Attorney General Tom Corbett should quit his day job and focus on running for governor.

It's nearly impossible lately for the public to separate Corbett's law enforcement duties from his role as the GOP nominee for governor. Increasingly, his actions as attorney general are tinged with political ramifications for the November election.

For example, Corbett decided last week to pit Pennsylvania against the Obama administration's effort to overturn Arizona's new stop-on-sight immigration law. He joined several other state attorneys general in filing a court brief, arguing that the federal government's action violates state authority.

Corbett's move came without any consultation or warning to Democratic Gov. Rendell, who happens to disagree with Corbett.

As the independent and elected attorney general, Corbett is under no obligation to seek the governor's approval. But this constitutional arrangement raises a question of whether the state's chief executive should be left out of the loop entirely on such big issues.

When the players belong to opposing parties and the case is a hot-button issue in the forthcoming election, it's impossible not to view Corbett's decision as driven partly by politics. And that undermines public support for the attorney general's role.

The same goes for Corbett's decision in March to file a lawsuit to block the new federal health-care reform law from taking effect in Pennsylvania. Again, the state's top elected official was opposed.

Corbett argues that requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. But it just so happens that most of the state officials mounting legal challenges to the law are Republicans.

A spokesman for the attorney general said Corbett would be remiss if he allowed political considerations to stop him from taking the actions he believes are necessary. He said the governor's office and the attorney general confer on a wide range of issues.

But it's no longer possible to distinguish between Corbett's roles as top cop and candidate for governor. The time needed by Corbett to prosecute officials in Harrisburg in a wide-ranging corruption case also raised accusations that it has served his political ambitions, by carrying into the election year.

Elected officials frequently run for higher office without giving up their current post. But a prosecutor's job is very different.

Republican former U.S. Attorney Patrick L. Meehan quit his post in 2008 before running for Congress this year. Republican Christopher J. Christie quit as the federal prosecutor in New Jersey before running for governor, although he was unlikely to have been reappointed by an incoming Democratic president.

Law enforcement should be as free as possible from the taint of political motivations. That's why Corbett should resign.

—The Philadelphia Inquirer

ADS ON ROAD SIGNS COULD DISTRACT DRIVERS:

It is a tough time at cash-strapped PennDOT.

In fact, Gov. Ed Rendell is expected to speak to the Senate Transportation Committee today and spell out what road projects in legislative districts won't get funded because of money issues.

He is rightfully pushing lawmakers to return to Harrisburg earlier than September to deal with a gaping hole in the transportation budget caused by the federal government turning down a plan to toll I-80.

In the meantime, the state transportation department is floating an idea to raise cash: selling ad space on road signs.

In the midstate, you already see billboards everywhere. Take a short drive around Harrisburg, and you'll spot advertising for everything from search engines and jewelry to iced coffee and hospital care. These flashy floodlit signs have become part of the landscape.

But now Pennsylvania is asking the federal government whether it can join the fray by selling advertising on state-owned road signs. The idea is making some drivers call on PennDOT to slam the brakes on the project.

These are the signs you see along the roads now. Some will get updated and others will be added.

On some signs, advertisements would alternate with travel warnings.

The dilemma here is clear: Is the pursuit of new revenue through the sale of advertising on state road signs worth what some see as a potential safety risk of adding confusion to state roadways?

Probably not.

Finding creative ways to raise cash and fill state coffers is an effort worth saluting, especially these days. But this advertising idea really runs counter to those measures that would make driving safer. Why put more distractions on the road at the same time people are being rightfully asked to give up texting and cell phones while driving?

The second issue here is credibility. In some cases, existing state road signs only display a message when a problem truly exists on the road ahead. To wit: If the sign is on, a driver knows there's trouble for certain.

Will it be possible to pay the same kind of attention to the road signs if they are flashing all the time and alternating between a traffic warning and a sale on ice cream?

Probably not.

And this doesn't even address the difficulty some drivers have in reading those digital and flashing traffic warnings as they appear now. (Some say they never have enough time to read the message before they've passed it in some locations.)

If officials agree with the plan, the Federal Highway Administration could waive its rules about putting advertisements on overhead and roadside changeable message signs in the state. While PennDOT would have the final say on the content, existing signs would be upgraded and a third party would maintain them under the proposal.

In any case, if this proposal moves forward, it would require limited and serious testing before going statewide. The factors regarding safe driving are lengthy: Is the location appropriate? Can the traffic warnings still be easily understood? Is the advertisement so distracting as to be a nuisance or dangerous?

Drivers already have too many temptations too close at hand. The government shouldn't be in the position of providing yet another one.

—The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News

'EXPUNGEMENT' DOESN'T CHANGE HISTORICAL FACTS:

A State College lawyer's attempt to trump the First Amendment ended in retreat last week. Attorney Joseph Amendola told two judges he concurred in their changes to "expungement" orders that had been drafted by Amendola's office on behalf of the lawyer's clients—and had attempted to order the Centre Daily Times to remove news stories about the arrests, convictions and sentences from the newspaper's print archives and on-line records.

One of the judges involved stated clearly that he signed the orders without reading them (a routine practice), and that he has no authority over the newspaper's records.

The whole flap points out the folly of "expungement" records in the first place: History is history. Stuff happened. Changing a record here or there doesn't change reality.

The lawyer wants to do just that, though, because he said one of his clients is still bothered, 20 years later, by references to her long-ago criminal offense.

We'll bet the victims are also bothered 20 years later.

What's next? Go to the public libraries and rip out copies of microfilm rolls? Visit historical societies and make them throw out copies of old newspapers? Invade private homes in search of scrapbook clippings?

As presently constituted, "expungement" for such offenses as drunk driving means that if a first-time offender completes certain programs, etc., the legal record will be expunged, i.e., sealed up or physically destroyed.

Persons with expunged records are then able to state truthfully on job applications that they do not have criminal records.

We didn't think that was a good idea back when people who were more concerned about criminals' "rights" than about justice or victims' rights first got such stuff enacted into law.

We still don't think that "expungement" is a good idea, precisely because it is based on a fiction. While legal records can be sealed or destroyed, people's memories aren't. And once published, material can't be un-published.

"But ... but ... that's terribly embarrassing. And I paid my dues, did the time. And I'm a nice person."

Deal with it. Life isn't fair. If it was fair, this country wouldn't be drowning in debt, and nobody would ever make mistakes.

Actions have consequences. "Expungement" is a feel-good fiction, in our view, but in anybody's view, it becomes ridiculous when lawyers attempt to rewrite history.

—(DuBois) Courier-Express