislative and executive branches of government," Kauffman said. "If judges and justices collude with the other two branches of government ... then the representative democracy we cherish collapses."

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
A government watchdog group has accused state legislative leaders of trading funding for favorable Supreme Court rulings on issues important to legislators.

Common Cause/Pennsylvania dropped that bombshell yesterday in an expanded version of a federal lawsuit that it filed in October to block the pay raises the Legislature approved in July for itself, state judges and the governor's office. The raises were rescinded in November after a public outcry.

A spokesman for Chief Justice Ralph Cappy called the charges "preposterous" and "reckless." * * *

The federal lawsuit alleges that General Assembly leaders, together with "one or more" Supreme Court justices, "negotiated legislation desired by the court in exchange for rulings favorable to the legislative leadership on cases then pending before the court." The court filing does not name any justices.

The Common Cause lawsuit refers to actions by Justice Cappy last year, as well as actions by unnamed justices on one occasion in 1999.

The lawsuit says Justice Cappy has conceded that "he was an active participant in secret negotiations drafting Act 44 [the pay raise] and the primary architect pegging state salaries, including his own, to the salaries of designated federal officials." * * *

In its lawsuit, Common Cause claims it can establish "a kind and quality of judicial and legislative conduct and interaction [between legislators and justices] accepted as the norm in state government, but so far beyond the norms of democratic governance as to shock any observer."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:
The allegations were laid out in a revised federal court challenge in Harrisburg to last summer's legislative pay raise, in which Common Cause of Pennsylvania contends that there has been political "back scratching" between top House and Senate members and the state Supreme Court for years.

At the heart of the new allegations is the contention that, seven years ago, legislative leaders negotiated with the high court to fund the state's judiciary, fearing that if they did not, the justices would rule against them on two suits involving constitutional challenges.

Given that history, Common Cause alleges it is more than likely that last summer's unpopular pay raises were the result of a similar deal between Chief Justice Ralph Cappy and legislative leaders.

"What we are telling the court is that this may not be a unique instance, that this may have been going on at various levels for quite a few years," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause. "We are asking the [federal] court to get to the bottom of it. If it is going on, it needs to be stopped and the federal courts need to put the hammer down."

Speaking on behalf of Cappy, Tom Darr, deputy court administrator of Pennsylvania, said: "It is regrettable that an organization like Common Cause, which has always stood for the principles of good government, would file such a frivolous lawsuit."

He added: "A preliminary reading shows the allegations to be preposterous, baseless and reckless and the relief sought ridiculous."

The suit provides as evidence conversations held behind closed doors between Republican members of the House in June 1999. * * *

Last summer, the suit alleges, Cappy lobbied the legislature hard to implement the pay raise, which increased legislative salaries as well as those for judges and other state officials. It was rescinded in November by a contrite legislature that had been whipped in public-opinion polls.

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to both the pay raise and the legislature's move to overturn it. Cappy has recused himself from hearing the case. * * *

Just last week, Perzel asked Cappy and the court for guidance in crafting a lobbying disclosure bill that would withstand legal scrutiny. [See below] * * *

The Common Cause lawsuit asks the federal court to declare unconstitutional private conversations between judges and members of the executive or legislative branches about legislation that might come before them.

Joining in the lawsuit with Common Cause are the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and state Rep. Greg Vitali (D., Delaware) among others. The defendants include top legislative leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, as well as Gov. Rendell and state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.

Regular ILB readers may recall the many ILB entries after last year's elections, about the Pennsylvania voters' voting "no" re the retention of one Supreme Court justice up for retention and the close call of the other justice on the ballot. This was said to be a reaction by the voters to the legislature's "midnight pay raise" and the past failure of the Supreme Court to act as a check to perceived lesislative violations.

Re "asking the Supreme Court for guidance," thanks to an ILB reader, here is a story from Sunday's Inquirer reporting just that. It begins:

Signaling that the state House might act soon to adopt lobbying reform, Speaker John M. Perzel asked the state Supreme Court on Friday for guidance in crafting a law that would withstand legal scrutiny.

In doing so, Perzel (R., Phila.) is apparently removing the biggest roadblock to reform - himself - which, his critics say, has made Pennsylvania the only state without a lobbying-disclosure law.

In the letter Friday, Perzel asked Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy for the high court's input "to assure, to every extent possible, proposed legislation is considerate of the Court's position on this matter."

The ILB will try to obtain a copy of the amended complaint filed by Common Cause.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 7, 2006 09:29 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts