Justin P. Miller

There are several critical issues and elections on tomorrow’s ballot. Here are my thoughts on the main ones.

You can access your Centre County sample ballots here: [Centre County Elections and Voter Registration]

Let’s get a few things out of the way first: When it comes to legislators, I am a loyal Democrat. I’ve never voted for a Republican for any local, state, or national legislative post. But when it comes to the judiciary and executive, I am party agnostic. I’ve voted for both parties over the years, including in local elections. In other words, don’t be surprised when I endorse Republicans in local races.

The most critical race for me personally is for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. We have one seat open, and we are voting on retaining the judge in another. First, the open seat:

Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Judge Thomas King Kistler is retiring after twenty years on the bench. Running to replace him are Ron McGlaughlin (R) and Brian Marshall (D). I am supporting the Republican, Ron. In all of the areas that count – experience, intellect, judicial temperament, and humility – Ron is hands-down the superior candidate. It isn’t so important to me that Brian hasn’t had a single jury trial in his entire career, or that his only criminal clients were leftovers from Stacy Parks Miller after she was elected DA the first time. We’ve had judges who have come from private civil practice before, and they can be taught to be competent judges. But why stop at mere competence? Why settle when you can have excellence?
It is more important to me that I’ve seen Ron in action for his clients. I’ve been co-counsel with him in cases, and he’s always fought not just for his client’s but for what is right.
Perhaps the most important factor in a successful judge is integrity. I don’t know Brian well enough to judge his integrity, but I do know Ron. He is one of the most ethical attorneys I know. I never had to doubt his word when he tells me something. That is a trait that matters to me.
Bottom line: I can work with either of these men as our next judge, but my preference is Ron McGlaughlin.

Retention – President Judge Pamela A. Ruest
In ten short years, Centre county has gone from having its first female judge to having its first female president judge. This race is personal to me. I served as President Judge Ruest’s first law clerk from 2007-2009. It was the best job I’ve ever had. She brought a dedication and thoroughness to the job that was a marvel to experience. She has never taken a decision lightly, and is the very definition of a deliberative judge. We are a better court and community with her on the bench, and we will continue to improve over the coming decade with her at the helm.
Bottom line: I am voting to Retain President Judge Pamela A. Ruest.

Magisterial District Judge
Counties in Pennsylvania are divided into Magisterial Judicial Districts. These elected judges are responsible for the origination of most criminal and civil proceedings that arise in their geographic area. Consequently, the citizens within that district vote for a judge from amongst themselves. This is the one judicial office in Pennsylvania that is open to non-lawyers. My personal bias is, of course, for an attorney to hold this position. Twenty or thirty years ago, the law was still simple enough that legal training and experience were not necessary to do this job well. A lot has changed in a very short time, and we now have a highly technical minor judiciary that is called upon to handle intricate legal issues that previously never came before it. At one time, a career as a police officer was sufficient legal training. That time is long since past. We try to make up the difference with a four-week course on the basics of the Magisterial District Courts, but you cannot cram the needed legal training, and learning to think with a legal mind, into a short program.
In nearby State College, two candidates are vying for the open seat. Casey McClain (D) and Dave White (R). [You can read my endorsement of Casey here and my prior endorsement of Casey in the primary here.]
Bottom line: I don’t get a vote in this race, but I have a clear preference. Casey McClain.

Ballot Measure: [Public Notice (PDF)] [Ballotpedia Entry]
Tomorrow we will be faced with a ballot question so confusing it makes the one last time about judicial retention seem like a children’s story. It is ostensibly to allow local school boards to exempt “homesteads” – property owned by individuals as a primary residence – from up to 100% of property tax. Currently, boards can exempt up to 50%. In rural, cash-strapped areas, this may seem like a good idea. But it is a trap. Here’s the text of the question:

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to permit the General Assembly to enact legislation authorizing local taxing authorities to exclude from taxation up to 100 percent of the assessed value of each homestead property within a local taxing jurisdiction, rather than limit the exclusion to one-half of the median assessed value of all homestead property, which is the existing law?

To be clear: our current system of funding our schools through property taxes is failing our communities. But this is not the solution we are looking for. What this will do is eliminate a funding source without replacing it. The proposals for replacing it are equally grim: increases in the sales tax and personal income tax (S.B. 76).
Everyone loves a tax cut, but let’s look at the bigger picture. Every cent we pay in property taxes for public schools is an investment in the future. If you care about educating the next generation, vote this short-sighted proposal down. Then write your legislators and demand real change in school funding that provides both property tax relief and fair and equitable school funding. Tell them to assemble the entire plan before they start cutting taxes.
Bottom line: I’m opposed to putting carts before horses. I’ll be voting NO on the ballot measure.

