Search
Close this search box.

Category: Judicial

While the race for the open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is drawing most of the attention (and the money), there are two other court races in the Keystone State that will impact life in the Commonwealth.

The Superior Court was established in 1895. It is one of Pennsylvania’s two statewide intermediate appellate courts. The Superior Court is often the final arbiter of legal disputes. The Supreme Court may grant a petition to review a decision of the Superior Court, but most petitions are denied and the ruling of the Superior Court stands. Cases are usually heard by panels of three judges sitting in Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, but may also be heard en banc by nine judges. The Superior Court often travels to locations throughout Pennsylvania to hear cases.

The Superior Court is responsible for hearing appeals in criminal and most civil cases from the Courts of Common Pleas, as well as appeals on matters involving children and families.

The court is currently split with seven Republicans and seven Democrats. There is currently one vacancy. Two of fourteen judges have reached the mandatory retirement age. This election will fill two seats. Republicans must win both to gain a majority, while Democrats must win only one.

There are four candidates running for the two open seats – Republicans Maria Battista and Harry Smail Jr., and Democrats Jill Beck and Timika Lane.

Voters will also be asked to reapprove 10-year terms for two sitting Superior Court judges in nonpartisan retention elections.

Judge Vic Stabile, elected as a Republican in 2013, is seeking a second term. President Judge Jack Panella, elected as a Democrat in 2003, is seeking a third.

Rather than face a head-to-head election, state appellate judges earn a new term in a yes-or-no vote, in which a majority ‘yes’ vote means they serve another 10-year term unless they turn 75 before then.


 

Maria Battista

Age: 55
County: Clarion
Occupation: Vice President, Federal and State Contracts, The Judge Group
Education: B.S, PennWest Clarion University ’90; M.Ed. Westminster College ’93; J.D. Ohio Northern University ’98; Ed.D. University of Pittsburgh ’07
Qualifications: 15+ years experience in Civil, Criminal and Administrative Law; Former Assistant District Attorney; Former Attorney with the Governor Corbett Administration; Served as an Administrative Hearing Officer where I presided over hundreds of hearings and issued hundreds of administrative decisions.
Bar Association: Not recommended as she declined to participate in the evaluation process
Social Media: Website | Facebook

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Framers’ purpose in dividing power between the three branches of government was to ensure that no branch of government became too powerful. James Madison’s wisdom in Federalist 51 was to create a check against the authority of a single branch of government, sharing the decision-making power of the new federal government. For Pennsylvania, this model of separation of powers has created its own form of checks and balances between our three co-equal branches. In practical terms, this has empowered the courts, particularly the appellate courts, to better protect the rights of the people of this Commonwealth. By serving as a check against the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary serves to safeguard against abuses by either.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Stare decisis, a Latin term which means “let the decision stand,” or “to stand by things decided,” is a central tenet of the American legal system. This doctrine highlights the importance of precedent in our legal tradition. Applying precedent to the particular facts of a case is a way to provide predictability and consistency in the law. While I cannot speak directly about how I would rule in any case that may appear before me, precedent may be used as a guide, as well as the law as it has been written and the particular facts of a case. In some instances, the issue of constitutionality may be raised by the parties. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Harry Smail Jr.

Age. 57
County: Westmoreland
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Grove City College ’88. J.D. Duquesne School of Law ’97
Qualifications: 14 years as a practicing attorney and nearly nine years as sitting judge in Westmoreland County | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Recommended
Social Media: Website

