judgesonmerit.org

In its editorial announcing endorsements for the local courts in Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that this year’s elections once again make the case for changing to Merit Selection:

When voters size up the 33 candidates seeking nomination for 11 Philadelphia judgeships in the May 19 primary, they may well apply the usual uninformed criteria that often decide these races: candidates’ names, gender, ethnicity, party backing, ballot position, slogan, or advertisements.

Trouble is, those factors have little to do with candidates’ qualifications to sit in judgment on either Common Pleas Court or Municipal Court. Add the fact that these candidates have to fund-raise among lawyers who appear before them in court, and the system’s flaws are obvious.

The flawed election process strengthens the case for switching to merit-based judicial appointments, with voters’ getting a say through retention elections.

This reasoning applies even more strongly to the appellate courts, where even more money is required to run a statewide campaign and voters rely heavily on name recognition, geography (where a candidate lives) and party endorsements to make decisions in the voting booth.  As the editorial points out, these factors have virtually nothing to do with whether one is qualified to sit on the bench.

It’s time to find a better way to select judges — one that focuses on qualificiations, so we can get the most skilled, experienced, fair and impartial judges on the bench.  And the system must also get judges out of the fundraising business. Merit Selection is the answer.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS