logo
GOP-endorsed candidates meet different fates in Pa. Commonwealth, Superior court primaries

GOP-endorsed candidates meet different fates in Pa. Commonwealth, Superior court primaries

Yahoo21-05-2025
Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.
HARRISBURG — The party-endorsed Republican candidate for Commonwealth Court coasted to victory in the May 20 contested primary, while a Superior Court hopeful who didn't win the GOP nod defeated her opponent.
They'll face Democrats who ran unopposed for vacancies on Pennsylvania's powerful lower appellate courts this November.
Erie County municipal primary: Devlin beats incumbent Schember in Democratic mayoral race
Judges on the nine-member Commonwealth Court preside over civil actions brought by and against Pennsylvania state government, and hear appeals primarily in cases involving state departments and local governments. The 15 judges on Superior Court handle criminal, family and civil cases that are appealed up from county Courts of Common Pleas.
Judges on all three of Pennsylvania's statewide appellate courts — Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth — are elected in partisan, statewide elections and serve 10-year terms. The number of terms they can serve is unlimited, though they must retire at age 75.
In addition to deciding the races for one vacant seat each on Commonwealth and Superior Courts, voters this November will consider whether to give five appellate judges additional 10-year terms.
That includes three state Supreme Court justices, all of whom were elected as Democrats. These yes-or-no retention elections are a high-profile target for Republicans hoping to upset a decade of Democratic control on the court.
More: Tim Barker wins Republican primary for York County District Attorney
In the Republican primary for a seat on Commonwealth Court, Erie-based attorney Matthew Wolford, who specializes in environmental law, beat Berks County's Joshua Prince, who runs a law firm focused on gun legislation.
The Associated Press called the race before 9 p.m. Wolford was leading with 62% of the vote, according to unofficial results.
Wolford, a solo practitioner, was endorsed by the state Republican Party and was also 'highly recommended' by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
In its assessment, the PBA noted that Wolford has been 'litigating all aspects of environmental law,' both civilly and criminally and at trial and appellate levels, for almost four decades.
Wolford is 'highly regarded for his work ethic, preparation, common sense, fairness, integrity, prompt and efficient performance and legal expertise in the environmental area,' the association wrote.
In his campaign materials, Wolford described his practice as focusing partially on 'defending clients against government enforcement actions and helping clients work through complex regulatory challenges,' and partly on 'fighting for private property rights,' which includes taking on disputes over zoning and easements and with homeowners' associations.
Prince, who also unsuccessfully ran for Commonwealth Court in 2023, ran a fairly tumultuous race, writing on his campaign website in early February that he would drop out after failing to secure the GOP endorsement, then reversing course nine days later.
He was not recommended by the state bar association because he did not participate in its review process.
Wolford will face Democrat Stella Tsai in the general election. She has served on Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas since 2016, and during the campaign described her work as being across the city's criminal, civil, orphans' court and family court divisions.
Unofficial election results: Contested Beaver County primary elections
Tsai, who was uncontested in the primary, was endorsed by the state Democratic Party and was rated 'highly recommended' by the PBA. The association wrote that she has 'a long and diverse legal career' with extensive trial experience in state and federal courts, and that she is respected among fellow judges and considered 'enthusiastic, hard-working and fair.'
Tsai said on her campaign website that she has 'volunteered to safeguard voting rights, immigrant rights, and civil rights.' She previously served as president of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Pennsylvania and in various official capacities with the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
In the race for the open Superior Court seat, the GOP primary was again contested, while the Democratic primary was not.
Attorney Maria Battista of Clarion County won the Republican primary.
The Associated Press called her victory over opponent Ann Marie Wheatcraft at 10:18 p.m. May 20. Battista was leading with 56% of the vote, according to unofficial results.
