HOLLIDAYSBURG — A published endorsement letter for the May 16 primary recently raised eyebrows because it was written by Blair County Judge Wade A. Kagarise.

Generally, county judges take a hands-off attitude when it comes to campaigning activities, including endorsements, because of rules outlined in the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

But that code has exceptions, including one allowing incumbent county judges, in the year they stand for retention, to endorse a candidate seeking the same judicial office.

The code also includes exceptions for magisterial district judges, also permitting them to show support for other judicial candidates in the year they run for election.

By closely following the rules, magisterial district judges can be in campaign photos and speak in favor of a fellow judicial candidate.

Penn State political science professor Michael Nelson said he’s not surprised to hear of judicial endorsements and referred to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election that attracted a lot of press earlier this year.

In that state, the justices on a politically divided court openly endorsed Daniel Kelly, a conservative former state Supreme Court justice, or Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge who went onto win the seat.

“I don’t have any data on how common this is nationally and how it varies by level of court,” Nelson said. “But there is a long-term trend of judicial elections looking like legislative and executive elections, more and more in terms of campaign activities, fundraising, advertising, etc.”

Kagarise’s pursuit

Kagarise, who will be up for retention in November, said that before he wrote the candidate endorsement letters, published by the Altoona Mirror and other newspapers, he asked for the state’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Board to review his intention to endorse a candidate.

The board’s answer was that he was allowed to do so because he is running for retention in November. Had he not been seeking retention, he said the board’s answer would have been no.

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, formed in 2022 by an order of the state Supreme Court, is currently made up of eight judges from appellate, county, municipal and magisterial district courts, and one attorney.

The board, which replaced the former Judicial Ethics Committee of the state Conference of Trial Judges, is assigned the task of providing advisory opinions regarding the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

Kagarise said that based on prior rulings by the ethics committee — addressing election activities by judges up for retention — he believed he could write the letter endorsing Blair County judicial candidate David Consiglio.

Specifically, a portion of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge, when a candidate for election or re-election, “may speak on behalf of any judicial candidate for the same office.”

By asking the Judicial Ethics Advisory Board to review his intention — and getting its OK — Kagarise secured what is referred to as “rule of reliance” protection that he can use if a complaint is lodged against him with the state’s Judicial Conduct Board.

Why make an endorsement?

Kagarise said he knew that his decision to endorse one of three candidates seeking a county judicial seat would generate questions — and he said he weighed the pros and cons.

“To me, it was important to balance what I thought would be people’s perceptions of my making an endorsement with my belief of how important this year’s election is going to be,” Kagarise said.

In the May 16 primary, registered Republicans and Democrats can vote for two of the three judicial candidates, with the successful nominees getting their names on the November ballot.

Besides Consiglio, a Centre County attorney who grew up in Blair County, the other county judicial candidates are Fred Miller, the northern Blair County magisterial district judge, and Joel Seelye, a longtime Blair County based attorney.

The two elected in November will take office in January and make up 40% of the county’s five-member judicial bench.

The other 60% of the bench will include Kagarise and President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle — if they win retention votes in November — and Judge Jackie Bernard, who is in the midst of her 10-year term.

Kagarise, who is finishing the last year of his 10-year term, said the seating of two new judges, at a time when society is changing, puts the county court in a position to establish direction for the future.

“I’m sure I have supporters out there who say I should refrain from stating my own personal opinion and I respect that,” the judge said. “But I also ask them to understand how important this election is.”

In weighing his decision, Kagarise said he settled on endorsing only one candidate because it leaves voters with a choice between the other two candidates.

“I’ve dedicated a large portion of my life to public service and I think the people who support me know that I’m not afraid to back away from tough decisions,” Kagarise said. “This is a time when I didn’t want to back away from doing what I think is the right thing to do.”

The other judge up for retention

President Judge Elizabeth Doyle, who like Kagarise will be on the November ballot for retention, hasn’t endorsed anyone.

“There are three excellent judicial candidates for two good vacancies on the court … all qualified men of good character,” she said.

