Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
Monday, September 16, 2013
President Judge Baratta Opposes New Magisterial Realignment
Baratta criticizes the plan proposed by District Judges because "it sets irrational and unreasonable boundaries that are not convenient for the public and law enforcement." He argues that the consolidation of the Magisterial Districts in the northwestern corner of Northampton County is the only fair solution, even though it has the unfortunate side effect of requiring a run-off election between District Judges Robert Hawke and Diane Marakovits. "[A]ny plan that would avoid the election run-off could only be achieved at the expense of convenience, rationality and gerrymandering."
According to an informative story in The Express Times, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts states it would be "unusual" to consider a second realignment plan. But Baratta's letter to Castille notes that the Chief Justice did agree to consider a revised plan.
Reporter Tom Shortell also reports that District Judge Jackie Taschner, which at least was the President of the Magisterial District Judges' Association, refused to provide a copy. That plan is a matter of public record, and was provided by the Court Administrator on Friday. You can review it here.
Here are some other documents I have obtained:
Letter from District Judge Jackie to PJ Baratta, indicating that magistrates adopted their own realignment plan.
Letter from Hanover Tp to PJ Baratta, suggesting district judge realignment is a gerrymander.
Letter from Bethlehem Tp Police Chief Dan Pancoast, objecting to the magisterial realignment because it threatens public safety.
Colonial Police Chief Roy Seiple notes District Judge Robert Hawke refused to provide copy of plan.
State Senator Lisa Boscola opposes elimination of Bethlehem Township magisterial district.
Letter From PJ Baratta to Chief Justice Castille, opposing the realignment plan in a rather clever way (He argues that maybe the Chief Justice thinks politics should trump the public interest).
5 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
I guess one of them is going to have to go out and get a real job.
ReplyDeleteif the problem is monetary then get rid of one of the supremes.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that there are exactly eight people in favor of this jobs protection realignment. Everybody else is running from the scheme like it's radioactive. Let's publicly shame the eight schemers.
ReplyDeleteHard to publicly shame them when they took the precaution of a secret ballot....
ReplyDeleteLet Jim Gregory decide.
ReplyDelete