Judge behind voter ID ruling hails from long line of lawyers prominent in region
Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley, the appellate court jurist who struck down Pennsylvania's Voter ID law on Friday, knows the power of the ballot box.
The 68-year-old Point Breeze Democrat, first elected an Allegheny County judge in 1981, won election to the statewide Commonwealth Court in 1987 by 4,874 votes, considered a razor-thin margin in a race where McGinley got 1,185,963 votes to opponent Robert Byer, who received 1,181,089. It was days before McGinley was declared the winner in the final count. But he wasn't worried, his older brother said.
“Back in the day, Barney was the most relaxed of all of us,” said Jack McGinley, a partner at Eckert Seamans in Pittsburgh.
Both brothers have children who have gone into the law. Several of their cousins — members of the Pittsburgh Steelers owners' Rooney family — are lawyers.
“We've got an army of lawyers,” Jack McGinley said.
Like Republican Gov. Tom Corbett of Shaler, who is weighing an appeal of the voter ID case, the McGinleys are longtime fixtures in the Western Pennsylvania legal community.
“We've known the governor for forever and a day,” Jack McGinley said.
A graduate of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, McGinley is known to friends as “Barney.” He began his career as a law clerk in Pittsburgh before becoming an Allegheny County assistant district attorney. He was in private practice from 1975 until 1981.
Debra Erdley is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-320-7996 or email@example.com.
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.