All judges in Philadelphia reelected, including those not endorsed by the city’s bar association.

In a decisive election held on Tuesday, voters in Philadelphia opted to retain all 18 judges on the ballot for 10-year terms, despite the presence of scandals and recommendations against retention from the city’s Bar Association for several candidates. This decision followed significant public engagement, with approximately 278,000 ballots cast, reflecting the community’s stance on judicial performance and integrity.

Among those judges retained was Common Pleas Court Judge Scott DiClaudio, currently on administrative leave following serious allegations of misconduct. Preliminary results indicated that only 64% of voters endorsed his continuation, the lowest approval among the judges on the ballot. These allegations include attempts to influence a colleague’s decision in a criminal case, raising concerns about ethics within the judicial system.

Judge DiClaudio stated that the election result demonstrates voter support, despite the legal challenges he faces. He continues to deny any wrongdoing and expresses his commitment to serving the people of Philadelphia. DiClaudio was one of five judges not recommended for retention by the Philadelphia Bar Association, alongside Judges Frank Palumbo Jr., Daine A. Grey Jr., Lyris F. Younge, and Municipal Court Judge Jacqueline Frazier-Lyde.

Historically, judges in Philadelphia are consistently retained during elections. This trend was evident once again as the remaining judges, with voter retention percentages varying between 64% and 71%, expressed optimism moving forward. The Pennsylvania judicial retention election process allows voters to affirm or deny a judge’s continuation without direct opposition, meant to avoid contentious campaigns.

The Bar Association’s recommendations indicated a clear divide in public perception; the 13 judges recommended for retention had higher support levels compared to those not endorsed. For instance, Judge Younge received particularly low marks, as just 25% of peer respondents deemed her qualified. She has faced significant scrutiny in the past, leading to sanctions from the state’s judicial oversight body.

Despite the controversies surrounding several judges, the election solidified their roles on the bench for another decade. The Court of Judicial Discipline is presently deliberating on potential consequences for Judge DiClaudio as his case continues to unfold, with investigations ongoing regarding the allegations against him. As the judicial landscape in Pennsylvania evolves, these election results will likely influence future discussions around judicial accountability and the standards expected of those in judicial positions.