Posted By Gettysburgian Staff on Oct 8, 2025 | 1 comment

By Liv Smith, Staff Writer

On Wednesday, Oct. 4, Gettysburg College hosted a judicial candidate forum featuring the two candidates running for the Adams County Court of Common Pleas. The elected candidate will run for a 10-year term. 

The event was hosted by Gettysburg College’s Public Policy Department, and co-hosted by the Eisenhower Institute, Political Science Department, the Patrick Henry Debate Society, the Adams County Bar Association, the Center for Public Service, and the Pre-Law Club. 

The debate forum was held between Pennsylvania Representative Torren Ecker and Attorney Paul Royer. 

Ecker is the Representative for the 193rd District in Pennsylvania, serving both Adams and Cumberland County. Additionally, Representative Ecker is a member of the House Appropriations committee, Communication and Technology committee, the Judiciary committee, Labor and Industry committee, and the Professional Licensure committee. 

According to his website, Attorney Paul Royer has worked as an attorney for over 20 years, in which he has practiced in Maryland and the District of Columbia as a civil trial attorney, and then spent time settling oil, gas, and mineral disputes in northern Pennsylvania. Upon coming to Gettysburg, Attorney Royer served as an Assistant Public Defender in which he has argued in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on numerous occasions, and currently serves at a private practice firm at Strausbaugh Law in Gettysburg.

Both candidates will be running on Republican platforms. 

The forum was moderated by Associate Professor Anne Douds of Gettysburg College’s Public Policy Department. Douds began the forum by first recognizing the campus and local organizations who sponsored the event. Douds then gave a brief overview of the Common Pleas Court of Pennsylvania and then outlined the rules of the forum as approved by each candidate. 

Each candidate had three minutes to provide an opening statement before moving on to the questions, moderated by Douds, beginning in alphabetical order by last name. Following this, each candidate had two minutes to answer each question and the candidates altered being the first to answer. If a candidate is specifically named by the other candidate, the candidate mentioned would have one minute to rebut. However, there were no other interruptions allowed by candidates. Audience members were allowed to clap after each set of remarks, but no other interruptions were allowed. Additionally, there was to be no partisan signage or comments or outbursts.

The timing of the forum was conducted and moderated by students of the Patrick Henry Debate Society.

Prior to candidates’ opening remarks, Assistant Alauna Safarpour of the Political Science Department explained the judicial voting system that Pennsylvania employs. According to Safarpour, “Pennsylvania is unique in its approach to judicial selection. It is one of only nine states that uses partisan elections to initially select judges at this level [Court of Common Pleas].” 

Safarpour continues, emphasizing the historical roots in which this system comes from, explaining, “This structure reflects a constitutional compromise balancing goals of democratic accountability on the one hand and judicial independence on the other,” and that it was “a belief that all government positions ought to be accountable to the will of the people, yet at the same time, attempting to insulate sitting judges from partisan pressures once they’re elected.”

Opening Statements

Per the pre-approved rule, Representative Ecker was the first to give his opening statement. Representative Ecker mentioned his ties to the community, explaining that he is a resident of the area, has been serving his community as the elected State Representative for the district, and that he has raised his family in New Oxford. Representative Ecker explained that he was excited for this forum, as he “was here to have a conversation about partisanship, who I am, why impartiality is really important, and why fidelity and integrity are important, and why politics has no place in the courtroom.”

Attorney Royer was then given three minutes for his opening remarks, with one of his first statements emphasizing the importance of having opposition in candidacy and having a choice of who to select. He also stressed the importance of democracy in the voting system, stating, “And furthermore, what’s democracy without a choice? At its heart, we have to have a choice, there has to be opposition, there has to be contrast. That is at the heart of our system.” According to Attorney Royer, “I am running for two reasons; I love the law and I love people, and I love the way the two are constantly colliding. It is endlessly fascinating and it is endlessly challenging.”

Ideology & Judicial Temperament

The first question proposed by Douds asked was in regard to what principles would guide the candidates in applying the law fairly and consistently in situations where there are competing and defensible interpretations of applicable law and statutory history in which a decision for a case may not be clear. 

