Editorials / Opinions

Calling All Americans- democrats, republicans and independents, our democracy is being destroyed by the concentration of power in the presidency and by the weakening of the institutions that are supposed to hold that power accountable. Trump’s former personal lawyer Todd Blanche was confirmed as Attorney General.

The Attorney General is supposed to serve the law, not the president personally. What does confirmation mean for democratic checks and balances- there is none!

Blanche previously served as Trump's personal criminal defense attorney, in May, 2024 Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels as hush money to buy her silence over a sexual encounter between them. The case led to a guilty verdict on all counts.

I would suggest that since the Attorney General is supposed to serve the law, not the president personally and the Justice Department is under his control then enforcement of federal law is no longer independent and impartial. The Attorney General's loyalty will be to Donald Trump, not the Constitution and the rule of law.

Please be mindful of this issue of accountability in November. The election of new Representatives and Senators that work for the people will be important. Accountability is one of the bedrocks of American democracy, as no one is above the law – not the president, not Congress, not judges, and not government officials. Our democracy depends on an impartial rule of law, free and fair elections, constitutional limits, separation of powers, an independent judiciary and a free press. Please vote, our democracy needs you.

Sincerely,

Joan Reading, Union Dale, PA

When most people think about inflation, they think about groceries, gasoline, housing, or electricity. But another form of inflation is quietly making Pennsylvania more expensive, and most people have never heard of it.

It does not happen at the grocery store. It happens in the courtroom.

A major new academic study by researchers from Georgia State University and Brighthouse Financial has confirmed that lawsuit costs are increasing faster than normal inflation and that the biggest reason is rapidly growing jury verdicts. The researchers analyzed more than 74,000 jury verdicts and settlements nationwide from 2009 through 2024 and concluded that civil liability costs are rising well beyond what ordinary inflation can explain.

Economists and insurers call this social inflation. In plain English, it means the cost of legal claims is climbing faster than the prices of ordinary goods and services. A verdict that merely kept pace with inflation would reflect the declining value of a dollar. Social inflation is the additional increase caused by changes in litigation behavior, jury expectations and the legal environment. That extra cost is harder to predict, price and absorb.

Why should anyone outside the legal profession care? Because the public ultimately pays the cost of larger and less predictable lawsuits. Businesses, hospitals, physicians, nonprofit organizations, schools, manufacturers, trucking companies, contractors and retailers all buy liability insurance. When claims become more expensive, premiums rise. Those costs eventually appear in health care bills, prices for goods and services, and decisions about whether to hire, expand, or invest.

The study found several trends. Plaintiffs are winning a larger share of cases that reach trial. Fewer cases are settling before trial. Most significantly, jury verdicts have increased dramatically even after researchers accounted for differences in the kinds of cases being heard. This is not simply a story about a few billion-dollar 'nuclear verdicts.' Awards across the range of cases are moving upward, suggesting a broad shift rather than a handful of sensational headlines.

That should give Pennsylvania lawmakers pause. House Bill 1913, now before the General Assembly, would allow lawyers to suggest specific dollar amounts for economic and noneconomic damages during closing arguments. In cases involving pain and suffering, that practice is called anchoring. Once jurors hear a large number, it becomes the reference point against which they evaluate an award, even when the number has little objective connection to the evidence.

Supporters say both sides should be free to recommend a figure. But the larger policy question cannot be ignored: if jury verdicts are already the principal driver of lawsuit inflation, should Pennsylvania adopt a practice that will push awards higher still? Damage awards should be grounded in facts and evidence, not in the strategic power of the first enormous number placed before a jury.

The same caution should apply to third-party litigation funding, in which outside investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of any recovery. The study found stronger social inflation in states without regulation of that practice, and Pennsylvania currently has no consumer protections against third party litigation funding.

None of these mean injured people should be denied fair compensation. They should be made whole. Fairness, however, also requires balance and reasonable predictability. A system that rewards increasingly untethered awards affects not only defendants. It affects every patient, policyholder, employer, nonprofit, and consumer who absorbs the resulting costs.

