judgesonmerit.org

In a letter to the Columbus Dispatch, an Ohio lawyer describes his disillusionment with the current system of electing judges and his belief in the need for serious reform:

[T]he election of judges does not serve our state, citizenry or the judicial process. I have no concern as to the political affiliation of judges if they apply the law as it is codified or legislated. As a practicing lawyer, I want a judge who is not only fair and impartial, but who is more intelligent than I am, who is more tempered than I am and who will work as hard as I do.

The writer emphasizes the need for qualified, experienced, indepedent jurists and explains why elections are not the best way to find them.  He praises Merit Selection as the answer: “A bipartisan merit-selection process is the only answer to address the critical need for judicial competency.”

A column in last weekend’s Wisconsin State Journal praises Merit Selection as the best way to select judges:

Most of Wisconsin doesn’t want a liberal or conservative court. We want a court filled with justices who have the most experience, the strongest reputations for fairness, and records of rarely being overturned.

That’s what merit selection would best provide.

The column argues that Merit Selection is the system best designed to guarantee that qualified candidates reach the bench, minimize the role of partisan politics and ensure the independence of the judiciary.  It also explains why judicial elections, as influenced as they are by campaign contributions, third party financing and partisan politics do not really serve the best interests of the public: “It’s the current system of electing justices that gives control to the rich and powerful against the little guy.”

We agree that Merit Selection is the best way to select appellate court judges. We hope the people of Pennsylvania will get a chance to decide whether they agree.

The Allentown Morning Call reports that in the midst of this year’s judicial elections, Merit Selection is on the legislative agenda.  State Senator Jane Earll (R, Erie) and State Representative Josh Shapiro (D, Montgomery), sponsors of last year’s Merit Selection legislation, confirmed that Merit Selection legislation will be introduced into the legislature this session.

The push for reform targets inherent problems in the judicial election process:

[R]eformers say that forcing judicial candidates to behave like politicians fosters the impression that campaign donors might get a fairer shake in the courtroom.

That’s because that clutch of potential donors that [candidates] touted to Democrats [at last week's endorsement meeting] are fellow attorneys and potential litigants who may one day have business before them.

PMC’s Shira Goodman explained why reform is needed:  “[The electoral] process does not do anything to raise the public’s trust [in the judicial system].”

The Birmingham News reports that the 2008 Alabama Supreme Court race was the most expensive high court election last year.  The two candidates and third party groups spent a combined total of $5.3 million:

Total candidate spending was nearly $4.3 million – $2.5 million by [Deborah Bell] Paseur and $1.8 million by [Greg] Shaw, according to state campaign disclosures, including final accountings filed this week. Third-party groups spent at least $1 million more.

During the 2007 Pennsylvania elections, four candidates running for two spots on the Supreme Court raised a total of $7,846,478.  This does not include third party spending.  And, an out of state group active in Alabama this year, the Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom, spent more than one million dollars on ads supporting one candidate.

What does all this mean for Pennsylvania in 2009?  We are electing one Supreme Court justice and five more judges for the intermediate appellate courts.  Will we be setting yet new records in the fundraising and spending games? Time will tell, and we’ll keep you posted.

In an op-ed in the Patriot-News, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) argues that a series of cases involving illegal and/or unethical conduct by Pennsylvania judges has further diminished public confidence in the courts.  Even though these cases involve individual judges who made bad choices and exercised poor judgment, they damage the judiciary as a whole:

Public confidence in the courts has been undermined. Not that the level of public confidence was that high to begin with. Research reveals that nearly 90 percent of Pennsylvanians believe campaign contributions affect judicial decisions. Look at that closely — nine out of 10 Pennsylvanians think that judges do not separate what happened during their political campaigns from how they rule in the courtroom. Combined with a general mistrust of public officials, particularly in light of the 2005 pay raise, this adds up to a disturbingly low level of public confidence in judges and, by extension, the justice system as a whole.

PMC proposes three steps to restore public confidence in the courts and the judiciary.  First, the judicial discipline system must remain strong and independent.  Second, PMC calls for court leaders and bar leaders to make a strong statement condemning illegal and unethical conduct by judges.  The third recommendation is for Pennsylvania to adopt a Merit Selection system for choosing judges:

We already know that many Pennsylvanians are concerned about the pernicious effect of money in judicial campaigns. We must get money out of the system of selecting judges and focus on qualifications, experience and the highest ethical standards.

Pennsylvania has to deal with a serious problem.  The actions of a few have harmed the entire court system.  For the court system to be effective, the public must be confident that justice will be dispensed honestly, fairly and impartially:

Judges serve the public. The public’s confidence in the judicial system is fragile but necessary in a democracy. The Legislature and the Supreme Court must act now to restore public confidence. And we all must be vigilant in ensuring that our public servants are serving the public.