Attorney Royer was the first to answer the question, explaining that the most important factor for him would be that of stare decisis, or the precedent that is currently established. “We are bound by it to an extent, and it helps us, it guides us. It aids in the consistent application of our laws, despite the myriad fact patterns that we see everyday in the courtroom,” Royer stated. He made a reference to a quote of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the matter as well, in which Royer stressed that despite established precedent, it is also important to make changes when appropriate in certain situations.

On the matter of consistency, per the question presented, Royer explained that “This is something that demands effort. It demands attention. It is the idea of being impartial, and you have to stick with that principle.”

Following up Royer’s response was Representative Ecker who opened his response with, “It is important that you take every case and the facts that are in front of you and apply them to the law. This is the role of every student of law, every attorney, but also as a judge, as well as educating yourself on what those current precedents are.” Ecker continues explaining that as a judge, there may not be times in which he could change current precedent, but if the precedent was deemed needing change, that he would be willing to do so. 

He also discussed the importance of hearing the facts as they are, and remaining impartial so as to make a logical decision. Ecker stated, “There are some things we will see that are consistent, but every case presents a new opportunity, a new fact pattern, a new set of situations that you have got to make a decision based upon the facts presented to you. That is our job as judges.”

Purposes of Sentencing & Punishment

The next question posed for candidates had to do with the responsibility of Common Pleas judges to hold sentencing hearings and issues in felony cases, more specifically, what the candidates believe is the proper balance between rehabilitation and punishment in the criminal justice system. Additionally, what role, if any, would judicial mercy play in the sentencing process. 

Ecker was the first to give his response to the question, saying that being a judge requires discretion and must follow sentencing guidelines, and that “it is important that you take the facts and the situation and give people the best possible situation to rehabilitate themselves out of a bad decision or mistake.” Ecker continued saying that it is also important for judges to know when to serve someone a punishment, but that there are also many who need rehabilitative help. He closes stating, “If there is an opportunity to help folks get back on their feet, I think that’s where compassion is important as a judge. And if I have the opportunity to do that, I will take that opportunity.”

Royer was then given his time to answer, starting with the emphasis of mercy in the courtroom, and the necessity for judges to possess that. “Mercy is such a powerful concept,” Royer states, “And we don’t hear it enough.” He discussed the importance of identifying the victim and how to help the victim in the courtroom, as well as the guidelines judges follow when issuing sentences or perhaps rehabilitation. 

“It goes back to the idea of if we really want to deter crimes from being repeated, the best way to do that is to welcome members back into society,” Royer stated, “One third of Americans have criminal records, which is a big number, and it’s something that we have to think about in terms of how do we welcome people back into society.”

Professional Experience

In the next portion of the forum, the candidates were asked to elaborate on their professional experiences, more specifically, the scope of their civil and trial court experiences, both with bench and jury trials. 

Attorney Royer was the first to answer, detailing his experience as an attorney in Maryland and DC at the start of his career, in which he worked in five different counties and dealt with 10-12 jury trials. He served as an attorney of civil litigation, and claimed to have had about 100 defense trials. 

Royer stated that what he was most proud of was, “The appeals we did in the US Court of Appeals for veterans claims,” and explained how this contributed heavily to his trial experience as an attorney. Additionally, Royer claimed to have “close to 10 jury trials and a small amount of bench trials,” and that he was “fortunate enough to argue in front of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on three occasions.”

Ecker then explained his professional experience, first saying that he had been practicing law for over 15 years and wanted to come back to Adams County to serve as an attorney. According to Ecker, he worked in “everything from forming small businesses, to motion court, family law, criminal work, civil litigation and bankruptcy.” 

He also highlighted his experience practicing law as a state representative.

Ethics, Fairness & Impartiality

The fourth question of the night asked candidates to consider how they would ensure that their personal beliefs or any implicit biases they have would not interfere with their responsibilities of applying the law fairly and maintaining neutrality. 

Representative Ecker stressed the importance of interpreting the law and how to apply it to the fact pattern, stating, “Impartiality is the most important thing we have as a judge, and it is extremely important to maintain that,” and ties in his work as state representative to his answer of the question saying, “I approach every issue as State Representative objectively, and it will translate over as a judge to be even more impartial, even more objective, and to take the case and the facts as they come.”