Battista previously served as assistant general counsel for the Pennsylvania Departments of Health and State under former Govs. Tom Corbett, a Republican, and Tom Wolf, a Democrat.
She is president at Judge Government Services, a consulting firm, and ran unsuccessfully for Superior Court in 2023.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association did not recommend Battista because she did not participate in its rating process.
The Pennsylvania Republican Party endorsed Wheatcraft, not Battista.
Wheatcraft has served since 2012 as a Chester County Common Pleas judge and became president judge at the beginning of this year after being selected by her colleagues on the bench.
The PBA 'highly recommended' Wheatcraft for the bench, calling her 'an experienced jurist known for her high degree of professionalism, good judicial temperament, excellent character, and undisputed integrity,' and noting that she has presided over hundreds of criminal and civil cases, and jury and bench trials.
The Democratic candidate in the general election will be Washington County's Brandon P. Neuman, who has served as a judge on the county's Court of Common Pleas since 2018.
He was previously a member of the state House of Representatives from 2011 to 2017.
As a judge, Neuman primarily presides over civil court and a veterans' specialty court, according to his campaign website, and has also presided over criminal and family law cases.
Last year, Neuman handed down a notable ruling that ordered Washington County to notify voters if their mail ballots have errors that would keep them from being counted, so that those voters would be able to cast provisional ballots.
He is 'highly recommended' by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which said his 'opinions demonstrate knowledge of substantive and procedural legal issues and the ability to provide good factual backgrounds and well-developed legal arguments.'
The association added that Neuman's colleagues believe he has high integrity, a good judicial temperament, and 'treats all individuals fairly,' among other positive attributes.
In retention elections, voters have a yes-or-no choice: They can give a sitting judge another 10-year term or can force the judge off the court. The elections aren't partisan, and there's no opponent.
If a majority of voters choose to reject a judge, the governor can appoint a temporary replacement subject to the approval of the state Senate. An election for a replacement to serve a full 10-year term is then held in the next odd year.
Judges rarely lose retention elections. The last time a judge lost retention was in 2005, amid broad frustration with state lawmakers over a pay-raise scandal.
However, Republicans, who have been frustrated with the Democratic-majority Supreme Court's decisions for a decade, say that a flip is within reach. Now, they're prepared for an expensive political fight.
The judges up for retention on the seven-member state Supreme Court are Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht. All were elected as Democrats.
All three have been involved in a slew of high-profile decisions over the past ten years. The court has overseen and intervened in the commonwealth's congressional and legislative redistricting processes; allowed a case challenging the state's education funding system to go to trial; upheld COVID-19 mediation efforts; and backstopped the state's voting laws against a barrage of conservative challenges, most notably from Donald Trump's 2020 campaign.
They've also made a number of quieter moves that have inflamed opposition from business interests, including loosening restrictions on where a plaintiff can file costly malpractice lawsuits and opening the door to gig workers becoming full employees rather than independent contractors.
When they run for retention, judges' campaigns are limited by the Code of Judicial Conduct. Its rules, aimed at maintaining impartiality, allow them to talk about their approach to the law, but bar them from discussing specific cases before them or definitively saying how they would rule on a given topic.
The lower appellate courts also have a retention election apiece. Superior Court Judge Alice Dubow is up for retention, as is Commonwealth Court Judge Michael Wojcik. Both were elected as Democrats.
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: PA GOP lower appellate court primaries go to Erie, Clarion lawyers
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In raising campaign cash, Sheriff Steve Tompkins relies on frequent donors: his employees
In raising campaign cash, Sheriff Steve Tompkins relies on frequent donors: his employees