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Founders’ in their wisdom established a system of checks and balances as an attempt to ensure that no branch of our government could have unbounded power. Our system is based on on the freedom of our people and these checks and balances ensure that is difficult to pass laws or regulations that can curtail that freedom. Our constitution is our guiding light and any branch that strays from that document can be quickly put in line with it by another branch. It is the judiciary’s role, as the only branch to not face regular election, to ensure that the constitution is being adhered to by intermediary courts and by the the legislative and executive branches.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: My guiding principle when deciding a case is the text of the constitution and the intent of a statute when applying that statute in the course of a case. Precedent or stare decisis is critical in this review. Stare Decisis is critical in providing predictability and stability to the courts. I leave open the possibility that a court must at times correct previous encroachments by the judiciary relative to constitutional review and deviation of the facts. I believe it it is a heavy burden to demonstrate such encroachments when weighing prior precedents. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Jill Beck

Age. 44
County
: Allegheny
Occupation: Commercial litigator & appellate attorney
Education: B.A., George Washington ’02; J.D. – Duquesne University School of Law ’06
Qualifications: Beck has practiced in every area the Superior Court hears, has practiced in the Superior Court & appellate courts across the country, and spent 10 years on the other side of the bench as a law clerk – six on the Superior Court, four on the Supreme Court – where she drafted over 500 decisions. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The judiciary is a separate but coequal branch of government. It is not the role of the Court to legislate, but neither is it permissible for the Court to serve as a rubber stamp for the legislative and executive branches of government (or the courts below). Appropriate deference to these bodies must be given when reviewing & interpreting their work, but it is solely in the Court’s purview to determine the constitutionality of the measures taken and the legal correctness of their actions. The Court serves a critical role of interpreting our statutes and our constitutions (federal and state), which must be viewed in terms of the intent of the drafters at the time of their passage as well as the evolving standards of decency of our society.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: The decision to overrule precedent, particularly longstanding precedent, should not be taken lightly. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the correctness of the prior reasoning, its consistency with related precedent, changes in the law & society subsequent to the decision, & the level of reliance on the precedent by the legal system and the public. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Timika Lane

Age. 51
County: Philadelphia
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Howard University ’94; J.D. Rutgers-Camden Law School ’02
Qualifications: Elected in 2013 to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and immediately assigned to one of the busiest trial divisions in Pennsylvania. Judge Lane has presided over thousands of jury and bench trials and authored over 100 judicial opinions. She currently serves in the civil division. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: Checks and balances are an integral part of our government, essential to ensuring that no one branch can overpower its boundaries. The role of the Judicial branch ensures that the legislative and executive branches maintain constitutional rights within the law, furthering that justice be equally, effectively and lawfully maintained and upheld. In short, checks and balances are critical to a functioning government and must be maintained.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Presiding a case in which in theory could affect a long-standing precedent must be weighted carefully and with respect to the past precedent. Long standing precedents are not without fault, and throughout history the judicial system has seen changes occur to long standing precedents for better and for worse. It is through this evolution, as society changes and laws are adapted to those changes that consideration of both the changes in the legal system and society should be considered, as well as aforementioned respect to the long standing precented and whether its reasoning still stands solid within the judicial and societal systems. (courtesy League of Women Voters)

While the race for the open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is drawing most of the attention (and the money), there are two other court races in the Keystone State that will impact life in the Commonwealth.

The Superior Court was established in 1895. It is one of Pennsylvania’s two statewide intermediate appellate courts. The Superior Court is often the final arbiter of legal disputes. The Supreme Court may grant a petition to review a decision of the Superior Court, but most petitions are denied and the ruling of the Superior Court stands. Cases are usually heard by panels of three judges sitting in Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, but may also be heard en banc by nine judges. The Superior Court often travels to locations throughout Pennsylvania to hear cases.

The Superior Court is responsible for hearing appeals in criminal and most civil cases from the Courts of Common Pleas, as well as appeals on matters involving children and families.

The court is currently split with seven Republicans and seven Democrats. There is currently one vacancy. Two of fourteen judges have reached the mandatory retirement age. This election will fill two seats. Republicans must win both to gain a majority, while Democrats must win only one.

There are four candidates running for the two open seats – Republicans Maria Battista and Harry Smail Jr., and Democrats Jill Beck and Timika Lane.

