The recommendations are the result of thousands of investigative hours by more than 100 volunteers and more than 50 hours of deliberation by the 36-member Judicial Commission
PHILADELPHIA, PA – The Philadelphia Bar Association Commission on Judicial Selection and Retention has released its 2025 slate of recommendations for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Municipal Court and for candidates based in Philadelphia, statewide appellate courts.
“The Judicial Commission is one of our Association’s most important initiatives, providing a rigorous and nonpartisan source of information for voters,” Chancellor Katayun I. Jaffari said. “A qualified and independent judiciary is pivotal to a functioning democracy. In recent weeks, we have seen clearly the impact that judicial rulings can have in upholding our Constitution, protecting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice for all.”
“The significance of this process is evidenced by more than 100 volunteers who willingly give up many hours of their time each election cycle to assist the Judicial Commission in its efforts,” Jaffari continued. “The value that voters place on our ratings is demonstrated by their action at the polls: For the past three judicial primaries, in 2019 2021, and 2023, only judicial candidates rated ‘Highly Recommended’ or ‘Recommended’ by the Judicial Commission have been elected to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.”
The 2025 recommendations are currently as follows:
Commonwealth Court
Highly Recommended: Hon. Stella Tsai
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (nine seats open)
Recommended: William Braveman, Irina Ehrlich, Larry Farnese, Kia Ghee, Sarah Jones, Leon A. King, II, Brian Kisielewski, Anthony Stefanski, Deborah Watson-Stokes
Not Recommended: Qawi Abdul-Rahman, Sherrie Cohen, Taniesha Henry
Philadelphia Municipal Court (three seats open)
Recommended: Amanda J. Davidson,
Not Recommended: Sherrie Cohen, Shawn Page, Cortez Patton, Qawi Abdul-Rahman
The Judicial Commission, which has been issuing judicial candidate recommendations for more than 40 years, is made up of 36 members from a diverse set of legal and community organizations. In 2024 (in anticipation of gubernatorial appointments to fill vacancies that ultimately were not filled) and 2025, more than 100 volunteers aided the Commission’s work by serving on the investigative teams that are assigned to perform comprehensive evaluations of each judicial candidate. Each investigative team includes a non-lawyer; the Judicial Commission itself also has designated seats for non-lawyer members.
“Court of Common Pleas judges run for 10 year terms; for Municipal Court, it’s a six-year term. Thereafter, candidates need only run for retention. Many judges serve for decades until they retire at age 75,” said Marc J. Zucker, chair of the Judicial Commission. “Their decisions effect every aspect of our lives, from divorce and custody to criminal cases, landlord/tenant issues, zoning disputes, adoption, personal injuries, employment and labor problems, product safety, traffic infractions, contract disputes, guardianship, probate matters, traffic tickets and so much more. And big-picture issues often get decided in court, whether it’s a union battle, a challenge to the enforceability of a law, or a class action. While the names on that part of your primary ballot may not be as recognizable, judges have enormous power.”
After submitting an extensive questionnaire and writing samples, judicial candidates are assigned an investigative team that researches their background, cases they have handled, disciplinary actions filed against them, community involvement and multiple other sources of information. They are evaluated based on 11 stringent criteria, ranging from legal ability and trial experience to temperament, character and integrity and demonstrated dedication to the improvement of the quality of justice. This year and last year, the teams spent thousands of hours evaluating candidates (some of whom ultimately opted not to run.) Each of the five-person teams conducted a minimum of 20 interviews about each candidate with personal contacts, colleagues, community leaders, adversaries and judges before whom the candidate appeared.
Each investigative team leader presented the team’s findings to the Commission, which then interviewed each the candidate directly. The Judicial Commission members then voted by secret ballot and according to the 11 criteria whether to assign one of three ratings: “Highly Recommended,” “Recommended” or “Not Recommended.” In order for a candidate to receive a “Highly Recommended” rating, 80% of Commission members present must vote in favor. This year and last year, the Commission members spent more than 50 hours hearing from candidates, deliberating and issuing recommendations.
The Association’s Campaign for Qualified Judges is mounting a comprehensive voter education campaign to publicize these recommendations. The Campaign’s efforts in 2025 will include meetings with neighborhood and community groups; promotions on social media and direct mail campaigns to voters.
“Our goal is to reach as many community and neighborhood groups and individual voters as we can before the primary to explain the Commission’s objective process and encourage them to spread the word about its ratings,” said Matt Olesh, chair of the Campaign for Qualified Judges. “Voters are empowered when they have the resources available to make informed decisions when filling out their ballots.”
Visit ElectQualifiedJudges.com for the most up-to-date information on the 2025 slate of candidates.
