HARRISBURG -- In November 2005, pay raise protesters did something that had never been done before -- persuaded voters to send a message by defeating state Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro in his bid for a 10-year retention to the court.

The anti-pay raise groups also came close to ousting a second justice, Sandra Schultz Newman. Their outspoken criticism of the court was seen as a factor in her decision to leave the court in December 2006.

Now, groups such as PA Clean Sweep and Taxpayers and Ratepayers United are trying to flex their political muscles again by urging voters to oust incumbent Justice Tom Saylor in his retention election Nov. 6, along with every other judge up for retention across the state.

"Pay raise anger may not be burning as loudly as it used to (in 2005 and 2006), but it still burns deeply in the gut of many people," said Russ Diamond, leader of Clean Sweep.

But this time he's not just calling on people to vote against Supreme Court members. At a Capitol news conference yesterday, Mr. Diamond and Gene Stilp, leader of Taxpayers and Ratepayers United, urged a "no" vote on all 67 judges of various types who are facing retention votes in November.

Besides Justice Saylor, the jurists include three Superior Court judges, three Commonwealth Court judges, 53 Common Pleas Court judges in various counties and seven local judges in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania Bar Association President Andrew Susko, a Philadelphia lawyer, denounced the Clean Sweep campaign.

"This is an irresponsible effort to oust all sitting judges up for retention, without regard to a judge's record of service or their qualifications or their experience," he said.

If the citizen protesters succeed, he said, "it would really make a mess of the justice system. It would get rid of hundreds of years of combined judicial experience without any regard to an individual judge's qualifications or record of service. It's very irresponsible and misguided."

Mr. Diamond disagreed, insisting that what he's after "is not a knee-jerk reaction. It's not without reason."

He claimed all the judges are at fault because they all accepted the July 2005 pay raise, a raise that was upheld by the Supreme Court in September 2006. Even though Justice Saylor was the lone dissenter in that 2006 decision, Mr. Diamond still faulted him for not criticizing what the groups consider an unconstitutional, middle-of-the-night, no-hearing procedure used by the Legislature to enact the pay raise.

Mr. Stilp said all judges should "pay back their raises, with interest, to the state treasury."

He brought along one of his well-known inflatable pink pigs, a symbol of the pay raise battle. It had a poster hung on it that said, "Vote No on All Judges."

Sean Connolly, a spokesman for Justice Saylor, said it was unfair and unreasonable to lump all judges together. He said Justice Saylor should be evaluated on his own record, which Mr. Connolly said has been in the public interest.

He noted that Justice Saylor was the lone dissenter on the ruling to uphold the higher salaries for more than 1,000 state judges. The Legislature already had acted to rescind the raises for itself and some executive branch officials.

Mr. Connolly said Justice Saylor, who was first elected in 1997, took other important actions, such as writing the ruling upholding the constitutionality of Megan's Law, which protects children from sex offenders. He also voted in favor of a law to reform lobbying at the state Capitol and ruled on behalf of the Pennsylvania right-to-know act.

Mr. Connolly added, "It's strange that so-called 'good government groups' would seek his removal. They should be endorsing him." He said that in November, "Voters should look at the records of all the judges before they make up their mind" on whether to retain them for another 10 years.

If Justice Saylor were to lose, it would mean four new faces on the Supreme Court in just two years. Two new members will be elected in November, and Gov. Ed Rendell in January must name a replacement for Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, who this week announced he's leaving the bench Dec. 31.

Mr. Diamond denied that he is stirring up voter anger over the pay raises again as a way to get himself back in the news and increase his visibility aimed at a possible run for political office next year. He didn't rule out a run, however, saying he would "do whatever is best for Pennsylvania."