(UPDATED) Ellen Kingsley Remains on Ballot For Wind Gap Magisterial District Judge

Ellen Kingsley, a highly regarded local attorney, will remain on the ballot for Magisterial District Judge in the Wind Gap area. Matt Flower, who wants the job himself, withdrew challenges that he and his father had filed to remove her from the ballot. She has an interesting story on her campaign page to explain exactly what happened. Here's what she says happened, at least from her perspective:

Matt Flower, one of my opponents, proved today that he is not up to the job.

The story is a bit long, even though the hearing was not. I hope you'll stick with me through it.

He and his father challenged my nomination petitions, asking the court to, in effect, oust me from the race entirely. The basis for their claim was that I had materially altered my nomination petitions after filing them. The hearing was set for today.

Before the hearing, Flower also provided the court with a lengthy emergency appeal to the Commonwealth Court that he had just filed. Apparently, he had asked for a continuance (delay) of today's hearing because he didn't get official notice of it and didn't have time to prepare. Judge Dally had denied the continuance and Flower launched his emergency appeal. Remember HE filed the petitions to have me ousted. Shouldn't he be aware of next steps, or at least find out? Flower also failed to give me timely notice of the hearing, but, having learned about it through other means, I WAS prepared, and did not require a continuance.

Literally, two minutes before our hearing was to begin, he hired an attorney, who had just finished representing a client in the challenge case ahead of us. I guess Flower no longer felt capable of making his case without counsel.

I made various motions to dismiss: failure to serve me, and also that his father (who was challenging my Democratic nomination - only a Democrat can challenge a Democratic nomination; only a Republican can challenge a Republican nomination) didn't even bother to appear for the hearing.

The judge did not immediately rule on my motions and allowed Flower's new attorney to proceed on his challenge.

His barely informed attorney called me to the stand as his first witness. He had me identify my Republican nomination petition. I did. He then asked me what Magisterial District (MD) I was running for. I said it was MD 3-03-02. He then pointed out where the numbers '03' had been altered on the nominating petitions and asked if I had done that. I said yes, but it required (the following) explanation:

When I filed my petitions, the clerk at the Elections office had a checklist the office uses to make sure everything is in order. When he was looking at the MD number he seemed a bit confused. I looked at what he was looking at, and the number for the MD on his sheet did not seem to match what I had on my petitions. The '03' looked like an 'O2'. I said "Oh, did I get it wrong?", even though I had checked twice before circulating the petitions. I asked if I should change it. He said yes, and so I did. About 7 hours later, the Registrar of Elections called me and apologized; said that I had it right in the first place and I shouldn't have been told to change it. He asked me to come back and switch it back to the correct '03'. The next morning, still prior to the filing deadline, I did just that.

After my explanation, the attorney asked me if I am aware that a "material" change after filing was a reason to invalidate the petitions. I said yes, but that I was also aware of a PA Supreme Court case where a candidate CIRCULATED a petition with the wrong district number and after circulation made the change to the correct district number, and the Court ruled that it was not a "material" change. His attorney then asked me if I had that case with me. I said, "I do..... It's on counsel table". He asked me if he could look at it. I said, "Of course". He looked at it, consulted with Flower, and a few moments later announced that Flower was withdrawing his challenge. The lawyer also said he would be entering his appearance for Matt's absent father and withdrawing that challenge as well.

Even though, according to our legislature, MDJs do not need to be attorneys, isn't it better to have one that knows the law and can apply it fairly and correctly?

(I'll also note that the cases Flower relied on in his and his father's pleadings were not applicable and were wholly distinguishable, from the case he *thought* he had against me.)

I disagree with the argument that only a lawyer should be able to become a magisterial district judge. I know several nonlawyers who have been excellent and know at least one lawyer-turned magisterial district judge who never should have graduated from high school. Besides, the legislature has had ample opportunity to make a law degree a prerequisite yet declines to do so.

Having said that, Kingsley has been an excellent lawyer over the years and is admired and respected by her fellow lawyers.

Flower responds:

Here is my response to the intentionally misleading and hypocritical narrative of Ellen Kingsley. I would appreciate it if you would print this within the original article, as opposed to just a comment (i did already submit this) If you want further information, I am happy to discuss.

"Recent public statements and social media posts concerning the Wind Gap Magisterial District Judge race have presented a highly misleading version of events and deserve a direct response — not for political drama, but for the sake of accuracy, fairness, and respect for the judicial process.

Let’s set the record straight: the issue of improper or insufficient notice was not a fabrication, nor was it unique to me. Ms. Kingsley herself raised the same concern in court, as did other participants involved in proceedings that same day. The official court record will reflect this. These were not isolated complaints, but evidence of wider procedural breakdowns that could potentially impact fairness for all involved.

Out of respect for the Constitutional right to due process, I filed an emergency appeal with the Commonwealth Court. That appeal was timely, legally sound, and submitted to ensure the integrity of the process. My actions reflected a commitment to the rule of law — not avoidance, as has been suggested.

In light of this, Ms. Kingsley’s recent commentary — especially on Facebook — is both disingenuous and deeply concerning. By knowingly misrepresenting events in a public forum, she raises serious questions not only about her intent, but also about her understanding of the ethical standards that apply to judicial candidates. The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judicial candidates from making false or misleading statements, and from engaging in behavior that may call their impartiality into question.

This race is not about theatrics or personal attacks. It’s about who can be trusted to serve the public with fairness, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the law. I will continue to campaign on truth, transparency, and respect for the judiciary — because the people of our community deserve nothing less.