Pennsylvania

Calls mounted for supreme court justice Joan Orie Melvin to step down from the court or take a temporary leave of absence as a grand jury investigates charges that she violated state election laws in her past judicial campaigns.

Supreme court justice Joan Orie Melvin was named as a target of a grand jury investigation into potential improper use of judicial and legislative staff for her election campaigns.

A recent grand jury report included testimony from a witness who claimed that supreme court justice Joan Orie Melvin used her office and her staff in past judicial campaigns. The grand jury was investigating allegations that Orie Melvin’s sisters—one a state senator and the other a former aide to Orie Melvin—used state-paid staff to perform campaign work.

Seven candidates for six seats on Luzerne County’s court of common pleas spent $1.1 million on their campaigns. The losing candidate spent the least of the seven candidates.

A newly elected judge sent letters to 700 local lawyers soliciting $100 contributions to help defray his campaign debt.

Justice Eakin was one of six appellate judges who retained their seats in the November elections.

Substantial contributions from trial lawyers to an intermediate appellate court candidate became an issue in the campaign. Republicans accused the Democratic recipient of the contributions of “putting justice for sale” when he accepted $300,000 from a trial lawyers PAC.

Supreme court justice Michael Eakin raised more than $526,000 for his retention campaign. Less than a week before the election, no organized opposition had arisen, but Eakin wanted to be prepared for a late challenge. Then-Justice Russell Nigro lost his retention bid in 2005, and Justice Thomas Saylor was challenged in 2007.

Proposals to move to merit selection for appellate judges are under consideration in both the house and senate. Supporters of the proposals believe that judges should be selected based on qualifications rather than name recognition.

Intervention in judicial campaigns by special interest groups was an issue in a debate between two superior court candidates. One candidate was prepared to renounce all such activity by third-party groups, while the other candidate preferred to make that decision if questionable activity took place. (The superior court is one of the state’s two intermediate appellate courts.)