A look at the virtual forum held by the Wilkes-Barre NAACP for judicial candidates.
A second forum was held on Tuesday night inviting members of the public to judge potential future Luzerne County judges ahead of next week’s primary election.
Held by the Wilkes-Barre NAACP, the virtual forum comes after last week’s, which was held by the League of Women Voters of Wilkes-Barre Area in conjunction with Misericordia University. The forum was moderated by David Yonki, vice president of the chapter, who allowed the five candidates 90 seconds each to answer a series of questions asked either by him or members of the virtual audience.
Former Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis, Rep. Tarah Toohil, Magisterial District Judge Alexandria Kokura Kravitz, West Pittston attorney Laura Dennis and Kingston attorney and former Luzerne County Council member Jim Bobeck all attended the event.
Over the course of about 90 minutes, Yonki asked the candidates a number of questions, reflecting some of the challenges of remaining truly impartial as a judge in the face of widespread racial and gender biases and on how much a judge should defer to the state legislature.
In one of the earlier questions in the night, Yonki pointed out that many individuals who find themselves running for judge claim that they will be tough on the bench.
“Define ‘tough,’” Yonki said simply.
While the group largely said that toughness comes in the form of being willing to make hard decisions and uphold the law, they also acknowledged that fairness and compassion are important roles of a judge.
Salavantis, for example, said that in her role as the district attorney she was “tough on those who commit crimes, but fair to those who deserve a second chance.”
Kokura Kravitz agreed, saying that “‘Tough’ means everyone is being treated fairly; they should walk out of your courtroom feeling like they were treated fairly.”
One of the questions posed by viewers of the forum was how effectively they feel the judiciary deals with implicit racial and gender biases. All the candidates acknowledged that these biases do exist and permeate through American society, and they offered a number of solutions about what can be done about it.
Bobeck said that the judiciary is a “reflection of what America is,” saying that while these biases enter into most facets of American society, he said that in his courtroom, they would not enter in; “The only thing I can promise as a judge is that you’ll get a fair shake,” he said.
Dennis said, as she did in the first forum, that there needs to be expansions of treatment courts for those with mental illness, substance abuse disorders or those who are veterans, saying that the most important things when presiding over these cases is to first treat them fairly and then “helping them long-term when they’re back in the community.”
Salavantis said that the role of a judge is to treat each case impartially, not allowing such biases to creep in. But she also said that judges have the opportunity to right injustices.
“I believe that as a judge we can correct any inequalities that are taking place,” she said. “When looking at these individuals, you need to look at the total picture.”
Toohil said that she has seen racial bias first hand, with members of her own family being Black, including her son. She said that racial or gender biases have no place in her courtroom.
Kokura Kravitz said that an important step is education, saying that magistrates are required to attend continuing education, and that some of that education focuses on uncovering one’s own implicit biases.
“You can never be educated enough,” she said. “We are always learning.”
All five candidates have filed both as Republicans and as Democrats, meaning all five will be on ballots for both parties next week. With two open seats to be filled, it is possible that the election will effectively be decided in the primary.