Voters will also be asked to reapprove 10-year terms for two sitting Superior Court judges in nonpartisan retention elections.

Judge Vic Stabile, elected as a Republican in 2013, is seeking a second term. President Judge Jack Panella, elected as a Democrat in 2003, is seeking a third.

Rather than face a head-to-head election, state appellate judges earn a new term in a yes-or-no vote, in which a majority ‘yes’ vote means they serve another 10-year term unless they turn 75 before then.


 

Maria Battista

Age: 55
County: Clarion
Occupation: Vice President, Federal and State Contracts, The Judge Group
Education: B.S, PennWest Clarion University ’90; M.Ed. Westminster College ’93; J.D. Ohio Northern University ’98; Ed.D. University of Pittsburgh ’07
Qualifications: 15+ years experience in Civil, Criminal and Administrative Law; Former Assistant District Attorney; Former Attorney with the Governor Corbett Administration; Served as an Administrative Hearing Officer where I presided over hundreds of hearings and issued hundreds of administrative decisions.
Bar Association: Not recommended as she declined to participate in the evaluation process
Social Media: Website | Facebook

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Framers’ purpose in dividing power between the three branches of government was to ensure that no branch of government became too powerful. James Madison’s wisdom in Federalist 51 was to create a check against the authority of a single branch of government, sharing the decision-making power of the new federal government. For Pennsylvania, this model of separation of powers has created its own form of checks and balances between our three co-equal branches. In practical terms, this has empowered the courts, particularly the appellate courts, to better protect the rights of the people of this Commonwealth. By serving as a check against the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary serves to safeguard against abuses by either.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Stare decisis, a Latin term which means “let the decision stand,” or “to stand by things decided,” is a central tenet of the American legal system. This doctrine highlights the importance of precedent in our legal tradition. Applying precedent to the particular facts of a case is a way to provide predictability and consistency in the law. While I cannot speak directly about how I would rule in any case that may appear before me, precedent may be used as a guide, as well as the law as it has been written and the particular facts of a case. In some instances, the issue of constitutionality may be raised by the parties. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Harry Smail Jr.

Age. 57
County: Westmoreland
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Grove City College ’88. J.D. Duquesne School of Law ’97
Qualifications: 14 years as a practicing attorney and nearly nine years as sitting judge in Westmoreland County | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Recommended
Social Media: Website

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Founders’ in their wisdom established a system of checks and balances as an attempt to ensure that no branch of our government could have unbounded power. Our system is based on on the freedom of our people and these checks and balances ensure that is difficult to pass laws or regulations that can curtail that freedom. Our constitution is our guiding light and any branch that strays from that document can be quickly put in line with it by another branch. It is the judiciary’s role, as the only branch to not face regular election, to ensure that the constitution is being adhered to by intermediary courts and by the the legislative and executive branches.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: My guiding principle when deciding a case is the text of the constitution and the intent of a statute when applying that statute in the course of a case. Precedent or stare decisis is critical in this review. Stare Decisis is critical in providing predictability and stability to the courts. I leave open the possibility that a court must at times correct previous encroachments by the judiciary relative to constitutional review and deviation of the facts. I believe it it is a heavy burden to demonstrate such encroachments when weighing prior precedents. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Jill Beck

Age. 44
County
: Allegheny
Occupation: Commercial litigator & appellate attorney
Education: B.A., George Washington ’02; J.D. – Duquesne University School of Law ’06
Qualifications: Beck has practiced in every area the Superior Court hears, has practiced in the Superior Court & appellate courts across the country, and spent 10 years on the other side of the bench as a law clerk – six on the Superior Court, four on the Supreme Court – where she drafted over 500 decisions. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The judiciary is a separate but coequal branch of government. It is not the role of the Court to legislate, but neither is it permissible for the Court to serve as a rubber stamp for the legislative and executive branches of government (or the courts below). Appropriate deference to these bodies must be given when reviewing & interpreting their work, but it is solely in the Court’s purview to determine the constitutionality of the measures taken and the legal correctness of their actions. The Court serves a critical role of interpreting our statutes and our constitutions (federal and state), which must be viewed in terms of the intent of the drafters at the time of their passage as well as the evolving standards of decency of our society.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: The decision to overrule precedent, particularly longstanding precedent, should not be taken lightly. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the correctness of the prior reasoning, its consistency with related precedent, changes in the law & society subsequent to the decision, & the level of reliance on the precedent by the legal system and the public. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Timika Lane

