When voters go to the polls on November 6 to vote on the retention of 67 judges across Pennsylvania, they will not just be voting on whether to keep those particular judges or not. They will also be making substantial financial decisions that will affect the Commonwealth for years to come.

Tom Saylor, the Supreme Court justice up for retention, is asking Pennsylvanians to commit at least $1,752,360.00 in salary over a ten-year term. Six Superior Court and Commonwealth Court judges are each asking Pennsylvanians to invest at least $1,653,420.00 in salary over a ten-year term.

Each Common Pleas Court judge up for retention is asking voters to commit at least $1,521,150.00 to paying their salary over a ten-year term. There are 53 judges asking voters to make such an investment across Pennsylvania.

In Philadelphia, the six Municipal Court judges are asking voters to set aside at least $891,576.00 for their salaries over a six-year term. The Traffic Court judge up for retention is asking voters to invest at least $470,604.00 in salary over the next six years.

These are substantial investments in the future of justice in Pennsylvania. All told, these figures add up to just over 98 MILLION DOLLARS. That total, however, is an understatement. Some of these judges are president judges in their area and command a higher salary. But even accounting for those additional salary amounts would not tell the whole story. In addition to salary, every judge receives health care benefits few Pennsylvanians could afford and a lavish pension plan.

PACleanSweep asks: Even if we were not running a 'Vote No' campaign, are Pennsylvanians properly prepared to make these significant financial decisions? What do you really know about these judges? Is the fact that they've already served at least one term reason enough to re-elect them? Do you have sufficient information to make an intelligent choice?

Voting 'no' on every single one of them would clear the decks and give Pennsylvanians an opportunity to choose a judge (and a long-term investment in justice) from an open field of candidates. Judges who are voted out can run again for the same seat. They would compete against other candidates who may be better qualified for office. You would have more time to consider your options in making these long-term investments in justice.

Wouldn't that be preferable to blindly voting to spend over 98 million dollars on salary alone over the next decade?

For nearly 40 years, Pennsylvanians have gone to the polls with very little information about retention candidates. As a result, they've habitually voted 'yes' in overwhelming numbers and retentions have turned into a "gimme" for judges. PACleanSweep believes it would be wise to have options when making long-term investments in justice. We encourage a resounding 'no' vote on November 6.

2007 Retention Candidate List

Top Ten Reasons to Vote 'No'

What YOU Need to Do on November 6

PACleanSweep Judicial Retention Poll Results

Pennsylvania's Judicial Retention System

Judicial Salaries as of January 1, 2007

PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to reforming state government in Pennsylvania. For more information, please visit www.PACleanSweep.com.