With the new two-year legislative session underway in our state capital, and with Republicans even more firmly in control after the Nov. 3 general election, the GOP wants to send a pointed message to Democrats: You’re going to pay for your “sins.”

They plan to do this by pushing constitutional amendments that will:

• allow us to elect judges from regions rather than on a statewide basis

• reduce the power of the governor to limit his emergency declarations to just one 21-day period without legislative approval.

There are two other amendment proposals which were passed last session that might come up soon, including requiring candidates for lieutenant governor to run on the same ticket as gubernatorial candidates in the primary, and allowing district justices to stand for retention just as other judicial officers do after being elected to a first full term. District justices serve six-year terms.

The goal of Republicans is to have the two key measures approved quickly so that they will go to us voters in the May 18 primary elections.

These changes are not to be taken lightly. I believe it is fair to say that both are motivated by Republican anger and frustration, especially at the way Gov. Tom Wolf has handled stay-at-home and other restrictive orders surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Wolf’s emergency declaration that gave him exceptional powers starting last March and renewed multiple times since then has infuriated most Republican and some Democratic lawmakers.

They have accused Wolf of being dictatoriallike and creating an adverse business climate in the state because of the restrictions and/or lockdowns of nonessential businesses. Prime among these are restaurants, hotels and related businesses. They also accuse him of not being consistent on which businesses were compelled to close vs. others that had essentially the same merchandise but were given exceptions to remain open.

When the Republicans took legal action against Wolf to end the emergency declaration, the Democratic-dominated state Supreme Court sided with Wolf.

Some political analysts say that this, along with the court’s overturning of the Republican redistricting map two years ago that gave Democrats parity in the state’s congressional delegation - 9-9 vs. 13-5 favoring the Republicans before the ruling - brought about the retaliatory mindset to have justices of the appellate courts elected by district. Such a move would likely result in the election of more Republican statewide judges.

Five of the seven state Supreme Court justices were elected as Democrats; one - Chief Justice Thomas Saylor - was elected as a Republican, and one was appointed by Wolf. Saylor reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75 this year, so his seat will be contested in this year’s elections.

Judicial candidates can cross-file, meaning their names can appear on both the Democrat and Republican ballots. When they seek retention after their 10-year term, however, they appear on the ballot in a nonpartisan designation rather than under a party banner.

Both of these measures were approved by the General Assembly during the 2019-20 legislative session, largely along party lines. The state Constitution requires passage again this session, after which voters get a “yes” or “no” shot to affirm or reject the proposals.

By the way, although those of us who are not registered with either of the major political parties and who typically do not vote in Pennsylvania’s closed primaries, we can cast ballots on statewide and local questions.

Because of my journalistic and political science background, I at least read the biographies of the candidates for the state’s highest courts - Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme - and I give weight to the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s judicial ratings.

Most prospective voters do not. Many don’t vote for these positions because they are unfamiliar with the candidates. Some make their choices based on where the candidates come from, their ethnicity (or lack of it) based on their name or for other ridiculous reasons.

Spoiler alert: I did that just once, in 2015 when I voted for Christine Donohue for the state Supreme Court. Now halfway through her 10-year term, she is a native of Lansford, a neighboring community of my hometown of Summit Hill, and a graduate of my alma mater, East Stroudsburg University. I was relieved that my myopic geographic and college-affiliation partisanship in voting for “local woman makes good” was confirmed by a much more relevant source - the state Bar Association - which gave her a “highly recommended” rating.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com