Age. 51
County: Philadelphia
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Howard University ’94; J.D. Rutgers-Camden Law School ’02
Qualifications: Elected in 2013 to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and immediately assigned to one of the busiest trial divisions in Pennsylvania. Judge Lane has presided over thousands of jury and bench trials and authored over 100 judicial opinions. She currently serves in the civil division. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: Checks and balances are an integral part of our government, essential to ensuring that no one branch can overpower its boundaries. The role of the Judicial branch ensures that the legislative and executive branches maintain constitutional rights within the law, furthering that justice be equally, effectively and lawfully maintained and upheld. In short, checks and balances are critical to a functioning government and must be maintained.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Presiding a case in which in theory could affect a long-standing precedent must be weighted carefully and with respect to the past precedent. Long standing precedents are not without fault, and throughout history the judicial system has seen changes occur to long standing precedents for better and for worse. It is through this evolution, as society changes and laws are adapted to those changes that consideration of both the changes in the legal system and society should be considered, as well as aforementioned respect to the long standing precented and whether its reasoning still stands solid within the judicial and societal systems. (courtesy League of Women Voters)

Email:

While the race for the open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is drawing most of the attention (and the money), there are two other court races in the Keystone State that will impact life in the Commonwealth.

The Superior Court was established in 1895. It is one of Pennsylvania’s two statewide intermediate appellate courts. The Superior Court is often the final arbiter of legal disputes. The Supreme Court may grant a petition to review a decision of the Superior Court, but most petitions are denied and the ruling of the Superior Court stands. Cases are usually heard by panels of three judges sitting in Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, but may also be heard en banc by nine judges. The Superior Court often travels to locations throughout Pennsylvania to hear cases.

The Superior Court is responsible for hearing appeals in criminal and most civil cases from the Courts of Common Pleas, as well as appeals on matters involving children and families.

The court is currently split with seven Republicans and seven Democrats. There is currently one vacancy. Two of fourteen judges have reached the mandatory retirement age. This election will fill two seats. Republicans must win both to gain a majority, while Democrats must win only one.

There are four candidates running for the two open seats – Republicans Maria Battista and Harry Smail Jr., and Democrats Jill Beck and Timika Lane.

Voters will also be asked to reapprove 10-year terms for two sitting Superior Court judges in nonpartisan retention elections.

Judge Vic Stabile, elected as a Republican in 2013, is seeking a second term. President Judge Jack Panella, elected as a Democrat in 2003, is seeking a third.

Rather than face a head-to-head election, state appellate judges earn a new term in a yes-or-no vote, in which a majority ‘yes’ vote means they serve another 10-year term unless they turn 75 before then.


 

Maria Battista

Age: 55
County: Clarion
Occupation: Vice President, Federal and State Contracts, The Judge Group
Education: B.S, PennWest Clarion University ’90; M.Ed. Westminster College ’93; J.D. Ohio Northern University ’98; Ed.D. University of Pittsburgh ’07
Qualifications: 15+ years experience in Civil, Criminal and Administrative Law; Former Assistant District Attorney; Former Attorney with the Governor Corbett Administration; Served as an Administrative Hearing Officer where I presided over hundreds of hearings and issued hundreds of administrative decisions.
Bar Association: Not recommended as she declined to participate in the evaluation process
Social Media: Website | Facebook