Just to reiterate: Casey McClain is going to make a great Magisterial District Judge.

Here is my previous endorsement of Casey in the Primary. I stand by every word of it.

I’ve also submitted a Letter to the Editor to both the Centre Daily Times and StateCollege.com. My original text:

Being a Magisterial District Judge involves a lot more than filing traffic citations, no matter how long one does it. It requires an acute, focused mind and the ability to carefully interpret and apply laws. Casey McClain has sixteen years of experience as an attorney in the toughest job around. He is a fierce and formidable advocate for his clients, and I expect he will bring that same commitment and dedication to serving as our next Magisterial District Judge.

His opponent claims to be the only certified and qualified candidate, but he isn’t telling us the whole story: He had to take a four-week class because he is not a lawyer. Casey McClain is and he has the qualifications, education, and experience required to be an outstanding judge. You simply cannot compare a four-week class to sixteen years of on-the-job experience. Learning as you go is no substitute for experience.

Our next judge shouldn’t start his tenure by lying to us. We need a straight-shooter who always puts his duty above his own ambition. That candidate is Casey McClain.

I will update with links if either of them deign to publish it.

(This originally appeared as an overly-long Status Update on my Facebook page. I thought it was more appropriately here, on my personal blog.)

First off, gun violence isn’t about mental health.

That’s a clever out for pretending the perpetrators of these regularly scheduled atrocities are not normal people. But they are. They’re average Americans. They’re friends, neighbors. Family. And that is fucking SCARY.

They don’t fit a profile (a discipline that is bunkum anyway). They pass as normal. Occasionally there’s a warning sign, but oft as not there’s no discernible indication that someone is about to kill an amazing number of people with the most deadly tools that one can hold in their hands.

If it were about mental health, we could screen for that and keep guns away from dangerous people. But that’s the problem: you can’t screen for normal. In America, violence and the capability to commit it is normal.

More to the point: you can’t screen for a black swan event. You can be prepared, you can take precautions, you can attempt to keep the most dangerous tools out of the hands of anyone who isn’t thoroughly vetted and licensed. Even then, violent people find a way.

As our brothers on the Right are fond of saying, “guns don’t kill people.” And they’re right. Gun violence is about violence, first and foremost. We are a violent people. Guns exacerbate this. Remove the guns, you are treating the symptom while the disease festers. The symptom being mass murder, of course, so you really do need to treat that with more than an aspirin. But the underlying disease is violence.

This is not to excuse the NRA and similar organizations. These fronts for the gun makers are interested in money, first and foremost, and do not deserve a seat at the policymaking table. The rest of us have to live with the consequences of their business model. Their active encouragement of the fetishization of violence disqualifies them from helping find a solution.

I saw an article earlier today about statistics on the effectiveness of gun control measures. The TL;DR version is that “sensible gun control” doesn’t work in the aggregate. By its very nature, it can’t catch the normal person who goes on a shooting spree; and it doesn’t work to prevent the low-level violence that costs more lives than headline-grabbing mass murders do. What isn’t clear is whether we can reduce the incidence and/or prevalence of these smaller episodes. This is something that should be studied, but there are few, if any, longitudinal studies that look at gun violence and prevention. They simply don’t get funded, and they need to be.

Which brings us to the problem of the liberal response to gun violence. We know we don’t have the votes in the state houses or the US Congress to deliver meaningful gun law reform. Even assuming, arguendo, that the restrictions we trot out every time a new shockingly large number of our fellow Americans are gunned down actually work, we know we can’t get them passed. I honestly expected a change of tactic after Newtown. Once America accepted dead toddlers as the Price of Freedom (subtype: Second Amendment), it was clear that the sort of gun control that we have attempted since 1929 had failed. Until recently, the needed new approach was unclear.

Recently, it dawned on me (and others) that we have a violence problem, not a gun problem. But how do you counter violence? How do you unlearn it as a culture? I’m of the opinion and conviction that violence is only to be overcome by compassion. Give me a generation of kids to raise learning mindfulness and meditation, I’ll give you a generation that doesn’t turn to violence. There are other approaches, too. Mindfulness is just the one with which I am most familiar.

For years I have said people don’t change. It is part of my Dr. House approach to being a lawyer: Everybody lies, nobody changes, and heroes always disappoint. That has always been just an act, and I know it.

What I’ve never said is that people can’t change; they just don’t. I now realize I need to act as though I believe people really can, and do, change. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.