Vitali and Trombetta Participate in Democratic Primary Forum at Haverford

On May 19, incumbent Greg Vitali will face off against challenger Judy Trombetta in the Democratic primary for the 166^th district of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, which includes Haverford College. On April 20, Haverford College Democrats hosted a candidate forum in Stokes Auditorium attended by Vitali and Trombetta. The event, attended by roughly eighty students, staff, and community members, allowed each candidate to field questions from the audience and make the case for their election in a discussion moderated by Professor, and chair of Political Science, Zachary Oberfield.

Haverford College Democrats Co-Presidents, Aaron Nyhan ’28 and Griffith Pugh ’28, opened the event by affirming the importance of local politics, especially in today’s tense political climate. They repeatedly emphasized the benefits of thoughtful dialogue, and asked all present to engage in good-faith conversation, adding that their goal was to have all attendees “leave tonight more informed than when we arrived.”

With that, they introduced the candidates, beginning with incumbent Greg Vitali. Both candidates focused on their experience. Vitali explained that he received a bachelor’s degree in economics from Villanova before earning a law degree from Villanova’s law school, and practiced law in Havertown for nearly a decade before being elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1993, a position he has held since. Challenger Judy Trombetta highlighted her more than fifteen years working in government and nonprofit positions, culminating with her role as commissioner of Haverford Township’s 4^th Ward in 2022 before later becoming vice president and then president of the board of commissioners.

After the candidates introduced themselves, Professor Oberfield briefly thanked Haverford College Democrats for hosting the panel and acknowledged that this election is occurring during a time of great political polarization before asking the candidates to deliver their opening statements. Trombetta framed the forum as a conversation between friends and colleagues, highlighting the good relationship she has had with Vitali for over a decade, but that the discussion was “not about the Greg and Judy show.” She said she intended to focus on what she hopes to accomplish in the future. Vitali focused on his history of advocating for environmental causes, claiming that “climate change is the issue of our time.” He also advertised himself as someone willing to challenge those in power, and asserted that his policy of not taking money from special interest groups made him “not beholden to them.”

Professor Oberfield began the discussion by asking the candidates to show their qualifications through examples in their careers. Trombetta answered by describing her passage of ordinances “reducing the need and demand of single-use plastic” and expressed her desire to restore faith in local government; Vitali admitted that advocating for climate policy in a fossil fuel state is difficult, and victories are sometimes “just the bad bill you stop,” adding that he wants to be held accountable for the quality of his work. Oberfield asked how they would be responsible to the community they represented, with Trombetta answering that the current office is inaccessible and touted her experience providing a platform for communication as town commissioner, proposing an increase of town halls like this one. Vitali countered Trombetta’s assertion, explaining that he always knocks on constituents’ doors to hear their thoughts and that he has cultivated a reputation of approachability and accessibility through his efforts to reach them.

Shifting the discussion to bipartisanship and political polarization, Oberfield then asked them to provide an example of a time they worked with someone who held opposing political views to their own. Vitali answered that he makes it a point to work Republican bills into his agenda, and that he does not focus on the environment along party lines; Trombetta pointed to a history of legislative achievements despite a democratic minority, including an anti-human trafficking bill. Oberfield followed up by asking if they diverged from party platforms in worldview or policy. Vitali’s brief response of “not really” elicited laughter from the audience. Trombetta answered that she emphasizes diversity in policy positions within the party, specifically mentioning that “I don’t believe in the concept of defunding the police,” which she called “a loaded term” and complimented local police, receiving applause from the audience.