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Framers’ purpose in dividing power between the three branches of government was to ensure that no branch of government became too powerful. James Madison’s wisdom in Federalist 51 was to create a check against the authority of a single branch of government, sharing the decision-making power of the new federal government. For Pennsylvania, this model of separation of powers has created its own form of checks and balances between our three co-equal branches. In practical terms, this has empowered the courts, particularly the appellate courts, to better protect the rights of the people of this Commonwealth. By serving as a check against the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary serves to safeguard against abuses by either.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Stare decisis, a Latin term which means “let the decision stand,” or “to stand by things decided,” is a central tenet of the American legal system. This doctrine highlights the importance of precedent in our legal tradition. Applying precedent to the particular facts of a case is a way to provide predictability and consistency in the law. While I cannot speak directly about how I would rule in any case that may appear before me, precedent may be used as a guide, as well as the law as it has been written and the particular facts of a case. In some instances, the issue of constitutionality may be raised by the parties. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Harry Smail Jr.

Age. 57
County: Westmoreland
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Grove City College ’88. J.D. Duquesne School of Law ’97
Qualifications: 14 years as a practicing attorney and nearly nine years as sitting judge in Westmoreland County | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Recommended
Social Media: Website

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Founders’ in their wisdom established a system of checks and balances as an attempt to ensure that no branch of our government could have unbounded power. Our system is based on on the freedom of our people and these checks and balances ensure that is difficult to pass laws or regulations that can curtail that freedom. Our constitution is our guiding light and any branch that strays from that document can be quickly put in line with it by another branch. It is the judiciary’s role, as the only branch to not face regular election, to ensure that the constitution is being adhered to by intermediary courts and by the the legislative and executive branches.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: My guiding principle when deciding a case is the text of the constitution and the intent of a statute when applying that statute in the course of a case. Precedent or stare decisis is critical in this review. Stare Decisis is critical in providing predictability and stability to the courts. I leave open the possibility that a court must at times correct previous encroachments by the judiciary relative to constitutional review and deviation of the facts. I believe it it is a heavy burden to demonstrate such encroachments when weighing prior precedents. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Jill Beck

Age. 44
County
: Allegheny
Occupation: Commercial litigator & appellate attorney
Education: B.A., George Washington ’02; J.D. – Duquesne University School of Law ’06
Qualifications: Beck has practiced in every area the Superior Court hears, has practiced in the Superior Court & appellate courts across the country, and spent 10 years on the other side of the bench as a law clerk – six on the Superior Court, four on the Supreme Court – where she drafted over 500 decisions. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The judiciary is a separate but coequal branch of government. It is not the role of the Court to legislate, but neither is it permissible for the Court to serve as a rubber stamp for the legislative and executive branches of government (or the courts below). Appropriate deference to these bodies must be given when reviewing & interpreting their work, but it is solely in the Court’s purview to determine the constitutionality of the measures taken and the legal correctness of their actions. The Court serves a critical role of interpreting our statutes and our constitutions (federal and state), which must be viewed in terms of the intent of the drafters at the time of their passage as well as the evolving standards of decency of our society.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: The decision to overrule precedent, particularly longstanding precedent, should not be taken lightly. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the correctness of the prior reasoning, its consistency with related precedent, changes in the law & society subsequent to the decision, & the level of reliance on the precedent by the legal system and the public. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Timika Lane

