* The Editorial Board of PennLive/The Patriot-News endorses Dwayne Woodruff, who brings with him the experience and temperament to serve on Pennsylvania’s highest court.
* Woodruff, a former 12-season, MVP defensive back for the Pittsburgh Steelers, is uniquely suited for that role. He’s served on the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which was called upon to clean up the mess from the so-called “Kids for Cash” scandal that rocked the Luzerne County courts. Woodruff, a judge of the family court, took that panel’s recommendations back to Allegheny County, where he tailored it for local use, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. He has also served as a member of the Allegheny County Jail Oversight Board and is a member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
* Woodruff’s broad sweep of experience and his demonstrated commitment to improving the judicial system makes him better suited to serve on a state Supreme Court still repairing its public image.
Pennlive: For Pa. Supreme Court: Judge Dwayne Woodruff is the right choice
By PennLive Editorial Board
Next Tuesday, Election Day, is popularly known as an “off-year” election. But Pennsylvania voters will nonetheless be called upon to make some very important choices.
Among them is picking a new member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is still working to regain public trust in the wake of a pornographic email scandal that claimed two of its former members: Democrat Seamus McCaffery, of Philadelphia, and Republican J. Michael Eakin, of Cumberland County.
Two experienced and quite competent candidates: Republican Sallie Mundy, who is now serving on the high court as an interim justice, and Allegheny Court of Common Pleas Judge Dwayne Woodruff, are vying to fill Eakin’s seat.
The Editorial Board of PennLive/The Patriot-News endorses Dwayne Woodruff, who brings with him the experience and temperament to serve on Pennsylvania’s highest court.
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this election – though it has received an inverse amount of public attention and interest.
State Supreme Court justices are initially elected to 10-year terms, standing for lifetime retention after that decade of service.
With the judicial retirement age now taking effect at age 75, either Mundy, 55, and Woodruff, 60, if elected, will have the opportunity to shape state law for years to come.
As justices, Woodruff and Mundy would not only be called upon to interpret the law and the state Constitution, they’d also be called upon to serve in administrative roles, setting the tone for the entire judiciary.
Woodruff, a former 12-season, MVP defensive back for the Pittsburgh Steelers, is uniquely suited for that role.
He’s served on the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which was called upon to clean up the mess from the so-called “Kids for Cash” scandal that rocked the Luzerne County courts.
Woodruff, a judge of the family court, took that panel’s recommendations back to Allegheny County, where he tailored it for local use, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.
He has also served as a member of the Allegheny County Jail Oversight Board and is a member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Mundy, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Tom Wolf in 2016, and unanimously confirmed by the state Senate, is a veteran judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which principally hears criminal matters.
She hails from rural Tioga County. And she argued persuasively during a meeting with the editorial board she brings a different perspective to a judiciary that is top-heavy with judges and justices from Pennsylvania’s two, largest cities.
That’s an admirable trait. Too often, the interests of the state’s vast, rural middle and its biggest cities do not intersect. That understanding would broaden the court’s viewpoint.
Nonetheless, the board was troubled by Mundy’s less than forthcoming responses to our inquiries regarding a candidate questionnaire compiled by the hyper-conservative and hyper-partisan Pennsylvania Family Institute.
In a question asking whether Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion, was correctly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, incorrectly decided, or if she had no answer, Mundy checked “incorrectly decided.”
Mundy told the board she personally opposed abortion rights. But she declined to explain the legal basis for her answer – which is a separate issue entirely.
It is understandable for judges to exercise caution when asked about matters that could conceivably come before them. And certainly, a case regarding a woman’s right to choose could well be one of them.
But if Mundy was uncomfortable explaining her answer to that question, and other queries posed in the questionnaire, which is available online and viewable by voters, she oughtn’t to have filled it out at all.
Woodruff exercised similar restraint in his editorial board interview.
But he also spoke eloquently, and at great length, about such critical matters as bail reform, the need to provide adequate resources for indigent defense, and instituting systems to help people navigate the intimidating judicial system.
While Mundy has the edge in appellate experience, Woodruff’s broad sweep of experience and his demonstrated commitment to improving the judicial system makes him better suited to serve on a state Supreme Court still repairing its public image.
Read the endorsement here.