The state's judges don't campaign by taking stands on various issues, as do other politicians. And Pennsylvania's appellate court judges are lucky their campaigns don't have to address the issue of whether their rulings will favor open government and public access to elected officials' records. Their probable answers, based on rulings already issued, might not be well-received by most voters — and, rightly so.

Consider the state Supreme and Commonwealth courts' decisions related to a newspaper's attempt to view the cell phone records of a state lawmaker.

In 2002, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the entire suit filed in 2000 by the Uniontown Herald-Stand-ard and former reporter Paul Sunyak to gain access to the cell phone records of state Rep. Larry Roberts.

Herald-Standard claimed that, because the taxpayers paid Roberts' cell phone bill, his cell phone records were public information.

On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth Court's dismissal of the newspaper's public document claims and ordered the lower court to re-examine an equal-protection issue argued on behalf of the reporter.

Equal protection was part of the case because, while denying Sunyak access to the phone records, Roberts allegedly offered the records to other media outlets.

The Commonwealth Court eventually ruled again against the reporter and newspaper, and last month the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal with a one-sentence order.

The courts' rulings demonstrate arrogance toward the public's interests and are a blot on the upper courts' image — a blot about which the public should be troubled.

Regardless of the court rulings, the records in question are a public document because the taxpayers paid for them. Roberts provided no evidence that disclosure of the records would harm the state.

Meanwhile, Roberts, who became a lawmaker in 1993, declined to run for re-election this year, so his future cell phone conversations won't be an issue for taxpayers.

But the records from his years of service are another matter, and right-thinking state residents should not be happy with their appellate courts' rulings against the public's right to know.

The voters should keep such decisions in mind for when appellate court seats are up for retention votes.

In the case in question, the two courts upheld this state's dubious distinction of having one of the worst open-records laws in the country. In essence, the courts put their stamp of approval on the premise of "secrecy as usual."

It's secrecy and middle-of-the-night decision-making that are at the heart of what's wrong with Pennsylvania government.

Val J. Laub, the Herald-Standard's publisher, said he believes "that the judicial actions of our state courts will serve the media industry well by inciting newspapers across the state to continue the battle to move Pennsylvania from one of the worst states in the country for access to public records to a much-needed higher level."

But it is really the voters who will make the difference — by voting against retention of the current crop of appellate judges and, thus, sending the courts the message that they want their right to know upheld.

It's possible that the courts' rulings in the Herald-Standard case contain a subtle message: that judges don't want judges' taxpayer-funded cell phones open to public scrutiny either.

Perhaps reporters should make a point of asking for them at retention time, despite already knowing what the answer is likely to be.

The 2005 General Assembly pay-raise fiasco exposed some of the coziness that exists between the appellate courts and the legislative branch. It's easier to issue rulings against the public's best interests, hoping all the while that the public isn't looking or doesn't understand what's being done, than to rule against the hands that feed judges' pay scales.

And, those are the same hands that hold the cell phones that would have been impacted via decisions favoring the public's right to know in the Herald-Standard case.