Age. 51
County: Philadelphia
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Howard University ’94; J.D. Rutgers-Camden Law School ’02
Qualifications: Elected in 2013 to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and immediately assigned to one of the busiest trial divisions in Pennsylvania. Judge Lane has presided over thousands of jury and bench trials and authored over 100 judicial opinions. She currently serves in the civil division. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: Checks and balances are an integral part of our government, essential to ensuring that no one branch can overpower its boundaries. The role of the Judicial branch ensures that the legislative and executive branches maintain constitutional rights within the law, furthering that justice be equally, effectively and lawfully maintained and upheld. In short, checks and balances are critical to a functioning government and must be maintained.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Presiding a case in which in theory could affect a long-standing precedent must be weighted carefully and with respect to the past precedent. Long standing precedents are not without fault, and throughout history the judicial system has seen changes occur to long standing precedents for better and for worse. It is through this evolution, as society changes and laws are adapted to those changes that consideration of both the changes in the legal system and society should be considered, as well as aforementioned respect to the long standing precented and whether its reasoning still stands solid within the judicial and societal systems. (courtesy League of Women Voters)

While the race for the open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is drawing most of the attention (and the money), there are two other court races in the Keystone State that will impact life in the Commonwealth.

The Superior Court was established in 1895. It is one of Pennsylvania’s two statewide intermediate appellate courts. The Superior Court is often the final arbiter of legal disputes. The Supreme Court may grant a petition to review a decision of the Superior Court, but most petitions are denied and the ruling of the Superior Court stands. Cases are usually heard by panels of three judges sitting in Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, but may also be heard en banc by nine judges. The Superior Court often travels to locations throughout Pennsylvania to hear cases.

The Superior Court is responsible for hearing appeals in criminal and most civil cases from the Courts of Common Pleas, as well as appeals on matters involving children and families.

The court is currently split with seven Republicans and seven Democrats. There is currently one vacancy. Two of fourteen judges have reached the mandatory retirement age. This election will fill two seats. Republicans must win both to gain a majority, while Democrats must win only one.

There are four candidates running for the two open seats – Republicans Maria Battista and Harry Smail Jr., and Democrats Jill Beck and Timika Lane.

Voters will also be asked to reapprove 10-year terms for two sitting Superior Court judges in nonpartisan retention elections.

Judge Vic Stabile, elected as a Republican in 2013, is seeking a second term. President Judge Jack Panella, elected as a Democrat in 2003, is seeking a third.

Rather than face a head-to-head election, state appellate judges earn a new term in a yes-or-no vote, in which a majority ‘yes’ vote means they serve another 10-year term unless they turn 75 before then.


 

Maria Battista

Age: 55
County: Clarion
Occupation: Vice President, Federal and State Contracts, The Judge Group
Education: B.S, PennWest Clarion University ’90; M.Ed. Westminster College ’93; J.D. Ohio Northern University ’98; Ed.D. University of Pittsburgh ’07
Qualifications: 15+ years experience in Civil, Criminal and Administrative Law; Former Assistant District Attorney; Former Attorney with the Governor Corbett Administration; Served as an Administrative Hearing Officer where I presided over hundreds of hearings and issued hundreds of administrative decisions.
Bar Association: Not recommended as she declined to participate in the evaluation process
Social Media: Website | Facebook

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Framers’ purpose in dividing power between the three branches of government was to ensure that no branch of government became too powerful. James Madison’s wisdom in Federalist 51 was to create a check against the authority of a single branch of government, sharing the decision-making power of the new federal government. For Pennsylvania, this model of separation of powers has created its own form of checks and balances between our three co-equal branches. In practical terms, this has empowered the courts, particularly the appellate courts, to better protect the rights of the people of this Commonwealth. By serving as a check against the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary serves to safeguard against abuses by either.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Stare decisis, a Latin term which means “let the decision stand,” or “to stand by things decided,” is a central tenet of the American legal system. This doctrine highlights the importance of precedent in our legal tradition. Applying precedent to the particular facts of a case is a way to provide predictability and consistency in the law. While I cannot speak directly about how I would rule in any case that may appear before me, precedent may be used as a guide, as well as the law as it has been written and the particular facts of a case. In some instances, the issue of constitutionality may be raised by the parties. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Harry Smail Jr.