Pennsylvania knows what is at stake. Philadelphia recorded 12 verdicts of at least $10 million in 2024, more than in any year going back to at least 2017, according to reporting by a legal news daily. The median damages award in the city reached $192,664, nearly twice the previous high of $100,000. Those figures underscore why evidence about rising verdict severity deserves attention here.

Every proposal affecting civil liability should therefore be judged by a simple question: Will it make Pennsylvania more affordable or less affordable? The answer matters far beyond lawyers and courtrooms. It reaches family budgets, medical practices, community organizations, and employers deciding where to grow and hire.

At a time when affordability is among the biggest concerns facing Pennsylvania families, lawmakers should be wary of policies that invite larger verdicts, more litigation, and greater uncertainty. A fair civil justice system must compensate legitimate injuries. It must also preserve the balance, predictability, and economic competitiveness that benefit every Pennsylvanian.

Sincerely,

Curt Schroder, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform

NOTE: The Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform is a 501(c)(6), not-for-profit, nonpartisan advocacy organization comprised of a diverse group of organizations and individuals committed to bringing fairness to Pennsylvania's courts by raising awareness of civil justice issues and advocating for legal reform.

I would agree with Raymond Dennis of Susquehanna who stated on these pages two weeks ago that Susquehanna County elections are devoid of fraud. That is in large part thanks to our County Commissioner Alan Hall. Mr. Hall is an expert at running efficient and fair election. In fact his expertise is recognized and sought throughout the Commonwealth in counties that want fair elections.

But Mr. Dennis is being disingenuous to cite Susquehanna County as proof President Trump is wrong about election fraud. As everybody knows, whether they will admit it or not, the problems are in places like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

About six months ago Democrat Jennifer Hill, 38, of Collingdale, Pennsylvania, a paid canvasser for the New Pennsylvania Project, was convicted of 37 counts related to fraudulent voter registrations: twelve felony counts of forgery, eight felony counts of tampering with public records and information, four misdemeanor counts of applying for registration knowing an individual is not entitled to register, four misdemeanor counts of applying for a change of residence when an individual is not entitled to change, eight misdemeanor counts of unsworn falsification to authorities-forged/altered document, one misdemeanor count of improper use of/access to official documents and electronic records.

Hill’s actions included attempting to register her deceased father, at least one other deceased person, and two apparently fictitious people to vote in 2024. She pleaded guilty to a Class 1 misdemeanor count of applying for voter registration knowing an individual is not entitled to registration in exchange for dismissal of the other 36 charges. Hill was sentenced to three years’ probation.

That's one paid Democrat. How many others are there?

Democrats will always say voter fraud is not "widespread"...without defining that. As we have seen over and over again it just happens everywhere all the time.

Liberals and their mainstream news media/propaganda outlets downplay the fraud all the time.

Here is an example from only last week. On August 3, 2026, the PA Department of State reviewed its voters rolls and moved 55,241 Democrats and 23,836 Republicans voters from active to inactive status.

Both Republican activist Scott Presler and PA US Senator Dave McCormick commented on this. They called it a "purge". Quickly the Philadelphia Inquirer released a video saying to was not a purge but a "routine review of data".... Why was The Inquirer so concerned about the terminology? Regardless of what you call it the Democrat voters moved from the lists outnumbered Republicans almost 2 to 1. Democrats lost a net 21,000 voters in one review.

In another example, Scott Presler just forced Pennsylvania to confront something officials swore never happens.

His team at Early Vote Action went into Philadelphia, sat down with the non-juror lists, and started typing.

These are the official records of people who told the court under penalty of law that they are not US citizens and therefore cannot serve on a jury. In one stretch they transcribed nearly 2,000 names from the 2026 list alone who were not US citizens.

President Trump is correct we need voter ID. The American public knows President Trump is right, 84% of ALL Americans, of all parties want voter ID.

Frankly, it seems like the only folks who do not want vote ID are elected Democrats, like Josh Shapiro or their paid employees.

Sincerely,

Ed Arzouian, Lanesboro, PA