judgesonmerit.org

On May 6, PMC, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Harrisburg Area Community College co-sponsored a debate among the four candidates running for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  Capitol Wire has a feature article covering the debate.  The program is being aired on PCN.  The next showing is Sunday May 10 at 3:00pm.  Check PCN’s website for more information and additional scheduling information.

One highlight was the discussion focused on campaign contributions.  PMC Associate Director Shira Goodman asked the candidates to identify the major contributors to their campaigns and state whether they would recuse — step aside — from cases involving those contributors as attorneys, law firms, or parties.

The candidates agreed that raising money is the necessary evil that goes along with electing judges.  Democrat Jack Panella told voters that despite what some may say, judicial candidates — and therefore judges — know who their contributors are because they sign financial disclosure forms.  However, he and the other candidates all stated that because the next round of required reporting is just coming to an end, they could not identify their donors.

Republican Joan Orie Melvin suggested that the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could set strict guidelines on recusal to guide judges, along the lines of what the United States Supreme Court might do in Caperton v. Massey .  Republican Cheryl Allen noted that in a past election, she had one major donor whose participation in a case would result in her recusal.  And Republican Paul Panepinto stated that he would recuse in any case involving a campaign contributor.

Throughout the night, the candidates discussed the need for judges not only to be fair and impartial, but for the public to have the perception that they are fair and impartial. But they also agreed that the role of campaign money can be a problem with regard to perception. Why not, then, get judges out of the fundraising business altogether? We think it’s time to find a better way to select appellate court judges.

To help voters prepare for the upcoming judicial primary elections on May 19, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, and the Harrisburg Area Community College are proud to co-sponsor a forum for the candidates running for the Pennsylvanian Supreme Court.

The three candidates running in the Republican primary — Cheryl Allen, Joan Orie Melvin and Paul Panepinto — and Democrat Jack Panella will attend the forum which will be held Wednesday May 6 at 6:30 pm at the Harrisburg Area Community College campus in Harrisburg, 1 HACC Drive,  Wildwood Conference Center.   For directions, visit  http://www.hacc.edu/wildwood/upload/wwccdirections2008.pdf.
Due to live television coverage on PCN, the program will begin promptly at 6:30, so audience members should arrive no later than 6:10 pm. We expect an informative dialogue with the candidates and our panelists, and anticipate time for audience questions as well.

For more information contact PMC at (215) 569-1150; the League of Women Voters at (717) 234-1576, or HAAC .  To learn more about the upcoming judicial elections, visit PMC’s Current Election page.

It’s not often that candidates running for judge criticize the electoral system and urge judicial selection reform — even if they think change is needed, judicial candidates usually don’t choose to bash the system they’re working within.  But a lawyer running for the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas has decided to speak his mind.

The Times Leader reports that Mike Blazick urged judicial selection reform during his talk with the editorial board:

The current system rewards candidates who have the best fundraising skills, political connections and/or personal wealth,” Blazick said. “Fundraising skills, personal wealth and political connections have no relevance to whether a person can be a good judge.”

Blazick also stated that his campaign is not accepting contributions from attorneys:

“We must remove the taint of the transfer of money from attorneys to the judiciary if we truly want to restore the public’s confidence in our system,” Blazick said. “Attorney contributions create an inherent conflict of interest that is damaging to the integrity of our courts.”

Campaign contributions –from attorneys and from individuals and organizations that frequently litigate in the state courts — do create a perception among the public that “justice is for sale.”  Getting judges out of the fundraising business is a major advantage of Merit Selection over elections.

We agree with Blazick that change is needed and are happy to see a judicial candidate publicly acknowledge that the current system doesn’t make a lot of sense.  We suspect that other candidates privately share his views.  We hope they will also speak out and urge the public and the legislature to consider much needed judicial selection reform.

We reported earlier that the Philadelphia Democratic party wanted unified support for its judicial slate this time around.  We also reported that certain ward leaders were not certain they would be able to agree.  Now, the Legal Intelligencer reports on its blog that leaders of the City’s Eighth Ward have agreed to support the party’s endorsed candidates who also received recommended ratings from the Philadelphia Bar Association. Ward co-chairman Gregory Harvey explained the ward’s decision:

[Democratic Party leader Bob] Brady appears willing to tolerate the decision of a ward, which finds the bar association’s recommendations important, to only back the members of the DCC slate who are “recommended,” Harvey said. But ward committee officials did not want to endorse candidates without the City Committee’s backing, since Brady has pushed for a unified citywide ticket without other names. . .

Once again, this situation raises the question of what the electoral system is designed to do.  Unlike Merit Selection, which is designed to get the most qualified, fair and impartial judges on the bench, judicial elections place other considerations first, and qualified candidates reach the bench despite the system, not because of it.  This does not make sense to us.