judgesonmerit.org

We’ve written before about name recognition being an important factor in predicting success in judicial elections.  And this story from the West Virginia campaign trail shows how true it is: “For the first time in history, a tomato-based condiment was the ticket to a seat on the state Supreme Court.”

The Charleston Daily Mail reports on the successful ad campaign run by Supreme Court candidate Menis Ketchum.  Playing on his unusual name, Ketchum ran two ads — one before the primary and one in advance of the general election– where a voter kept calling him “Ketchup.” Ketchum reports that his campaign’s polling reflected dramatic increases in name recognition due to the ads.

Name recognition is very important in these elections.  Indeed, Ketchum himself credits the ad as the most important factor in his election:

I worked hard, I worked continuously. . . . I never stopped. I met a lot of people. But I think the ketchup ad elected me.

What a way to choose judges.

Texas is looking at this year’s election results — where 22 of 26 Republican incumbent judges were voted off the bench — and remembering 1994, when all but one democratic incumbent judge were ousted.  The Houston Chronicle reports that while some folks are gearing up for the next round of elections, others are renewing their calls for changing how judges are selected.

Just listen to what current Texas Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson is saying:

This is a strange way to select those who guard our legal rights. . . . It is time to decide whether partisan election is the best means to ensure judicial competence.

Jefferson is joined by former Texas Chief Justice Tom Phillips who long has supported implementing a Merit Selection system for Texas.  According to Phillips, making elections nonpartisan will not solve the problems inherent in judicial electiosn, “including the involvement of special-interest groups, the need to raise money and curry votes, and the lack of voter knowledge of judicial candidates.”

We share the concerns of these Texas leaders and wish them luck.  We recognize that the problems inherent in partisan judicial elections are getting worse, not better, and we hope that Pennsylvania will have the opportunity to choose Merit Selection as a better way to select appellate judges.

Our campaign for Merit Selection has been grounded on the premise that it’s time to let the people of Pennsylvania decide whether or not to change how we select appellate court judges.  Our efforts are geared toward getting this question on the ballot for Pennsylvania voters. We’re not afraid to let the people weigh in on this question.  That’s why we’re so frustrated when defenders of judicial elections refuse to let the people have a chance to vote on whether or not the system is working.

Now, we’re not only frustrated, we must confess some envy.  As we’ve reported here and here, four counties in three states chose Merit Selection over judicial elections on Tuesday.  In three of these elections, voters chose to switch from elections to Merit Selection.  In the fourth, votes rejected the offer to switch from Merit Selection to judicial elections.  Detailed assessment of these campaigns can be found on Gavel Grab, but we believe the critical point is that in each of these jurisdictions, voters were given the opportunity to make a choice about how they wanted to select their judges.  As Gavel Grab noted:

The voters spoke loudly Tuesday, and they spoke their own minds. The critics of merit selection who say they have the angels of democracy on their side-who take it as an article of faith that voters prefer competitive elections for judges-need to reexamine their assumptions.

We agree.  But they need to do more than reexamine their assumptions.  They need to realize that it’s time to let the people decide how we should be choosing judges in Pennsylvania.  If they believe elections are the answer, isn’t it time to let the people vote about this?

During the past few months, we’ve been following stories from the campaign trails in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia and other states electing judges.  Our focus has been on campaign spending — where the money comes from and where it goes, what the candidates are saying, and the public reaction to the campaigns.  If you’re looking for  information about who won each election, visit Gavel Grab for a good collection of articles about all the races as well as Justice At Stake’s  press release on the elections.

In addition, the American Judicature Society has issued a press release about how voters in four counties — two in Alabama, one each in Kansas and Missouri, have voted in favor of Merit Selection.  These voters were given the chance to decide whether or not to change the way they selected their judges.  In three cases, they changed from elections to Merit Selection; in the fourth, they rejected a proposal to replace a  Merit Selection system with judicial elections.

We hope Pennsylvanians will soon get the same opportunity to decide whether or not to change how we select appellate court judges.

Congratulations to Greene County, MO which yesterday voted to adopt a Merit Selection plan for local judges. KY3 News reports that Greene County is the fourth Missouri county to adopt the plan for its local judges.

And congratulations to Johnson County, KS where voters defeated an effort to change from a Merit Selection system to an electoral system.  The Kansas City Star reports that unofficial results demonstrate that voters “overwhelmingly” voted against the measure to change the way judges are selected. Greg Musil, working with Johnson Countians for Justice, to defeat the ballot measure had this reaction:

Our message from the start was the system is not broken and the change to a political system bring so many risks into our efforts to dispense justice that voters ought to reject it. . . . Sixty percent of the voters figured that out and said we’re not going to turn our judges into political animals.

The critical element of these stories is that voter in Johnson County and Greene County were given the opportunity to make the decision about judicial selection.  That’s what we’ve been asking for in Pennsylvania — that Pennsylvania voters be given the chance to weigh in on whether to change the way we pick our appellate court judges.  We hope they will get that chance.

Louisiana is electing a new Supreme Court justice today, and both candidates for the seat as well as outside observers are unhappy about the tone of the election. WWLTV reports: ” A political race between Jimmy Kuhn and Greg Guidry has turned nasty, but this is a race for the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in theory, a race that’s supposed to be above this.”

Each candidate has complaints about tactics used to support his opponent, but they do agree that the current situation threatens to damage the court itself:

And what started out as a race for Louisiana’s highest judicial office looks like standard Louisiana politics.

Kuhn said he found the nasty tone of the race “extremely” disappointing. Guidry agreed, “I’m surprised and disappointed.”

The Louisiana Organization for Judicial Excellence is calling for change, urging a new way to select judges. Chip Wagar explained:

I think the whole process is degrading to the judges that are involved. . . . What we would like to see is merit selection of judges, where we don’t have to go through this whole process.

This makes sense to us.

A reader’s letter to the Clarion-Ledger decries the state of judicial elections in Mississippi and argues that it’s time for a change.  The reader notes that the elections have become more partisan, more expensive and have attracted more special interest participation in recent years:

Why are political parties, vested interest groups, and lobbyists interested in our state judgeships. Is our justice system now for sale to the highest bidder?

This is a question that many people are asking in states that elect judges.  And polls demonstrate a widely-shared concern that campaign contributions affect judicial decision-making.

The letter closes with a challenge that voters in all judicial election states should consider:

If you or I should ever have a case before our Supreme Court, I would pray that the judges’ decisions would be based in law and not partisan politics.

It is time to appoint judges!