Age. 57
County: Westmoreland
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Grove City College ’88. J.D. Duquesne School of Law ’97
Qualifications: 14 years as a practicing attorney and nearly nine years as sitting judge in Westmoreland County | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Recommended
Social Media: Website

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The Founders’ in their wisdom established a system of checks and balances as an attempt to ensure that no branch of our government could have unbounded power. Our system is based on on the freedom of our people and these checks and balances ensure that is difficult to pass laws or regulations that can curtail that freedom. Our constitution is our guiding light and any branch that strays from that document can be quickly put in line with it by another branch. It is the judiciary’s role, as the only branch to not face regular election, to ensure that the constitution is being adhered to by intermediary courts and by the the legislative and executive branches.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: My guiding principle when deciding a case is the text of the constitution and the intent of a statute when applying that statute in the course of a case. Precedent or stare decisis is critical in this review. Stare Decisis is critical in providing predictability and stability to the courts. I leave open the possibility that a court must at times correct previous encroachments by the judiciary relative to constitutional review and deviation of the facts. I believe it it is a heavy burden to demonstrate such encroachments when weighing prior precedents. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Jill Beck

Age. 44
County
: Allegheny
Occupation: Commercial litigator & appellate attorney
Education: B.A., George Washington ’02; J.D. – Duquesne University School of Law ’06
Qualifications: Beck has practiced in every area the Superior Court hears, has practiced in the Superior Court & appellate courts across the country, and spent 10 years on the other side of the bench as a law clerk – six on the Superior Court, four on the Supreme Court – where she drafted over 500 decisions. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: The judiciary is a separate but coequal branch of government. It is not the role of the Court to legislate, but neither is it permissible for the Court to serve as a rubber stamp for the legislative and executive branches of government (or the courts below). Appropriate deference to these bodies must be given when reviewing & interpreting their work, but it is solely in the Court’s purview to determine the constitutionality of the measures taken and the legal correctness of their actions. The Court serves a critical role of interpreting our statutes and our constitutions (federal and state), which must be viewed in terms of the intent of the drafters at the time of their passage as well as the evolving standards of decency of our society.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: The decision to overrule precedent, particularly longstanding precedent, should not be taken lightly. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to, the correctness of the prior reasoning, its consistency with related precedent, changes in the law & society subsequent to the decision, & the level of reliance on the precedent by the legal system and the public. (courtesy League of Women Voters)


 

Timika Lane

Age. 51
County: Philadelphia
Occupation: Judge
Education: B.A. Howard University ’94; J.D. Rutgers-Camden Law School ’02
Qualifications: Elected in 2013 to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and immediately assigned to one of the busiest trial divisions in Pennsylvania. Judge Lane has presided over thousands of jury and bench trials and authored over 100 judicial opinions. She currently serves in the civil division. | Personal Data Questionnaire
Bar Association: Highly Recommended
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Q: Pennsylvania’s three co-equal branches of government – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – each act as a check on the power of the others. In practical terms, what does this relationship of checks and balances mean to you?

A: Checks and balances are an integral part of our government, essential to ensuring that no one branch can overpower its boundaries. The role of the Judicial branch ensures that the legislative and executive branches maintain constitutional rights within the law, furthering that justice be equally, effectively and lawfully maintained and upheld. In short, checks and balances are critical to a functioning government and must be maintained.

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?

A: Presiding a case in which in theory could affect a long-standing precedent must be weighted carefully and with respect to the past precedent. Long standing precedents are not without fault, and throughout history the judicial system has seen changes occur to long standing precedents for better and for worse. It is through this evolution, as society changes and laws are adapted to those changes that consideration of both the changes in the legal system and society should be considered, as well as aforementioned respect to the long standing precented and whether its reasoning still stands solid within the judicial and societal systems. (courtesy League of Women Voters)

  • Do you agree that ByteDance should be forced to divest TikTok?


    • Yes. It's a national security risk. (60%)
    • No. It's an app used by millions and poses no threat. (40%)
    • What's ByteDance? (0%)

    Total Voters: 30

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen