judgesonmerit.org

Merit Selection supporters gathered in Harrisburg yesterday for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Lynn Marks and Shira Goodman of PMC and PMCAction were joined by former Superior Court Judge Phyllis W. Beck and representatives of civic groups, business organizations, and lawyers and bar associations in advocating for adoption of Merit Selection for the Pennsylvania appellate courts. A full list of those who presented testimony and copies of written submissions are available on our Report on the Senate Hearing page.

At the beginning of the hearing, Senator Jane Earll, prime sponsor of the Merit Selection legislation, expressed her reasons for supporting judicial selection reform:”I believe a better court, a more diverse court will result in a system that isn’t dependent on money and ballot positions.”

Coalition members testified about the problems inherent in electing judges, particularly the increasing expenses associated with judicial campaigns and the negative perceptions caused by fundraising by judicial candidates.  Marks, executive director of PMC and PMCAction explained, “The current electoral system — with its emphasis on fundraising and campaign prowess — is broken and is undermining public confidence in the judiciary and our courts.  The solution that is best designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the appellate bench and to get those juges out of the fundraising business is Merit Selection.”

In addition, coalition partners explained that Merit Selection offers greater opportunities for qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds to reach the appellate bench.  Edward Lanza, board member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Central Pennsylvania told the Committee: “We’re persuaded the Merit Selection process would be more likely to elevate qualified minority candidates to the appellate bench.”

Senator Earll and Senator Mary Jo White actively questioned those presenting testimony.  In response to comments that Merit Selection supporters aim to disenfranchise voters, Senator White explained:

I object to that statement about the franchise. I believe in the franchise and so does Sandra Day O’Connor [who is a supporter of Merit Selection]. . . . In my experience, the current system discriminates against people who can’t raise large amounts of money to run campaigns — women, those from small counties and minorities.  This tries to level the playing field.

Gene Barr, Vice President for Government Relations of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry agreed, explaining the Merit Selection legislation “is giving Pennsylvanians the opportunity to decide if they want to change the process” of how they select appellate judges.  On this very issue Senator White noted:

1969 [when last a referendum was held on this issue] was forty years ago.  A lot has changed in that time, the money, television ads, out of state money. . . Let’s ask the people again.  It shows a lot of confidence in the voters to ask “are you confident in voting for appellate court judges?”

We thank Senator Greenleaf and the Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing.  We hope it will be the first step in an ongoing dialogue about how we select appellate court judges — a dialogue that will culiminate with giving the people of Pennsylvania the opportunity to decide for themselves.

PMC and PMCAction are pleased to announce that the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a public hearing on Merit Selection tomorrow, Tuesday September 16 at 9:30 am.  The hearing will be held in Hearing Room #1 of the North Office Building, at the corner of North Street and Commonwealth Ave., in Harrisburg. For more information, click here.

We are pleased to join with many of our coalition partners in a discussion about the problems inherent in electing judges, the need for reform and the benefits of implementing a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts.  This hearing is the first step in the process of letting the people of Pennsylvania decide whether to change the way we select our appellate judges.

Check back tomorrow and Wednesday for reports about the hearing and links to testimony submitted by coalition partners.

Senator Stewart Greenleaf, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has scheduled a public hearing on Merit Selection for Tuesday September 16 at 9:30 am in Hearing Room #1 of the North Office Building, at the corner of North Street and Commonwealth Ave., in Harrisburg. For more information, click here.

Representatives of PMC and PMCAction and members of civic groups, business organizations, and bar associations as well as former Pennsylvania appellate court judges will be offering testimony about why they support Merit Selection for the appellate courts.  Opponents of changing the way we select appellate court judges also will have the opportunity to address the Committee.

We are grateful for this opportunity to continue the public dialogue about the problems inherent in the judicial elections, the need for reform and the benefits of Merit Selection.  We thank Senator Greenleaf and the Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing.  We hope Pennsylvanians will attend, follow media accounts of the hearing and visit our Senate Hearing Information page for more detailed information and access to some of the testimony presented.

We frequently acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about the best way to select appellate court judges.  We believe it’s time to have a full, open dialogue in Pennsylvania about whether we should change how we pick our appellate judges.  We want that to include a public referendum on the question.  And that’s why we’re working within the constitutional amendment process to pursue the reform we believe is needed.

We understand that people have strong opinions about these issues.  And we welcome impassioned debate.  But we’re tired of opponents of Merit Selection attacking us and the Merit Selection process on false premises.  It happened again yesterday.  American Courthouse accused us of wanting to change to Merit Selection so we can get a certain kind of judge on the bench.  That’s simply not true.

We have never criticized or praised any judge for his or her judicial philosophy or decisions.  We have never advocated the election or defeat of any judicial candidate.  We have always focused on the problems with the electoral system — the skyrocketing campaign contributions from lawyers, law firms and organizations that litigate in the state courts, the lack of required qualifications to serve on the appellate courts, the lack of diversity on our appellate courts, the influence of random factors like ballot position affecting election outcomes, and voters’ inability to access relevant information about the candidates.  These are the reasons we want to change the way we pick our appellate court judges.

So, disagree with us if you must, but get our position right when you do.

“Vote Yes for Question 1,” a coalition of reform-minded Missourians who want to improve how Greene County selects its judges, has gathered far more than the 12,000 signatures required to put their initiative on the ballot. If voters vote yes for Question 1 this November, Greene County will adopt the Merit Selection system known as the Missouri Plan. Judge John Holstein, former chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, endorses the Missouri Plan and explains why it is important to avoid conflicts of interest in the courtroom:

“[D]o you know how much money your opposing counsel or the opposing party donated to that judge in the last election?” he asked. “In the partisan system, that’s all permissible and I tell you it’s a gnawing feeling in the gut of both the judge and the attorneys.”

By eliminating expensive election campaigns, the Missouri Plan makes sure that the court is accessible to potential judges who are qualified to serve, but may not have the deep pockets to support such a campaign.

Also eliminated by the Missouri Plan is the possibility that candidates will be able to buy their way to the bench by launching flashy and expensive election campaigns, supporters say.  “If we don’t want a system where the wealthy, or those who have access to the wealthy, are able to become judges, I think the preferable system is the nonpartisan selection system,” Holstein said.

We’re glad folks in Greene County get to decide how they want to select their judges, and we hope Pennsylvanians will soon get a chance to decide whether to implement a Merit Selection system for the appellate courts.

In an interview with Pittsburgh television station WTAE, Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille decries the money involved in electing judges and calls for a Merit Selection system. Long a supporter of Merit Selection, Chief Justice Castille notes that recent elections are further eroding public confidence in the courts:

“The feeling is out there because of the money that goes around in an elective position like mine that somebody is not gonna get a fair shake. That’s not the way it should be…Those things do erode citizens’ confidence in justice,” said Castille. . . . “The reality of a threat to impartiality I think is there,” said Castille.

Chief Justice Castille agreed with University of Pittsburgh law professor Tom Ross that the way to solve this problem is to stop electing appellate judges:

“Yeah, I would do that just to get the corrosive effect of money out of the election process… The citizens ought to believe they’re going to get justice no matter who is on the other side, or no mater [sic] who in our particular election process, no matter who supported what justice,” said Castille.

Thanks to the Chief Justice for speaking out about the problems inherent in electing judges and supporting a change to Merit Selection for the appellate courts.

Sworn in this past Tuesday, Tennessee’s new – and first woman – chief justice, Janice M. Holder vocalized her support of the Merit Selection system known as the “Tennessee Plan.” In fact, the entire Supreme Court wants to keep Tennessee’s current system. As Holder explains:

This court is not in favor of partisan election in which judges are obligated to raise millions of dollars for campaigns. This court is in favor of the current principles that comprise the Tennessee Plan.

Tennessee’s Supreme Court judges know that Merit Selection works in their state and how vital it is to keep the current system. That system, as we’ve written, is scheduled to sunset next year — on July 1, 2009 — if it isn’t renewed or modified. We hope that Tennessee maintains its Merit Selection system, and believe that Merit Selection will provide the best way for Pennsylvania to select its appellate judges, too.

An editorial in the South Bend Tribune decries the huge amounts of money being spent in neighboring Michigan for a single seat on the Supreme Court. It is anticipated that nearly twenty million dollars will be spent on this campaign, and at this point, the Democrats haven’t even named a candidate to challenge sitting Chief Justice Clifford Taylor. The editorial notes, “It’s lucky that justice is blind to this mess.”

Observing that the campaign is the focus of a battle over tort reform efforts, the South Bend Tribune boasts “Indiana, of course, sidesteps this particular problem by appointing its Supreme Court justices.” In fact, Indiana’s appellate courts are selected through a Merit Selection process, with a nominating commission, appointment by the governor and retention elections.

The editorial concludes by recognizing that Indiana’s system might not work for every state, but recommending that Michigan “take a look at revising the selection process for its high court so that the best candidate is determined by his or her qualifications and the input of citizens — not by special interests seeking an advocate.” This is good advice for Michigan, and for Pennsylvania, where we elect all our appellate judges in partisan elections.

Editorials in the Montgomery Advertiser and the Tuscaloosa News, echoing the call of a current Supreme Court candidate, urge the state to reject judicial elections in favor of Merit Selection.

The Montgomery Advertiser points out the escalating costs of judicial elections and the problems inherent in requiring future judges to raise campaign funds from lawyers and organizations likely to appear before them in the future:

Over the years, the Montgomery Advertiser’s editorial board has asked dozens of judicial candidates if they are affected by these large campaign donations. Almost invariably, each candidate says that he or she can set aside those donations in his or her mind and rule fairly on issues involving the donors.

But asked another way, not about each of them specifically but about judges in general, and many of them admit that it is a problem for some judges.

The Tuscaloosa News asserts: “the perception is that justice is for sale in Alabama. The unconscionable spending distorts the election process at the same time that it erodes the faith of state residents in an independent judiciary.”

Alabama is on the short list of states, like Pennsylvania, that elect all judges in partisan elections. The Montgomery Advertiser thinks its time for a change:

There are several variations on the merit selection theme being used by other states, but virtually any of them would be a major improvement on the nasty, costly and demeaning way Alabama now chooses its judiciary.

The Tuscaloosa News agrees “at least for the state’s highest — and most expensive — appellate offices.”

We hope the people of Alabama will heed the call for reform, and we hope the people of Pennsylvania will also realize that Merit Selection is a better way to select appellate judges.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that the longest serving judge in Shawnee County, KS is a fan of Merit Selection, despite the fact that he was elected to the bench. In fact, at the time of his retirement last week, Judge Matthew Dowd was one of only 2 judges in the County who had been elected before the County implemented a Merit Selection system. Dowd explained that despite his own success in the electoral process:

‘[M]y judgment is the merit selection retention system is the best way. With today’s high-dollar campaigns and TV and media pressure, there is more likelihood of getting a ringer, who is articulate and has a lot of funds but is not really the type of person who should be a judge.’

Judge Dowd also reflected on a major problem inherent in electing judges — it requires them to be in the fundraising business:

Most campaigns for judges are funded by lawyers, making it suspect because a lawyer either has or hasn’t donated to the campaign, giving the appearance of impairing the judge’s independence. . .

Thanks, Judge Dowd, for letting us know what a judge thinks about how we should be selecting judges.