[Re-posted from the Pennsylvania Order of Liberty Blog]
In this edition of Democracy Rising News:
Tick, Tick, Tick
Reformer Michael Nutter Wins in Philly
Act 1 Crashes and Burns
Court Ruling Adds Spice to Fall Judicial Elections
Tick, Tick, Tick
677 Days since the pay raise of 2005
1 Law enacted to improve government integrity
0 "Best-in-America" laws enacted
Reformer Michael Nutter Wins in Philly. Philadelphia? A hotbed of reform?
Since 2005, pundits have correctly observed that reform was slow coming to Philadelphia, where the pay raise barely raised an eyebrow. That changed yesterday when Michael Nutter won the Democratic primary convincingly in a field of five candidates. A former city councilman with a track record of reform on such issues as limiting the size of campaign contributions, Nutter campaigned on ethics, tax cuts and public safety.
"We have to lower the crime rate and make this city safe," Nutter said in an Inquirer article today. "This is our time, and this is our place. We can do better as a city, we will do better as a city."
Finishing in second place was businessman Tom Knox, who spent $10 million of his own money on the race. Along with Nutter, the two campaigned against corruption in the current administration.
"The fact that the two top finishers in the race were both reform candidates is a testament to the people of Philadelphia and the fact that they want real and meaningful change," Knox told the Inquirer.
Before the election, polls showed a sizeable majority of Philadelphians believing that their city was on the wrong track.
While some, including Gov. Ed Rendell's spokesman, contend that the proposal lost because it was confusing, others argue it lost because voters saw it as a phony reform. Independent education analysts rank PA as having among the worst school funding systems in the nation because of its over-reliance on local property taxes and extremely low level of state support.
By simply shifting taxes at the local level, Act 1 failed to address the fundamental problem, critics contend. Many voters, according to interviews at the polls published in many of the state's newspapers, also resented the proposal for pitting one group of taxpayers (renters) against another group of taxpayers (low-income homeowners). In most school districts, rent! ers would have seen their income taxes increase by 50% to 100% in order to provide relatively small property tax cuts for the homeowners, a shift that even some of those who voted for Act 1 considered to be unfair to renters.
The ruling allows candidates for judge to answer questions about legal issues without fear of being penalized by the Judicial Conduct Board. Both DR and the plaintiff in the Eastern District (the Pennsylvania Family Institute) now must prepare for a court hearing on a permanent injunction against Canon 7. Such a hearing could occur within the next few weeks. We'll keep you posted.
This year DR and eight other organizations sponsored a questionnaire based on a reform platform created by Prof. Bruce Ledewitz at Duquesne University Law School. In their responses, four state-level candidates and two candidates for local judgeships claimed that Canon 7 prevented them from answering questions about such issues as the Supreme Court's role and ruling in the pay raise; private meetings between judges, lawmakers and the governor; nepotism; and issuing orders without opinions stating the court's authority and reasoning.
DR will continue to push for answers to these and many other questions affecting the quality of our court system. Click here to see the candidates responses so far.
Democracy Rising PA is a non-partisan, non-profit advocate for improving state government.
Note: Candidate responses are available in directories at the Democracy Rising PA web site.
Copyright © 2007, THE CENTRIST; All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment