General Election: La Tasha C. Williams Runs for Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas

Candidate: La Tasha C. Williams

Court: Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas

 Party: Democrat

The following has been edited lightly for length and style.

The Legal Intelligencer: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

La Tasha C. Williams: My judicial philosophy is a combination of core values I embody such as fairness, truth and “doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.” With this in mind, I would consistently apply the law as written while keeping in mind legislative intent and the reality that our federal and state framers authored constitutions during a specific period of our history.

The Legal: What makes you the best candidate for the role?

Williams: My qualifications make me the better candidate to serve as a Common Pleas judge for Dauphin County. Having served as an advocate for the wrongly convicted, judicial law clerk, defense attorney and prosecutor, I have served on all sides within our criminal court division and am seasoned in trial and post-trial litigation. My close work with families as an early intervention coordinator, high school teacher and attorney handling dependency and juvenile delinquency cases (as a defense attorney and prosecutor) equip me with the skill set necessary to navigate challenging cases within our family law division. I have successfully navigated the complexities of separation of powers with my years of service as a legislative research analyst for our state legislature, trial and appellate law clerk, and current service as a township commissioner.

My lived experience as a Black woman who has lived in diverse communities—from affluent to middle-class to economically disadvantaged—qualify me to apply our laws to the facts of cases with a keen ability to relate to all litigants irrespective of their ZIP code, whom they love or worship, or the color of their skin. I am unique in that my legal career includes 22 years of diverse professional experiences and I have a strong pulse in the community through my outreach and volunteerism with several local nonprofit organizations.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

Williams: Simulated human intelligence, also known as artificial intelligence, is one of the greatest threats to the practice of law to the extent that a human’s experience and perception is impossible to simulate when applying a law to the unique facts and circumstances of a case.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Williams: My status as a registered Democrat is a reflection of my commitment to democracy and democratic ideals. To this end, my personal beliefs would never interfere with me rendering a decision in accordance with the law.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Williams: Voters have elected a total of three Democrats to the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in its 238-year history. Therefore, the perception of partisanship is an actual reality. Further, voters have elected a total of two women, albeit a third woman who was also a Democrat served by appointment. I would commit to fostering an environment of inclusion so that the staff within the courthouse is reflective of the community I serve.

The Legal: Several CLEs and bench-bar panels have recently addressed the growing phenomenon of distrust in the courts. In your view, how has distrust in the judiciary created challenges for the bench, and how should judges respond?

Williams: Distrust in the judiciary can discourage attorneys who truly believe in our system of justice. When an attorney is discouraged, performance is lacking, ineffective assistance of counsel is rendered, which in turn harms the client. As a result, the court becomes faced with a backlog of cases where litigants seek redress. Judges should respond by giving parties what they deserve—a fair opportunity to be heard and a decision that is supported by law.

The Legal: What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Williams: The mere appearance of an impropriety demands recusal. I would recuse myself if a campaign contributor appeared before me.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Williams: The ancestors are my role models as their struggles and triumphs motivate me to show up for our community every day.