Did Superior Court Judge Stevens Cross the Line?

When I told you about Superior Court Judge Corry Stevens on Monday, I mentioned that he is unafraid to voice opinions, even on hot-button, political issues. That certainly makes him different from most judges. He does have one powerful ally, Supreme Court Justice Max Baer. "I think you have a right to know what I feel, what I believe in, who I am."

Yesterday, Stevens joined forced with other foes of illegal immigration, including our very own John Morganelli. They want new state laws or something. Needless to say, lots of folks are outraged that a judge would dare state his views.

Capitol Ideas' John Micek tells us Stevens may have gone too far. "Once legal ethicists and others picked their jaws up off the floor, they said Stevens, 60, probably went sailing over the line with his public comments."

But did he?

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a judicial candidate has a first amendment right to speak out on issues that might come before the court. Pennsylvania thereafter relaxed judicial canons, allowing candidates to “announce” views on disputed legal or political issues. It still prohibits statements that “commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.”

Even in this watered down version, this canon has been enjoined by a federal district court. It is unenforceable.

That's why Stevens can speak, and we are the beneficiaries. Tim Potts at Democracy Rising has stated this injunction "means [judges] will be able to respond to a lot more issues than in the past. As long as we're going to have elections, they ought to be meaningful. Public confidence in the courts is [already] abysmally low."

Philadelphia lawyer Robert Nix, who just happens to chair the state Republican Hispanic Coalition, is among those outraged, and he intends to file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.

Good luck with that one, Bob.

Now don't get me wrong, I get queasy when I hear undocumented workers scapegoated as the cause of all our problems. I disagree completely with both Stevens and Morganelli. But I think it's important that voters know who they're voting for, and I give Stevens credit for opening up.

Update: Stevens Defends Capitol Appearance. - In today's Hazelton Standard Speaker, Judge Stevens defends his appearance at a capitol press conference on Monday. Here's his explanation.

Kindly note I would like to clarify my visit to the Capitol on Monday, which was the result of an invitation to a press conference concerning the release to the public of a report on crimes committed and allegedly committed by people in the country illegally.

My comments were confined to a federal constitutional issue: federalism. In response to citizen complaints about the federal policy of non-enforcement of immigration laws, I suggested a possible solution would be to amend the federal immigration law to allow local governments to enforce the law.

Specifically, I spoke about providing due process rights in that county courts would be empowered, but not required, to hold deportation hearings. Thus, local communities which have serious problems with illegal immigration would have the tools to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Some present have chosen to characterize the event as some type of “rally” and have criticized me for being there.

Under current law, judges are permitted write, lecture, speak, even attend legislative hearings on just about any subject. I explained the rules and my reason for being present, and confined my remarks to the issue of sharing enforcement powers. As a former legislator, district attorney and trial judge, I was careful not to discuss anything involving the Pennsylvania legislature or executive branch.

Interestingly, even if the event were a “rally”, I would still have been able to attend and speak.

For example, all judges running for the open seats and the retention seats have appeared at “partisan” functions, namely the Democrat and Republican State Committee meetings.

And at those meetings speakers occasionally criticize the other political party, that’s part of our governmental process. By the judges being present, or even sharing the dais with those speakers, it doesn’t mean the judges are supporting or endorsing what is said. There are no prohibitions from those judges being present at the political party gatherings or even from speaking at those gatherings, in a year when those judges are up for election.

I can certainly understand that there is room for disagreement on the merits of what I said, the issue of federalism and allowing local governments more enforcement powers.

What concerns me is that there is the appearance now, from the news reports, that I had no right to discuss a federal constitutional issue not in any way before my court. I have always been sensitive to the need for judges to be fair and impartial in fact and in perception and will remain so.

Thank you,

Correale Stevens
Judge, Superior Court of PA