He explained the importance of making sure, as judge, to treat everyone in the courtroom fairly; whether hearing the facts fairly or ensuring everyone understands the process and procedure and how the case will be decided. He lastly made his closing statement, saying, “The biggest thing that I want you to take away from this is that as judge, impartiality and fairness is the most important thing that I will do on the bench.”

Attorney Royer responded to this question, noting the importance for him, as judge, to ensure prejudice and bias are not present in the courtroom. He furthers this by explaining that as judge, he would approach people and facts as they come, “We take people where we find them, whether they’re dealing with unresolved trauma, whether there’s mental health concerns, or maybe they’re just having a bad day.”

Treatment Courts

The following question had to do with treatment courts, and as Douds explained, “we have more than 4000 treatment courts in the United States,” of different varieties and asked candidates to explain their thoughts on whether Adams County could and/or should develop a treatment court of some kind.

Royer answered the question, first, saying that Adams County does have the legal capacity to establish a veterans treatment court, emphasizing the need to help veterans particularly as Royer formerly had experience helping veterans. However, he contended that he was not sure of the resources available in Adams County to make that happen, but would be willing to look into something of that nature. 

Royer states, “What I can tell you is that I have had a number of veterans as clients, and we work to get the VA involved, the family involved and find ways to supplement rather than just incarcerating, whether it is or is not on the table.”

Ecker recounted how he has been an advocate for treatment courts in Adams County after seeing how treatment courts have helped those in need in other places, “Because ultimately, that’s what treatment court is for. It’s about getting people in a situation where they are a part of society and not hurting themselves or their community.” 

He reinforces his stance by explaining that having treatment courts would be beneficial to the community, and has had conversations with colleagues of his in regards to the benefits of treatment courts. 

Fairness in the Courtroom Work Room

Next, Douds explained to the candidates that scholars often describe the courtroom workroom as an informal collaboration amongst judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and defense counsel. Additionally, “Critics argue this can create what some call assembly line justice, where cases are resolved quickly, but fairness and due process may be compromised.” 

The question that followed this asked candidates what steps they would take to maximize fairness and due process for all parties, while reducing risks of assembly line justice. 

Ecker was the first to state his answer, opening with “Every case is unique, and it’s important that everybody gets their day in court, and as judge, ultimate fairness is important.” Ecker continues his answer, explaining that if there is a way to speed up the process, streamlining the process will be considered, but that it is also important to take the case seriously and pay close attention, particularly in cases that have unique fact patterns and require a more sensitive approach. 

Royer follows up with his answer, first stating that “Assembly line justice sounds really scary to me as a defense attorney.” He explained that while collaboration between a judge and other parties involved is allowed, but there are guidelines that must be adhered to. “Another way we can ensure we don’t have assembly line justice,” Royer continues, “is to encourage a healthy and vibrant local bar association when we have lawyers who zealously represent their client and are willing to stick their foot in the door and make sure it doesn’t close on somebody’s due process rights.”

Interactions with Vulnerable Parties

The next question was in regard to both the increasing number of individuals representing themselves in court, as well as low legal literacy, meaning that individuals are beginning to represent themselves in court more, but lack an understanding of legal processes. In some cases, as contended by Douds, individuals may have representation and still lack an understanding of the legal processes they are involved in. 

The candidates were thus asked how they would address these situations and avoid perceived biases, either in favor or against such litigants in the courtroom. 

Royer responded to the question by first explaining that “The rules allow judges to make reasonable accommodations for pro se litigants. In other words, we’re allowed to show a little grace, and that’s very clear.” He continues explaining that, even still, there are specific guidelines judges must follow, but there is room for accommodating those that need it when the situation calls for it. 

He also cites Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright, which ruled that everyone has the right to counsel, closed his answer stating, “If we want a level playing field, perhaps the best way to do that is to ensure everyone the right to counsel.”

Ecker responded to the question, stating that “As a judge, I think it is my job to make sure that we’re following the procedure appropriately, but make sure that everything is very clear and concise and in plain language where people can understand what is in front of them.”

He also said that he would never wish anyone to have to represent themselves in court, but there are situations in which people make that decision for themselves, and in these cases, things need to be “clear and concise and they understand the process, while not giving favoritism or giving anyone an edge, but making sure that everything is understandable.”

