Governor’s Councillor
Mary-Ellen Manning
Why Should I Vote for Mary-Ellen?
The right to vote is one of our most precious rights in a democracy. Your vote is important, and it shouldn’t be wasted on someone who isn’t worthy of your consideration. Mary-Ellen wants to earn your vote. She keeps you in mind every time she is asked by the Governor for her opinion on a potential judge’s qualifications. Will the judge be fair? Will the judge listen before making a decision? Does the judge have the experience necessary to come to the correct legal decision? Will you and your family get a fair shake? Children are taken away from families, parents are left without child support, innocent people go to jail, guilty people are set free, injured workers are not fairly, assets are divided inequitably and individuals get plowed over by those who have more resources. We need judges who are gatekeepers. Judges who make sure that everyone is playing on a level playing field.
“I don’t mind being in the minority when the minority stands for fairness.” State House News Service, April 3, 2002.
With your hard-earned money in mind,
Mary-Ellen is the only Governor’s Councillor:
TO SAY NO to taking a pay raise at the taxpayers’ expense. Mary-Ellen was quoted in the Boston Globe (July 7, 2006) as saying, “I don’t think the governor’s councillors have done anything to deserve a raise. It’s a part-time position. With the budget constraints given what they are, it really seems hoggish to ask for a merit increase.” AND
TO SAY NO to taking money to travel back and forth to the State House, at the taxpayers’ expense. No one else gets money to commute from home to work, so why should the part-time Governor’s Councillors? Mary-Ellen was singled out as the only Governor’s Councillor and one of only three elected officials in the entire state who did not take travel in a year when legislators pocked record travel pay. Lawrence Eagle Tribune, January 14, 2004.
In order to ensure that you get the best judges, Mary-Ellen:
SAYS NO to taking donations from judicial nominees, even when it’s legal. Judges cannot make political donations, and there are certain restrictions on certain nominees making donations. But Mary-Ellen has never taken donations from any nominees even when the donations may have been allowed under law. She sets herself to a higher ethical standard. Mary-Ellen thinks it’s wrong that in order to get ahead in this system, potential judges have to make political friends, and the only way to do it is to donate money and to get your friends to donate money. Mary-Ellen has taken herself out of this distasteful part of the process.
SAYS NO to appointing multiple members of the same family to judgeships. She has been singled out by the Boston Herald (April 7, 2006) for doing so. Our justice system shouldn’t be run by a select few privileged families. The fact that we have appointed so many members of a few families to the bench means were are not looking hard enough for the most qualified judges. Your family deserves better.
SAYS NO to delaying the appointment of judges while you wait for justice so that politicians can line their pockets with donations. We saw extraordinary delays at the end of the Swift administration, and are experiencing the beginning of the same as the Romney administration comes to a close. Mary-Ellen has been quoted in The Patriot Ledger (September 5, 2002) as saying, “The public has every right to be suspicious of these delayed appointments. The longer the vacancy, the more time for collecting money.” Meanwhile, you wait for the slow wheels of justice to turn with understaffed courtrooms and ballooning court dockets. The public pays a heavy price.
SAYS NO to awarding “juiced up” disability pensions to judges who did not earn a pension at all. Under a so-called disability pension, judges earn more than $7,000 per month in taxpayers’ money, as much as one million dollars over each of their lifetimes. Who among us has the opportunity to get an unearned pension from our employers? Mary-Ellen regularly votes NO on such requests and received praise from the Boston Herald (August 11, 2002) and the Peabody Citizen (August 14, 2002) for one such vote.
SAYS NO to judicial nominees who have been implicated in scandals or other questionable conduct, receiving kudos from the Salem News (January 1, 2001) for one such vote. Some of the questionable conduct includes connections to allegations of public construction fraud; being found guilty of abuse of process; and being the defendant in multiple lawsuits and guilty of contempt of court. There are plenty of qualified people to fill these judgeships—we don’t need to resort to selecting candidates with warts.
SAYS NO to judicial nominees whose primary qualification is that they are politically wired, such as Governor’s Legal Counsel, legislators, spouses of legislators, governor’s councillors and their family members. By appointing politicians and their families to the bench, it is all but certain that your families will not get competence or justice in our courthouses.