While the race for the open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is drawing most of the attention (and the money), there are two other court races in the Keystone State that will impact life in the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is one of Pennsylvania’s two intermediate appellate courts, along with the Superior Court. The Commonwealth Court is the state’s highest court of appeals in civil and regulatory matters, issuing opinions on tax matters, state agencies, zoning, and voting.

There are nine judges that serve on the Commonwealth Court with five Republicans and three Democrats serving on the bench.

There are two candidates running for the open seat – Republican Megan Martin and Democrat Matt Wolf.

Megan Martin

Occupation: Attorney
Education: B.A., University of Delaware ’91; J.D., Widener University School of Law ’94.
Qualifications: Martin was a litigator with the U.S. Navy, worked as a staffer for Govs. Tom Ridge and Tom Corbett and also served as the first female Secretary and Parliamentarian of the Pennsylvania State Senate.
Endorsements: Commonwealth Partners Chamber of Entrepreneurs; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation; Pennsylvania State Fraternal Order Of Police; Pennsylvania State Troopers Association
Recommendation: Pennsylvania Bar Association.
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Instagram

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?
A: Judges should approach every case keeping in mind their oath to support, obey & defend the Constitution. The Constitution should be their North Star. Judges should apply the law as it was written by the General Assembly. Judges should not be influenced by public opinion or pressure; they should follow the law. Precedent exists to maintain the rule of law. Defending the rule of law helps promote a world without chaos. It gives consistency to our judicial decision-making process. It ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike rather than being subject to the personal views of a particular judge. I respect the Constitution & rule of law. I respect precedent. I will continue to do so as a judge on our Commonwealth Court. (courtesy of League of Women’s Voters)

Q: In matters of constitutional interpretation, would you describe yourself as an originalist, textualist, pragmatist, or some other term that indicates how you approach constitutional interpretation?
A: I will be a fair, impartial, and independent judge on the Commonwealth Court. I will be a judge for all the people of our great Commonwealth and will approach each case without bias and with an open mind. I am a strict constructionist. I am a textualist and an originalist; I do not believe the constitution is a “living document.” Moreover, I will follow the law and apply precedent to the facts of the cases that come before me. Further, I deeply respect our government and its separation of powers. Serving in all three branches has given me perspective from each and a thorough understanding of the roles of each branch. I will bring this approach of exercising judicial restraint and adhering to our separation of powers to the Commonwealth Court, as well. Finally, judges should check their politics at the door of the courthouse. They should not be influenced by current events and the politics of the day when making their decisions. They should remain fair, impartial, and independent in their application of the law to the facts before them. This is what the people of Pennsylvania expect and deserve. I will be that judge. (courtesy PA Coalition for Civil Justice Reform)

Q: What is the proper role of stare decisis when deciding cases in the appellate courts? Do you agree that predictability in the law is important to maintain a healthy business and medical climate in Pennsylvania?

A: Precedent exists to maintain the rule of law. Defending the rule of law helps promote a world without chaos and gives consistency to our judicial decision-making process. It ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike rather than being subject to the personal views of a particular judge. I respect the rule of law. I respect precedent. After serving the past decade as the Senate’s Parliamentarian, I have an even deeper understanding of, and respect for, precedent and order. I saw first-hand at the Senate what happens when precedent and rules are not followed – chaos. To ensure that we followed the established parliamentary and legislative-process precedent, when I was first elected at the Senate, I researched and compiled the Senate precedent of parliamentary decisions from the 1880s to the present. I used this guide throughout my decade-long tenure at the Senate to advise each Presiding Officer at the Senate Rostrum during Senate Session. (courtesy PA Coalition for Civil Justice Reform)

Matt Wolf

Occupation: Supervising Civil Judge of the Philadelphia Municipal Court
Education: B.S., LeMoyne College ’90; J.D. Rutgers-Camden ’93
Qualifications: Wolf has 25 years of experience as a private civil rights litigator before the state Supreme Court, federal courts, and courts in New Jersey. He joined the U.S. Army Reserve in 2003, where he served as an officer, and was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. On deployment, Wolf was a legal advisor to the army. He joined the Pennsylvania National Guard in 2020 and still trains new members of the Guard at Fort Indiantown Gap.
Endorsements: Pennsylvania AFL-CIO; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers; AFSCME; SEIU, Planned Parenthood; Pennsylvania Professional Fire Fighters Association
Recommendation: Pennsylvania Bar Association.
Social Media: Website | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Q: What criteria would you consider in deciding a case that could affect long standing precedent?
A: It depends on the case, the facts and the law. This question cannot be answered in vacuum. There are antiquated decisions in Common Law that are long standing precedent which call to be overturned such as the Supreme Court’s 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision which upheld the legality of racial segregation in America. It took 58 years for that case to be overturned in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Some long standing precedent should be overturned such as the “separate but equal” line of cases as an example. Other long standing precedent should be respected, particularly as it relates to the preservation and recognition of fundamental constitutional rights. (courtesy of League of Women’s Voters)

During a candidate forum hosted by nonprofit advocacy group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts before this year’s primary election, Wolf said his judicial philosophy includes restraining judicial activism, which he called “not-productive.” He also said he thinks the state’s judicial ethics standards in Pennsylvania should be kept as they are, calling them “sufficient.”

“I don’t believe that it is productive to be activist at all and change things for the sake of a political reason,” Wolf said.

Watch more