The next question was a follow up question to the one previously posed, this one asking candidates about the steps they would take to ensure the courtroom experience is understandable and accessible to all people, and how the candidates would work to build trust with litigants who feel they have been failed by the legal system. 

Ecker responded first, once again emphasizing the need for judges to maintain a level of fairness, particularly if individuals have never been to court. He stated, “Being open and honest with people about how the procedure is going to work, how the case is going to be laid out, especially with pro se litigants, is important.” 

He also encouraged making the process as easy to understand for individuals, and that this can help build trust in the courtroom. “Making things clear for litigants that are there pro se, to understand in plain, easy English, to understand the process which is in front of them, I think helps to build trust. 

Royer responded first, by addressing the importance of making individuals feel comfortable in the courtroom, “Because when we’re comfortable, that’s when we share, that’s when we try to get things right, that’s when we try to ascertain the truth.” 

He furthers his answer by stressing the need to find the ‘objective truth,’ saying, “The truth is something we share. It’s an objective determination that we seek, and that’s the purpose of our course, is to find the truth.”

Protecting Children in Legal Processes

The next question of the evening asked candidates how they would approach children who have been victims of the justice system, or are involved as a party in a legal dispute, and what measures candidates would take to make sure children are protected and comfortable in a courtroom. 

Royer begins his answer recounting how other judicial figures have handled children in the courtroom and the more sensitive nature that comes with it, discussing a tactic that a colleague of his employed in these matters which included allowing children to interact with animals and/or pets to make them feel more at ease, and that this would be something that he would consider implementing for children in the Court of Common Pleas if elected. 

He continues his answer, discussing how out of all the cases he has handled in his career, he always remembered the ones that dealt with children, and how difficult these cases are when approaching them. 

Ecker initiated his response by discussing how important being a father was to him, and how being a father has given him the ability to approach children in legal disputes more sensitively. He also stressed the importance of meeting kids where they are, in all age groups and how to accommodate them to make them feel more comfortable and safe in a courtroom. 

Scope of Judges in Media

The second to last question of the forum was in regard to how candidates would approach media in any form, being social media, print media or any other forms of media, and what they deem acceptable and what is inappropriate. 

Royer first answered the question by addressing how he currently handles his social media platforms, saying that he uses social media as a means to showcase his family and some of his personal experiences. Otherwise, as he contends, “I’d love to delete all of my social media if I could, because, as a judge, we’re going to see a lot of social media posts and evidence that could litigate those issues,” and “that my social media will be non-existent.” 

Similarly, Royer stated that he does not use social media for political means, but more so for entertainment purposes as well as posting pictures of his family. In addressing how public officials should approach social media he contends that public officials do not have an ability to differentiate their personal lives from their private lives on social media. He states, “When someone takes on a leadership role, when somebody becomes a public official, this idea of having a public and private persona is outdated, untrue, and disingenuous,” and that “as public officials or aspiring public officials, that’s a sacrifice we make.”

Interpretations of the Rule of Law

The last question of the night asked the candidates what the rule of law meant to them. 

In his answer, Ecker stated that, “First, the rule of law is the most crucial aspect of our society, making sure that we follow the rule of law and that we are following the rules of the Constitution.” Additionally, he added that, “As a judge, my role is to interpret the law and apply the facts to the law.”

He furthers his response by acknowledging that as a judge in the Court of Common Pleas, judges would not be able to make and/or change law, therefore there is an importance to reading and interpreting the law as it stands. Lastly, he states that, “As a judge, every opportunity I have to continue to uphold the rule of law and make sure that we’re enforcing the laws that are on the books, I will welcome that opportunity.”

Royer references historical thought and philosophy, including Thomas Hobbes and the age of enlightenment in the beginning of his answer, saying, “The rule of law is something we can all look to, for stability, for protection, for equality and for due process…”

He reinforces his answer stating, “So the rule of law, to me, creates a level playing field, and in this day of hyper-partisan atmospheres, the rule of law provides us a language. It provides us a safe space and a place where we can communicate on a level with the language that does not have to do with partisanship.”

After Royer concluded his answer, the candidates were given time to offer concluding remarks, and following this, Douds opened the floor for those in the audience. 

Those who attended the event were also welcomed to attend a reception in Glatfelter Lodge after the event ended.