HARRISBURG (August 19, 1997) The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has decided to intervene in a case currently with the Commonwealth Court regarding judicial candidates' ratings by the Pennsylvania Judicial Evaluation Commission.

The highest court in Pennsylvania has granted the parties' petitions for the exercise of jurisdiction, put the matter on a fast track and will hear the case on September 17 in Pittsburgh. At that time, lawyers for both the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which sponsors the PJEC, and Attorneys Alvin B. Lewis and Richard A. Sprague will argue their respective points as to whether the documents used by the PJEC in determining candidates' ratings should remain confidential or not.

Vincent J. Grogan, president of the PBA is adamant that all Commission documents remain confidential.

"In order to reach a thorough and fair evaluation of a candidates' experience, qualifications and temperament, the Commission must protect its sources C just as a news reporter protects his sources," he said.

"Lawyers and others will not come forward to give candid assessments of a judge's background, performance and qualifications, if they fear retribution. Anonymity must be preserved."

Grogan said he was very pleased with the Court's decision to hear the case, particularly in light of the November election when 12 candidates will be on the ballot for six appellate court vacancies.

Explaining that judicial elections are different from political elections, because candidates are not permitted to discuss their opinions on issues that may come before them on the bench, Grogan noted that voters have very little information about statewide judicial candidates. But that has changed since the ratings of "Highly Recommended," "Recommended," and "Not Recommended," and the written explanation of the ratings.

"The citizen-driven, independent ratings of the Commission are important to voters because they help them decide which candidates are the most qualified," he said. "We continue to strongly support the Judicial Evaluation Commission, which relies on confidentiality as a means to obtaining candid comments about candidates' qualifications. It's a valuable public service that we must protect. We await the Supreme Court's review and decision."