judgesonmerit.org

In an editorial about the upcoming judicial elections in Pennsylvania, the Times-Tribune in Scranton points to the role of money in judicial campaigns as a major reason to change the way we select appellate judges:

In order for courts to be effective, citizens must believe that judges truly are independent. Funding appellate campaigns through private contributions, from parties with inherent interests in litigation, works against establishing and sustaining confidence. That is one of the reasons that Pennsylvania should switch to a system of merit selection appointments for appellate judges.

The editorial identifies Caperton v. Massey — the West Virginia case involving campaign contributions and the issue of when judges should recuse — as a “cautionary tale.”  “The West Virginia case could well be extreme. But it illustrates the danger in allowing litigants to fund judicial campaigns. The best way to avoid it is to switch to appointments.”

We agree that change is needed.  We hope the people of Pennsylvania will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to change the way we select appellate judges.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS