Candidate: Megan Martin

Court: Commonwealth

Party: Republican

Pennsylvania Bar Association Rating: Recommended

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

The Legal Intelligencer: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Megan Martin: I will be a judge for all the people of our great commonwealth, and I will approach each case without bias and with an open mind. I will be the kind of judge the people of Pennsylvania want, need and deserve. I will be a judge who is fair and impartial, and I will serve with integrity and independence because an independent judiciary is a keystone of our republic. I will defend the rule of law because we are a nation of law and order. I will protect our constitutional rights and freedoms because the Constitution is my North Star. I will apply the law as our General Assembly wrote it.

I will not be an activist judge; I will not legislate from the bench. I will make decisions based upon the law, not personal or political agendas or influences. I will be a Commonwealth Court judge who holds our government accountable, because just as the people of Pennsylvania must follow the law, so too must our government. This is a judicial philosophy all the people of Pennsylvania can trust.

The Legal: What makes you the best candidate for the role?

Martin: My judicial philosophy, as stated above, together with the depth and breadth of my experience in Pennsylvania state government law and process and administrative law are what make me the best candidate for Commonwealth Court. I will bring nearly 30 years of unmatched, comprehensive experience to the Commonwealth Court, which only hears government cases. I like to say that I have one-of-a-kind experience for a one-of-a-kind court.

I have concentrated my legal practice on government—serving it, learning it and understanding it—and, as a result, I have had a legal career unlike any other. I am the only attorney I know who has served in all three branches of our Pennsylvania state government and as an attorney for our U.S. Navy.

My service as a U.S. Navy civilian litigator and transactional lawyer has given me extensive litigation, transactional (contracts) and administrative law experience. My service in the administrations of two Pennsylvania governors has given me in-depth understanding of the many, complex issues our Pennsylvania state government faces. I know the legal, regulatory, policy and operational issues. My decade of service as the Pennsylvania Senate's secretary-parliamentarian has given me comprehensive and truly one-of-a-kind understanding of Pennsylvania's complex legislative process. Being the parliamentarian is similar to being a judge. Every day for more than 10 years, I checked my politics at the doors of our capitol and fairly, impartially and in a nonpartisan manner, managed the legislative process for the Senate. I was unanimously elected five times by the senators for this position. From my service at the Senate, I will also bring a decade of experience deciding the same types of cases the Commonwealth Court decides. My decisions were never reversed by the Commonwealth Court because they were grounded in the law.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

Martin: A significant challenge facing the legal profession is also occurring throughout other professions and businesses. We are operating in a post-pandemic world where we need to find a balance between teleworking and being present in the office.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Martin: It says nothing. I have a lengthy record of nonpartisanship of which I am tremendously proud. I will bring that proven track record of nonpartisanship with me to the Commonwealth Court. For more than a decade, I served as the secretary-parliamentarian of our Pennsylvania Senate. This is a role where every day I acted like a judge. I checked my politics at the doors of our capitol and fairly and impartially managed the legislative process for the Senate. To get and keep this position of trust, I had to get elected by the senators, and I was unanimously elected five times.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Martin: The people of Pennsylvania deserve to have faith in the fairness and impartiality of our judges. Unfortunately, I have learned through my extensive campaign travels that there are some Pennsylvanians who have lost faith in our judiciary. Pennsylvanians have expressed to me they believe decisions have been made based upon partisan politics rather than the law.

I will be the kind of fair and impartial judge the people want, need and deserve. I am not a politician. I have never run for public office. I took a huge leap of faith in November 2022, and resigned my position with the Senate so that I could devote all my time and energy to running for Commonwealth Court. I am traveling 5,000 miles every month, I visited all 67 counties before the primary election, and since May 16 (and as of this writing on Sept. 28), I have travelled to 61 counties on my mission to visit all 67 for the second time.

I want to restore faith to the people of Pennsylvania that they have a fair and impartial judiciary. I want to be part of the good in our government and want to help to build a bright future for my children and all the people of our Commonwealth. I am running for all the right reasons, and that is how I can help to combat this perception.

The Legal: Several CLEs and bench-bar panels have recently addressed the growing phenomenon of distrust in the courts. In your view, how has distrust in the judiciary created challenges for the bench, and how should judges respond?

Martin: My answer to the previous questions partly addresses this question. I will add that judges must make decisions that are grounded in the law, not in politics. Judges must keep politics out of their courtrooms, where it most certainly does not belong. They must respect separation of powers and exercise restraint in areas committed to the other branches.

The Legal: What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Martin: I will abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct when it comes to questions of recusal. Rule 2.11(A) requires a judge to disqualify "himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The rule lists some of these circumstances requiring recusal, one of which concerns campaign contributions from lawyers or law firms. Rule 2.11(A)(4). The Judicial Conduct Board also issued guidance via a statement of policy on Rule 2.11(A)(4). I will follow the rule and the guidance.

The Legal: How important is consensus—particularly unanimous consensus—in appellate court opinions? Are there limits when a judge should only concur?

Martin: Consensus is important because it provides clear precedent for the people in their pursuit of justice and resolution of their legal cases, and it gives us precedent for our judges to faithfully apply to future matters, which gives certainty and predictability in the judicial process. After serving as the Pennsylvania Senate parliamentarian for more than a decade, I have a deep understanding of and respect for precedent. I compiled and relied upon the Senate precedent from the 1880s to the present when advising the lieutenant governor who presided over the lawmaking process. Unanimous consensus is not always possible, but achieving consensus is a reasonable aspiration when deciding cases.

The Legal: What two decisions or cases are you most proud of, and why? Conversely, what two opinions or cases would you like to take back or revise if you could, and why?

Martin: I issued many decisions as the Pennsylvania Senate's Right-to-Know Law's appeals officer. This role was part of my responsibilities as the secretary-parliamentarian. I decided these cases, strictly construing the RTK Law, and my decisions were NEVER overturned by the Commonwealth Court because they were grounded in the law.

Senate RTK Appeal 01-2020, Appeal of Bumstead. This appeal presented the question of whether the Senate open records officer properly redacted information (names of attendees at meetings with legislative staff and the legislative topics discussed) contained in legislative records of the Senate based on legislative privilege. I affirmed the decision based upon a thorough analysis of legislative records, redactions and legislative privilege.

Senate RTK Appeal 02-2019, Appeal of Kennedy. This appeal presented an issue of a requester requesting a large volume of nonspecific documents from the Senate. I affirmed the decision based upon a thorough analysis of various procedural arguments (requester must provide a copy of the request with his appeal; requester must address the grounds upon which he asserts the requested record is releasable and the grounds upon which the open records officer denied the requests; a requester may not modify, explain or expand a request on appeal) and the merits of the appeal (specificity of the request; request lacks specificity when it requires legal research; a request must seek records not answers to questions; request must seek access to legislative records; open records officer may provide access to legislative records pursuant to section 704 of the Act).

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Martin: My parents made me who I am today. They instilled their values in me, and these values are at my core. My mother passed on her deep faith and love of family to me. I am the fifth of six children in a large Irish-Italian family. I am blessed with my own wonderful family— my husband, Scott, and three great kids, ages 18-22. My dad, who is 92, passed on his tireless work ethic to me. Dad is the son of Italian immigrants, and he grew up during the Great Depression. Times were tough, and he had to get a job when he was 8 years old to help support his family. Dad told me that, if you are willing to roll up your sleeves and work hard, you can be anything in America. I apply this relentless work ethic to every aspect of my life, I am applying it to this campaign, and, should I be fortunate to get elected Nov. 7, I will apply it to my time on the Commonwealth Court.

Professionally, I was mentored by the judge for whom I clerked after graduating from law school nearly 30 years ago. He gave me tremendous autonomy and responsibility in drafting the opinions, which he said I would need to rewrite if I got the legal analysis wrong. Thankfully, I never did. He taught me that your professional reputation was sacred, so guard it always, and never, ever misrepresent to the court. I learned firsthand how a judge fairly administers justice for all, how he makes decisions, how he manages his caseload and chambers and how he interacts with the attorneys and the parties. This experience set me on the right path for my legal career and was the foundation that shaped me into the lawyer that I am today.

Finally, I tremendously admire late U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg for how they put their opposing political and judicial philosophies aside and shared a close friendship. We could all take a lesson from their civility and friendship.