Making a difference motivates Crawford in bid for judgeship
Rosemary Crawford recalls the moment she began thinking about becoming a judge.
She was 6 years old in Mississippi when her mother, a school teacher, moved so that her young daughter and six other black children could integrate a school, which required a judge's order.
“It always stuck in my head that judges do things that can make a difference,” said Crawford, 49, of Hampton.
Crawford is the only black woman among 13 candidates for Allegheny County Common Pleas judge. She vowed to fight intolerance from the bench, but said race plays no role in her campaign.
“Race and gender does not set who will be fair,” she told the Tribune-Review.
Crawford handles mostly civil litigation, product liability cases and employment law. She hears Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases as a trustee.
“I see people at their worst. I know this is not their best day,” she said of deciding which assets someone can keep and what must be sold to pay bills. “I treat them with respect. I would want somebody to treat me like that.”
She wants to continue years of public service that began with a role as legal resource director for the YWCA, where she helped people find free legal service.
“Commitment to community is paramount,” she said.
On the issues:
What's the top issue facing the court? “In juvenile court, part of it is time management. It's hard to keep schedules and be there when the case is not moving along.”
How do you keep political donations by lawyers from affecting decisions from the bench? “I have a chair and a treasurer and they handle (donations). That's the way. I'm not really part of it.”
Should judges hire family members? “You should hire someone who's qualified, experienced and can get the work done.”
David Conti is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-388-5802 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.