As president judge, Doyle said she feels that it’s her job to “welcome the choice of the voters.”

It’s also the voters’ choice — in November — to decide if Doyle is retained for another 10-year term starting in January.

“I am able to work with any of these candidates that the voters choose,” Doyle said.

The option of judicial endorsement

Dennis Plane, political science professor and department chair at Juniata College in Huntingdon, said that if a judge’s actions are raising eyebrows, that’s a good thing, because it means the public is paying attention.

But even if the judge’s letter complies with the state ethics rules, Plane said that doesn’t mean the state’s ethics rules are perfect.

“It is up to each citizen to decide for themselves whether the judge’s actions are appropriate and to exercise their vote accordingly at the ballot box,” the professor said. “If voters believe that Judge Kagarise acted unethically, they should vote not to retain him and/or vote against the candidate he is endorsing.”

“They should also contact the state Judicial Ethics Committee or their local legislators and ask for a change in the ethics rule,” Plane added.

Political science professor Joseph Melusky, director of the Saint Francis University Center for Study of Government and Law, said the opportunity for common pleas court judges to endorse a candidate doesn’t happen often because it’s restricted to the year they run for retention and that happens only once every 10 years. And he didn’t readily identify any problems.

“It would be problematic if an endorsing judge sat on a higher court that would evaluate the successful candidate’s later rulings,” Melusky said. “In such circumstances, the endorsing judge would have expressed a personal bias in favor of the new judge. … But that situation doesn’t apply when a common pleas judge endorses a common pleas judicial candidate. They would be sitting on the same court.”

While candidate endorsements can lead to post-election alignments among elected officials and colleagues, as expected in the highly-partisan Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Nelson said he isn’t convinced that judicial endorsements are necessarily bad.

“Certainly, judicial candidates have long gotten endorsements from police associations and other groups,” he said.

“A big issue in judicial elections — and especially local elections — is that voters have a hard time learning about the candidates,” Nelson said. “Endorsements give voters more information about a candidate, which can help them decide which candidate to support on Election Day.”

Endorsement vs. support

Kagarise’s published letter referred to others who have endorsed Consiglio, including current District Attorney Pete Weeks.

Weeks said Friday that he has endorsed only Seelye because of Seelye’s experience and local practice, while recognizing Consiglio and Miller as qualified candidates.

Weeks said he spoke to Consiglio and Miller about their campaigns and told each candidate: “Yes, you can say I have a favorable opinion of you.”

Weeks also said he also authorized the Consiglio campaign to include him among the county’s last four district attorneys supporting their candidate.

“I stand by what I wrote,” Kagarise said Friday. “The information I put in that letter was based on the campaign’s understanding of the support and endorsements it had.”

Bar association’s role

While a slew of local office holders, retired office holders and other local residents have written endorsement letters in favor of the local judicial candidates, the Blair County Bar hasn’t.

President Brian Grabill, whose law partner is running for a county judicial seat, said that to his knowledge, the Blair County Bar Association has never engaged in the practice of endorsing county judicial candidates.

“While some local bar associations, such as Cambria County’s association, have a policy in place for rating candidates as either highly recommended, recommended or not recommended, the Blair County Bar Association does not have such a policy,” Grabill said.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association also rates judicial candidates, but only candidates seeking seats on the state’s Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth courts.

Mirror Staff Writer Kay Stephens is at 814-946-7456

On the ballot

On May 16

Three candidates — David Consiglio, Fred Miller and Joel Seelye — will be on the Republican and Democratic ballots, seeking party nominations to become one of two Blair County judges. The top two from each party will advance to the fall election.

On May 4, the Altoona Mirror published judicial candidate questions and answers.

In November

Voters will elect two judges to the county court, based on the outcome of the primary. There could be two or three judicial candidates on the November ballot.

In addition, November’s ballot includes judicial retention questions for President Judge Elizabeth A. Doyle and for Judge Wade A. Kagarise.

The 2023 salary of a Blair County judge is set at $212,495.