Oberfield moved to questions more directly relating to policy, asking the candidates how they planned to approach issues of housing and affordability. Trombetta responded that she would “encourage smart, responsible development” and incentivize mixed-income housing, focusing on communities working together to promote affordable housing and advocating for state funding. Vitali admitted that this issue is not his focus, and that he generally votes with other democrats on this issue. When asked about public transportation, both described themselves as staunch supporters of fully funded SEPTA. Vitali blamed Republicans for holding up its funding and reiterated support for Democrats’ efforts to fund it, and Trombetta explained her personal connections to SEPTA and promised to advocate for public transportation. In his final question, Oberfield asked how the candidates would expand access to reproductive healthcare. Trombetta explained that as a woman, this issue is very important to her, and stated she would work to protect women’s access to it. Vitali pointed to the endorsement he received from Planned Parenthood and his voting record on reproductive rights as evidence of his history of supporting reproductive rights, and promised to continue his support in the future.

The candidates then began answering questions from the audience. The first came from a 43-year resident of the area who asked what the candidates would have done to prevent the “fiasco” of the Crozer-Keystone hospitals, which were the largest health system in Delaware County before their recent closure. Neither candidate had a definitive answer, but Trombetta added that she would want to ensure the firms operating the hospitals cannot shut down the entire system. Next, a student asked the candidates individual questions. They asked Trombetta what separates her from Vitali and asked Vitali what he would say to people who want a younger democratic establishment. Trombetta responded that “now is not the time for a single-issue candidate” like Vitali, clarifying that while she appreciates his environmental activism, today’s challenges facing matters like food security and reproductive rights require someone with a broader focus. Vitali countered that “even though I have chosen to be a specialist, I am solid in a wide variety of issues” relevant to young people, mentioning the endorsements he received from Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, Humane Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania State Education Association as proof, claiming that this goodwill was built up across thirty years of work and cannot be replicated by a brand-new representative. Trombetta claimed that endorsements like that are why it is “super hard” to run against a well-established incumbent like Vitali. She praised his voting record, but attributed his list of endorsements to his status as the incumbent candidate. Vitali rejected this characterization, claiming that endorsements must be earned by working with and listening to constituents and organizations.

The next question came from a Marple resident who said they feel left out since the last redistricting split their town, asking how the candidates would reach out to people like them. Vitali responded that he would continue to visit every home in the area he represents and emphasized the importance of reaching out to constituents. Trombetta agreed, highlighting her background in social work and community organizing. Another question asked what they would do to promote affordable housing; Trombetta said she had no strong answer other than that she supported it, and Vitali mentioned previous support of tax rebate programs that expanded benefits. Another attendee asked about the candidates’ stances on the legalization of recreational marijuana, with both answering that they—along with the majority of their constituents—support it, with Vitali adding that despite his personal distaste for its use, “it’s not all about me” and he has previously voted to legalize it.

A sophomore Political Science major explained that in March, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that requiring mandatory life sentences without parole for felony murder convicts is unconstitutional and gave the state legislature a deadline of July 24 to alter the laws accordingly. They asked Vitali why he has not co-sponsored HB 443, which implements the changes required by the ruling, and asked Trombetta what she would do about this bill if she were in the legislature. Vitali responded that constituents place too much value on co-sponsorship and told the student not to interpret it as a sign that he does not support it, and pointed to his work as a criminal defense attorney to present himself as a strong advocate for the rights of the accused. Trombetta answered that she would co-sponsor the bill, and countered Vitali’s assertions about co-sponsorship, asserting that it is more important than he claimed.

Concluding the event, each candidate gave a closing statement. Vitali began by thanking the audience and Haverford for the forum, and told them that in his career he has worked hard, attacked climate change, gone to bat for the community, and reached out to constituents. In short, he said, “I’ve tried to be a good legislator.” Trombetta also thanked all in attendance, and told them, “I am somebody you can expect will come show up every day” and be active and engaged. She acknowledged that they would be losing a 34-year incumbent who has done a lot for the community, but claimed that the time had come to pass the baton to a new generation of democratic politics. With that, the event ended, and attendees were free to mingle with the candidates and one another.

The democratic primary election for Pennsylvania’s 166^th district takes place on May 19. Haverford students may access information regarding the voting process here. The general election is on November 3.