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

In raising campaign cash, Sheriff Steve Tompkins relies on frequent donors: his employees

Advertisement Current and former employees at the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, as well as their family members, have accounted for one of every two donations Tompkins has taken in that time frame, according to a Globe analysis of campaign finance data. All told, they've contributed nearly $54,000 in that time, the Globe found — making up 51 percent of the cash Tompkins raised from donors. Tompkins pulled in the donations during a relatively quiet time for campaigning, after his 2022 reelection and years before his seat is back on the ballot in 2028. Elected officials can legally take contributions from those they oversee. But doing so — and in such large amounts — creates the perception that employees are expected to give and, at its core, employee fund-raising can appear inherently coercive, experts say. Advertisement Tompkins's haul of employee donations also goes far beyond what most other Massachusetts sheriffs collected from their subordinates, and continues a practice that investigators two decades ago said should be banned at the Suffolk County department when it sat under a different cloud of controversy. Tompkins did not respond to a request for comment, nor did aides in the sheriff's department. A woman who answered the phone at Tompkins's office said he was not in on Friday, the deadline for when he was supposed to report to federal court in Boston. He has not said whether he plans to step down from his seat, though he has Federal prosecutors charged Tompkins this month with pressuring a cannabis company to sell him stock before it went public. Prosecutors said he then demanded a refund on his $50,000 as his campaign costs mounted ahead of his 2022 reelection fight. The cannabis executive identified as 'Individual A' in the indictment is longtime Tompkins was arrested on Aug. 8 in Florida and is slated to be arraigned in federal court in Boston on Wednesday. In Massachusetts, cannabis companies applying for annual licenses need to show how their business will have a 'positive impact.' For Ascend, the answer ran through Tompkins, with whom they This partnership gave Tompkins leverage, according to prosecutors, who said that without his cooperation on the hiring program, company officials feared they would not have their license to operate a shop in downtown Boston renewed. Advertisement Tompkins ultimately did get his $50,000 back, which prosecutors said was paid out in five installments, the first of which — for $12,500 — he received in May 2022. Days later, state records show, Tompkins lent his campaign $20,000, one in a series of loans eventually totaling $67,500 that he gave his campaign over a roughly 14-month span around the election. Tompkins held off a Democratic primary challenger in the fall of 2022 before running unopposed for a six-year term that November. For all of 2022, he reported raising $197,216, about 30 percent of which was money he personally loaned his campaign. His campaign reported spending $204,434 in that year. Tompkins has personally recouped most of those loans, paying himself back $44,500 from his campaign account since May 2023. Collectively, the repayments are, by far, his biggest campaign expense since 2023. He's also reported making monthly payments to MLM Strategies, totaling nearly $28,000, for consulting costs. The single largest expense was a $15,000 payment he made to the law firm CEK Boston in April 2023, weeks after he admitted to violating state law by creating a no-bid job for his niece. Tompkins previously disclosed paying CEK Boston for legal services for a 'state ethics commission case.' Donations from his employees helped provide the cash for those costs along the way. Tompkins took contributions from members of his executive team, correction officers, and executive assistants at the department, records show, some for as large as the maximum $1,000 and others for as little as $20. All told, he's raised nearly $106,000 since January 2023, excluding money he loaned his campaign, with employees accounting for a little more than half of that. Advertisement Christine Cole, a Boston-based public safety consultant, said that while such contributions aren't illegal, 'is it the kind of look you want to give?' 'When the boss is willing to accept those campaign dollars, it suggests a blind loyalty,' she said. David Hopkins, a Boston College political science professor, said the high share of employee donations likely reflects a combination of factors, though one possibility is that there's an expectation to give to their boss's campaign. 'Which of course would be ethically dubious, one might say,' Hopkins said. Union officials at AFSCME Local 419, which represents correction officers at the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, did not respond to a request for comment about workers' donations to Tompkins. Jonathan Corey, president of Local 419 said in a previous statement after Tompkins was indicted that union officials 'are committed to withholding assumptions or definitive positions until all relevant details have been thoroughly reviewed.' Tompkins is it found under his administration. Tompkins himself faced, Advertisement Public employees, including elected officials, are Most of the state's other 13 elected sheriffs took a smattering of donations from those who identified themselves as department employees; some did not accept any donations from employees. The only sheriff to rely on a greater share of donations from those under him than Tompkins was Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald, the Globe found. Since January 2023, McDonald has taken more than $145,000 in donations from those who work, or recently worked, under him, accounting for 64 percent of what the four-term Republican raised in that time. McDonald said in an interview that he does not solicit donations from his employees, and, given many are unionized, 'no matter who the sheriff is, their jobs are secure.' 'The stake they have in it is that they like the way that the agency is run and they support me,' McDonald said. 'I would prefer not to take donations from anyone if I can avoid it. . . . There are rules that preclude solicitation of state employees, and I agree with that. The fact that a good number of my employees — union and nonunion — have chosen to support me, I'm very grateful for that." Democrats and other elected officials, McDonald said Friday that he likes Tompkins personally, but would not directly say whether Tompkins should step down. But he did say that 'simply having charges like this' would cause what he called 'leadership issues' for anyone in elected office. Advertisement 'If I was in a situation where I felt my ability to lead the agency and serve the community was compromised, I would leave,' he said. Andrew Ryan of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Matt Stout can be reached at

In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board

APTOPIX Election 2026 Redistricting California ATLANTA (AP) — Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are," said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. "For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill has not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Pairing fiery talk with action Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' 'Whatever it takes' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Fighting on all fronts Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store